Why are a disproportionate number of terrorists Muslim?

    • No1sPerfect wrote:

      Firstly I want to make it very clear I don't judge people based on their religion or anything like that, but after hearing about the Woolwich attack, which was comitted by a British man, not an Afghan, but a british man who happened to be an Islamic convert. I have met plenty of Muslims where I live who I get along with perfectly well, but it can't be said that someone is just as likely to commit acts of terror who is Christian, or Athiest, or Buddhist.

      All I want to know is why is this the case? For long I thought well it's the circumstances they live in in the middle east, but Michael Adebolajo was English, so were all 4 who committed the July 7 bombings, and the two men suspected of the boston marathon bombings had American citezenship.
      I'm pretty sure that nowhere in the Qu'ran does it say 'blow up your neighbour' so why is there this correlation, if there really is a correlation and the world's news stations haven't conspired to blow things out of proportion?

      Also I've seen a chart that says only a small proportion are terrorists are Muslim but it seems very hard to believe that would be based on evidence, but I would like to be proven wrong about that.
      you thinking of Islam you f****** idiot
      :|
    • Are a disproportionate number of terrorists Muslims, though?

      I think some people have already said so, but I'd argue it's more of a perception.

      There's often a tendency to brand acts of violence by "foreign" groups terrorism far more quickly and readily than acts of "local" indigenous people. I don't necessarily think it's malicious racism but something that instinctively happens lots. For example, you (sadly) often hear stories of vehicle drivers mounting pavements and driving at pedestrians. If the driver is Muslim it's far more likely to be declared terrorism whilst a white person may simply be described as mentally ill.

      Also, many would argue that the terrorists aren't really Muslims in that their acts take very selective use of Muslim scripture and totally go against (what many Muslims consider far more important messages) of love etc.

      These things come in cycles, too. In the mid 20th century, "Muslim" terrorism likely wasn't a concern for large swathes of people. Instead, Christianity-related issues in Ireland were far more dominant. Terrorism tends to arise when people are neglected and, thus, feel hopeless and so are easily manipulated by those seeking power and preach violence. The West has absolutely decimated the Middle East through war and that has come at a cost.
    • No longer in Use wrote:

      Are a disproportionate number of terrorists Muslims, though?

      I think some people have already said so, but I'd argue it's more of a perception.

      There's often a tendency to brand acts of violence by "foreign" groups terrorism far more quickly and readily than acts of "local" indigenous people. I don't necessarily think it's malicious racism but something that instinctively happens lots. For example, you (sadly) often hear stories of vehicle drivers mounting pavements and driving at pedestrians. If the driver is Muslim it's far more likely to be declared terrorism whilst a white person may simply be described as mentally ill.

      Also, many would argue that the terrorists aren't really Muslims in that their acts take very selective use of Muslim scripture and totally go against (what many Muslims consider far more important messages) of love etc.

      These things come in cycles, too. In the mid 20th century, "Muslim" terrorism likely wasn't a concern for large swathes of people. Instead, Christianity-related issues in Ireland were far more dominant. Terrorism tends to arise when people are neglected and, thus, feel hopeless and so are easily manipulated by those seeking power and preach violence. The West has absolutely decimated the Middle East through war and that has come at a cost.
      in the Middle East obviously they are, but in the world now? Maybe not so much
      In the 2000s totally. If you look at the USA the majority of terrorists are young while men

      I think it’s wrong to say because they’re terrorists they aren’t Muslim or because they cherry pick scripture, they still believe they are Muslim and follow the religious requirements and at the end of the day it’s scriptural what they do - the Koran isn’t like the Christian part of the Bible, the New Testament - the Koran is still very violence is okay if it furthers the spread and dominance of Islam
      It says it’s okay to dominate and kill infidels and it’s very clear of killing Jews
    • chloeglowy wrote:

      No longer in Use wrote:

      Are a disproportionate number of terrorists Muslims, though?

      I think some people have already said so, but I'd argue it's more of a perception.

      There's often a tendency to brand acts of violence by "foreign" groups terrorism far more quickly and readily than acts of "local" indigenous people. I don't necessarily think it's malicious racism but something that instinctively happens lots. For example, you (sadly) often hear stories of vehicle drivers mounting pavements and driving at pedestrians. If the driver is Muslim it's far more likely to be declared terrorism whilst a white person may simply be described as mentally ill.

      Also, many would argue that the terrorists aren't really Muslims in that their acts take very selective use of Muslim scripture and totally go against (what many Muslims consider far more important messages) of love etc.

      These things come in cycles, too. In the mid 20th century, "Muslim" terrorism likely wasn't a concern for large swathes of people. Instead, Christianity-related issues in Ireland were far more dominant. Terrorism tends to arise when people are neglected and, thus, feel hopeless and so are easily manipulated by those seeking power and preach violence. The West has absolutely decimated the Middle East through war and that has come at a cost.
      in the Middle East obviously they are, but in the world now? Maybe not so muchIn the 2000s totally. If you look at the USA the majority of terrorists are young while men

      I think it’s wrong to say because they’re terrorists they aren’t Muslim or because they cherry pick scripture, they still believe they are Muslim and follow the religious requirements and at the end of the day it’s scriptural what they do - the Koran isn’t like the Christian part of the Bible, the New Testament - the Koran is still very violence is okay if it furthers the spread and dominance of Islam
      It says it’s okay to dominate and kill infidels and it’s very clear of killing Jews
      It's at least important to note they are not representative of the vast majority of Muslims and mainstream Islam.

      It is hard to define whether or not someone is a follower of a religion, though. I think it would be wrong to base it entirely off how a person feels they are (i.e. personal identity).

      You can still argue the same as you've done for Christianity. You still have lots of people who follow the Old Testament. If someone cherry picks all the less tolerant parts of Biblical scripture like stoning gay men, an eye for an eye etc., are they still Christian? Some would say no as they ignore "love thy neighbour" etc., some say yes as they follow the Bible. It's difficult.

      I would say it's at least important to distinguish these people from mainstream followers of any religion. Otherwise, people will wholly unjust and discriminatory views about different sections of society.