The segment of your article didn't analyze religion itself though. It only indicated the presence of religious conflict. I didn't say that it was wrong either. I said that it was incomplete.
Likewise, I didn't take an affirmative defense there. I was just describing the regularity of due process in going above and beyond to explain why people aren't presumed to be guilty by default.
Provide more information then
Why?
Burden of proof is on the affirmative. If you believe the article completely analyzes the situation at hand, prove it. It's not anyone else's duty to fill in missing pieces or else assume the risk of plausible deniability.