Is there any factual scientific evidence that muslims are more likely to be involved in terrorism?

[icehorse]

Are islam's people more likely to commit terror than christians,hindus,any other religion than islam?

It's an interesting question to be sure. From my perspective, I feel that terrorism is statistically rare, even when you include all terrorists across all religions and cultures.

What troubles me far more is that many or all of the major religions promote (certainly to varying degrees): theocracy, misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, tribalism, and so on.

From that perspective, I think that Islam is a huge threat. For example, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who think that theocracy ought to run the world. To me that's far, far more dangerous than all the terrorists put together.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's an interesting question to be sure. From my perspective, I feel that terrorism is statistically rare, even when you include all terrorists across all religions and cultures.

What troubles me far more is that many or all of the major religions promote (certainly to varying degrees): theocracy, misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, tribalism, and so on.

From that perspective, I think that Islam is a huge threat. For example, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who think that theocracy ought to run the world. To me that's far, far more dangerous than all the terrorists put together.

Kill the apostates!
Excerpted....
And yet a significant portion of British Muslims think that such behaviour is not merely right, but a religious obligation: a survey by the think-tank Policy Exchange, for instance, revealed that 36 per cent of young Muslims believe that those who leave Islam should be killed.

 

[Truth in love]

I've never seen people who follow Christianity as it is in the Bible. Love your enemy, pray for those who persecute you, care for the sick, and the poor, turn the other cheek, live a modest and quiet, peaceful life, if at all possible be at peace with all people, etc.

Where is there room for terrorism in Christianity? It's merely a vehicle for one's chosen brand of hate. They'll get all OT on people and totally forget the new covenant and fulfillment of their law. Love one another as Jesus loved you, even unto death. Lambs to the slaughter.

The Christian terrorizers are projecting their own will and ideas onto what the Bible says.

Is anyone really Christian, I seriously doubt it. Broad is the way to destruction, narrow is the path to life and few who enter into it.

I have never met a true Christian.

You might need to get out more. Granted a great many who claim the title don’t care for much of what the Bible teaches, and do not try to live the higher laws. Also loving your enemy is a pretty tall order. I’ve been lucky enough to meet many people who make this effort. Granted imperfectly, but there are quite a few true Christians about.

 

[osgart]

You might need to get out more. Granted a great many who claim the title don’t care for much of what the Bible teaches, and do not try to live the higher laws. Also loving your enemy is a pretty tall order. I’ve been lucky enough to meet many people who make this effort. Granted imperfectly, but there are quite a few true Christians about.

Perhaps so, there's always that chance, but the vast majority of professing Christians are militant, or heavily involved in the world of politics, and wealth, and seek worldly and often militant solutions to their problems. Christianity is not a violent religion, and is about boldly proclaiming the gospel. It's about being in the world and separate from it. It says those who hate their life shall gain everlasting life, and those that love their life shall lose it. I see a great majority of Christians who do live quite content to live it up in this world. The Christian must be prepared to lay down their lives for what they believe in if necessary, and go out into the world and risk life and death to preach their word. They fight spiritual battles, and do not take up the sword.

 

[Truth in love]

Perhaps so, there's always that chance, but the vast majority of professing Christians are militant, or heavily involved in the world of politics, and wealth, and seek worldly and often militant solutions to their problems. Christianity is not a violent religion, and is about boldly proclaiming the gospel. It's about being in the world and separate from it. It says those who hate their life shall gain everlasting life, and those that love their life shall lose it. I see a great majority of Christians who do live quite content to live it up in this world. The Christian must be prepared to lay down their lives for what they believe in if necessary, and go out into the world and risk life and death to preach their word. They fight spiritual battles, and do not take up the sword.

There are a lot of factions. Some of very militant and even aggressive others like Quaker’s are not.
I’m not a fan of the become a matter and let your kids be murdered mind set, but I think violence needs to be limited to defensive actions not aggression.

The home in Zion with the summer cottage in Babylon is a struggle. Fancy stuff, money and various sins often have great sales departments and look appealing. To function in this world without embracing its flaws is a tough trick.

 

[uN9%3fv@Dvy(4AVy]

This is the from the United States Code regarding the definition: U.S.C. Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (govinfo.gov)


§2331. Definitions
As used in this chapter—

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and


(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;


(2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;

(3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—

(A) declared war;

(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or

(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and


(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and


(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 102–572, title X, §1003(a)(3), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4521; amended Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, §802(a), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 376.)

The key points which are common to the definitions of both international and domestic terrorism are violent acts dangerous to human life which:

(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

...

I guess what strikes me about this is that, whatever the apparent intended goals of terrorism might be, they don't really seem to work.

i think most of the islamic terrorism goal is to punish the kafirs who don't follow islam. And fight against "so called american
imperialism against islamic countries". But I wonder why don't they get guts to do anything in China haha.

 

[uN9%3fv@Dvy(4AVy]

Well, first, to answer the question in your thread title, I don't believe that there's any evidence to show that Muslims are more likely to be involved in terrorism, especially since the term "terrorism" itself is highly loaded and used mostly to manipulate rather than clarify or describe with accuracy. As is often said, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." The term has become so politically-charged, manipulative, and misused as to become functionally useless.

I'd niche down and call terrorism motivated due to religion. So basically all these islamophobia has no roots and is really a phobia? How many percentage of world terror has been conducted by which religion people (on religious motivation) till date? That statistics would be pretty useful. But that'd create a huge bias. As some of the religions have changed in the last 50 years, meanwhile some religions are going even more extreme.

 

[uN9%3fv@Dvy(4AVy]

It's an interesting question to be sure. From my perspective, I feel that terrorism is statistically rare, even when you include all terrorists across all religions and cultures.

What troubles me far more is that many or all of the major religions promote (certainly to varying degrees): theocracy, misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, tribalism, and so on.

From that perspective, I think that Islam is a huge threat. For example, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who think that theocracy ought to run the world. To me that's far, far more dangerous than all the terrorists put together.

you've made a good point. there is some discussion about it in stackexchange.
Is this chart showing the likelihood of a terrorist attack statistically useful?

 

[uN9%3fv@Dvy(4AVy]

Kill the apostates!
Excerpted....
And yet a significant portion of British Muslims think that such behaviour is not merely right, but a religious obligation: a survey by the think-tank Policy Exchange, for instance, revealed that 36 per cent of young Muslims believe that those who leave Islam should be killed.

honestly this might be a little harsh. but if terrorism results in very insignificant death counts, why should any country care about it? aren't there better things to care about?

 

[Revoltingest]

honestly this might be a little harsh. but if terrorism results in very insignificant death counts, why should any country care about it? aren't there better things to care about?

Caring isn't a highly objective thing.

 

[Stevicus]

i think most of the islamic terrorism goal is to punish the kafirs who don't follow islam. And fight against "so called american
imperialism against islamic countries". But I wonder why don't they get guts to do anything in China haha.

Some of it appeared (underneath the surface) to be anti-imperialist nationalism, such as in Iran when they overthrew the US-installed Shah. Many colonies, former colonies, or countries which fell under Western hegemony in other ways embraced nationalism as a vehicle towards national liberation - which also found a great deal of sympathy among Western liberals.

This was also true in some parts of Africa, where nationalism and national liberation from colonialism soon morphed into malignant tribalism, where some saw neighboring tribes as more of an enemy than the Western imperialists. Similar internecine violence can be seen within the Arab world, even though it's mostly Muslim vs. Muslim.

So I guess one could ask: Is the violence due to the religion or is it due to nationalism/tribalism? Or perhaps it's a variation of religious tribalism? If we can accurately characterize what exactly it is we're dealing with, it might be easier to come up with a coherent solution.

 

[ronki23]

The laws of many Muslims countries condone killing apostates and homosexuals. They also do not allow non Muslim men to marry Muslim women

 

[Stevicus]

I'd niche down and call terrorism motivated due to religion. So basically all these islamophobia has no roots and is really a phobia? How many percentage of world terror has been conducted by which religion people (on religious motivation) till date? That statistics would be pretty useful. But that'd create a huge bias. As some of the religions have changed in the last 50 years, meanwhile some religions are going even more extreme.

I've been down a similar route where people want to argue from the viewpoint of "who killed more," ostensibly as a lame tactic to try to prove which ideology or belief is more moral than the other.

As a leftist myself, I've been inundated by arguments from capitalists and other right-wingers about how many deaths are attributed to socialism, while implying that capitalists are paragons of virtue by comparison.

However, if one looks at the 20 worst atrocities in human history and distinguishes by whether they were caused by communists or capitalists, it's clear that capitalists have a much higher body count of victims than can ever be said about communism or socialism. (I proved it in this thread: The answer is a communist party | Page 7 | Religious Forums.)

Strictly speaking, such an argument doesn't prove which system is better, but it does demonstrate that the standard argument of "socialism is bad because a lot of people died from it" is a BS argument from top to bottom.

The tactics of argumentation seem remarkably similar when people try to compare Christianity with Islam on the same basis of "who killed more."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Currently, the biggest terrorist is a Christian named Vladimir Putin.
I speculate that the term "terrorist" typically is discarded when a
group attains such power that it comprises an entire large country
with a large conventional military. Nonetheless, Vlad has used
threats & violence for purposes that fit the definition of "terrorism".

I wonder how soon someone will say he's not a real Christian, eh.

But if a first world country does it it is not terrorism.

I hope that you do not mind my glaring special pleading fallacy.

 

[KWED]

It is a common trope amongst some that all Muslims are blamed for Islamist terrorism. However, it is not the case.
I think people may be conflating the the criticism of refusal of some to condemn Islamist attacks with blaming them for the attacks.
It is also untrue that white terrorists are not labelled or prosecuted as such. Just lazy cheap-shooting (scuse the pun).

I want factual, believable data about this to get a conclusion. Without any biases. I'd appreciate research papers a lot as they're highly reputed.

Obviously, statistics will vary over time and place. Here is one snapshot. Apparently, far-right terrorism is becoming more common in the US now.

 

[danieldemol]

Muslims Are Not Terrorists: A Factual Look at Terrorism and Islam
This article makes a good point.

I have some questions about this article.

1. It claims the FBI says 94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States from 1980 to 2005 have been by non-Muslims. Where does the FBI say that?

2. according to wikipedia Muslims in the US account for "about 1.1 percent of the total U.S. population.[2]" source: Islam in the United States - Wikipedia. The question here is if about 1.1% of the population are comitting 6% of the terrorist incidents are they not punching well above their weight on the terror scales?

3. Why should we be analysing terrorists that kill civilians alongside groups such as the Animal Liberation Front and Earth liberation front which "typically targeted materials and facilities rather than persons" source: Terrorism 2002/2005 | Federal Bureau of Investigation ?

4. Why doesn't the article link it's claims of less than 2% European terrorism to a website that actually works and can therefore be independantly examined?

5. Whilst I appreciate the article putting terrorism into perspective with lightening strikes, is it logical to worry about things we can't do much about more than terrorism which we can do much about?

I appreciate you taking the time to consider these questions.

Thanks in advance,
In my opinion.

 

[stevecanuck]

I don't see why this topic has to be a contest.

The question should be whether any of the groups mentioned in the OP are encouraged by their 'ism' to commit acts of terror. Comparing actual numbers is pointless - "My guys murdered fewer people than your guys. So. Yeah, There's that."