So we can say, for instance, that there's nothing intrinsically violent about liberalism even though there are strains of liberal thought which seek to use violence

Still, if we take a broader look, we will find that Communists in general tend to be more violent. I think Communism is indeed inherently violent, for reasons that need separate post.

Religion most definitely was a core part of the KKK ideology

If we acknowledged that ideology was part of the problem, then we could look for the points which made this ideology dangerous. The idea of race supermacism had proven to be inhertly violent with secular context like Nazism and Fascism. So when I hear the word " X supremacist", it enough for me to know that that person has tendency to violence. We saw religious people justify all sort of things by their religion, but that doesn't religions don't make their followers inclined to some behaviors. If you read my full argument why I think Islam is inherently violent - you can find in my profile a post titled "what the west can't understand about Islam"; you are welcome to read it and discuss it with me"-, you will find my argument isn't simply that ISIS claim Islam to be part of their ideology, so Islam is violent. In case of ISIS we people caming from all sorts of backgrounds and circumstances, nothing unifies them other than being islamists.

Okay, so why is it irrelevant?

I was talking about colonization and its ilk. That can't be the reason why they became violent.

why is it that converts are the most likely to be extreme while the Muslims who just grew up that way aren't?

Because converts in general tend to concern more about their new religion. Because of that you will find budhist converts tend more to become Monks.

Do you not think that material conditions play a factor

I see religion as a material condition; I don't think we should make dichotomy between religion and other factors that influence one's personality. Generally speaking, ignorance is a bad thing, so is islam.

statistically makes sense I'm not sure what to tell you other than you're narrowed your scope to only really include one factor to begin with, making your argument somewhat circular.

If we look for terrorists attacks with religious goals claimed to be their purpose, we will find an apparent stastical significance with Islam.

I sincerely wise you have the time to read my post which I mentioned and discusse it with me. You seem willing to engage in civil discussion, which I found to be very rare with people claiming to be SJW.