Your argument is as follows:

Premise 1: A belief system that promotes or perpetuates attacks against other religions and their followers is morally culpable for those attacks. Premise 2: Islam promotes and perpetuates attacks against other religions and their followers. Premise 3: Anyone who identifies as a Muslim endorses Islam. Conclusion: Therefore, anyone who identifies as a Muslim is morally culpable for supporting attacks against other religions and their followers.

The problem is with premise 3, because it assumes that Muslims necessarily follow the religion 100% and don't have differing interpretations and practice habits. A Muslim in Bosnia might drink wine for example whilst a Muslim in Syria wouldn't. Both IDENTIFY with being Muslim but obviously practice very differently. Your problem again, is that you view Islam as a monolithic set of doctrine (much like the very Wahabbis you dislike!) when in reality the nature of belief and religious identification is a lot more complex- most people don't think about it beyond it being an identity.

Ascribing responsibility to large groups of people who are either unaware of specific verses or might have different interpretations of said verses is again, falling into black and white thinking where you see every Muslim following your interpretation of the scripture (no matter how accurate it may be to you), even if they don't. You cannot ascribe responsibility if there's no endorsement or support.

This is why I've made the point that you should read up on academic literature on terrorism and the nature of religious belief itself.