There is a recurring narrative in the Muslim majority countries which essentially says this:
When some non-Muslims are actors of a terror attack, the attacker(s) is mostly not called a terrorist among media/mass-people/government/and so on, and instead given various titles like "lone wolf", "psychologically disturbed", "emotionally disturbed", "relationship issues", and so on, which essentially, either voluntarily or involuntarily, paints a soft picture of the attacker. Also, in the media and according to the mass-perception, the attacker's religion do not come into account. When some Muslims are the actors of a terror attack, the attacker's religion comes into play and hence they are taken as hostages as a whole irrespective of their nationality/race/color/community, and so on.
The following are some examples of this narrative:
What is the origin of this narrative?
Note: to my opinion, this is true. When that Australian guy shot dead 49 Muslims in Christchurch, no one is talking about "blocking Australians to enter New Zealand" or laying mines in Tasman Sea. Rather everyone is like: "Oops! We just lost a point here."