Currently, there are around 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, and out of this number less than 1% are violent or terrorists. In statistics, we are told it is statistically biased to use a small sample to generalize on the larger population. Yet, today even though less than one 1% of Muslims are terrorists, why do people generalize, stereotype and stigmatize Muslims as terrorists?

The big question now is what constitute a terrorist act? Is it the action or the intention of the terrorists or both?
If we say it is the action, then we may define terrorist as “the act of killing or maiming non-combatants or innocent people”. Here we are only concerned about the action that makes a terrorist or constitute terrorism.

Using this action-based definition, we cannot in all fairness say that terrorism is the exclusive preserve of muslims. Many non-muslim state and non-state actors have, over the course of history, committed (and continue to commit) acts of terrorism. For instance, cultists and ritualists in Southern Nigeria commit acts of terrorism for several decades. They kill, maim and cause public fear. Other terrorists in the south also commit terrorist acts by setting petty thieves ablaze. Armed robbers who detonate explosive devices at banks in the south also commit acts of terrorism. Boko Haram and Fulani bandits also commit acts of terrorism in this regard as their despicable actions also demonstrate. Therefore, using this ACTION-FOCUSSED definition of terrorism, it CANNOT BE ESTYABLISHED THAT TERRORISM IS THE EXCLUSIVE PRESERVE OF NORTHERN NIGERIA OR MUSLIMS. Rather, both north and south, both Christian and muslims are guilty of terrorism.

On another hand, we can also define terrorism in terms of the motivation of the perpetrator. That is whether the perpetrator implicitly or explicitly says they derive their motivation from a Holly Text (Quran or Bible or whatever). For this type of terrorism, the first thing we need to interrogate is the claim of the perpetrator that their holly scripture provides the motivation for his action. Thus, first of all we need to study the scripture as unbiased researchers to establish the veracity of the claim of the terrorists that they are motivated by their holly book. Secondly, we need to establish whether the majority of those sharing the same religion also believe and derive the same violent motivation from their holly text.

WHAT DO THE SCRIPTURES SAY?

Both the Bible and Quran are not pacifistic scriptures. They both have verses talking about warfare and violence. However, contrary to what many may be inclined to believing, the Bible is adjudged by experts to contain more violent verse than all the religious scriptures in the world (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788 ). When u google ‘The most violent religious scripture’, all the entries you will find relate to the Bible. Some of these violent biblical verses can be rationalized within the context of history but many others cannot be justified. The story in the bible of how the Amalekites were annihilated by the Christian God remains a classic example of genocide unrivalled by any holly texts. Similarly, there are verses in the Quran that are adjudged by many as violent and the muslims too, like Christians claim that those verse can be rationalized when applied to their historical contexts. Thus, the issue now is how do we ascertain the truth? We can research these scriptures ourselves and form our own opinion on whether they are violent or not and which are more violent than others. However, the ideal thing to do now is to look at how the majority of believers in these holly texts (Bible and Quran) are influenced or motivated by their respective holly texts.

HOW ARE THE ADHERENTS INFLUENCED OR MOTIVATED?

In order not to take the claims of the terrorists at face value, we need to ask the question of how the vast majority of other believers sharing the same religion with terrorists are motivated. Are they also violent or not? If the vast majority of the adherents of a holly text are violent, then there are enough evidence to conclude that their scriptural text provides the motivation for terrorism. If, however, it is the small terrorist fringe elements that are violent, then it would be unjust to conclude that the Holly text that is able to have a peaceful influence on the majority but a violent one on a minority (the terrorists) is actually a violent text. This is being unfair to the holly text and is akin to blaming and condemning a father/mother of 10 children simply because two of their sons are wayward. This is most unjust, unfair and unscientific way to generalize. And unfortunately, this is what we do to muslims. All the terrorists in the world put together are not up to 1% of the 10% of the 1.8 billion muslims in all corners of the globe. But why use the actions of 10% (?) to condemn the vast majority of the 90%? The entire Fulani ethnic group and the Kanuri tribe from whom bandits and boko haram come from respectively, do not represent 30% of the muslims in the north (Fulanis are just 9% while Kanuris are definitely less than that in the country). Even if both BH and bandits represent 30% of muslims in Nigeria, is it scientifically justifiable to use the bad actions of 30% to condemn the majority 70% ? Or is it fair to pin the blame on the muslim holly text (Quran) that is able to raise a whopping 70% of peaceful children just because the remaining 30% are wayward?

Moreover, when talking about terrorism, there are other mundane issues or political-economic factors that we conveniently overlook in our attempt to paint all muslims with a black broad brush. Most of the acts of terrorism going on in muslim majority countries or regions have the belssings of countries in the West that can conveniently be called Christian countries (e.g the USA, UK, Germany, and others). Yet, we always delineate and dissociate (because failure is an orphan) the actions of these countries from their Christian religion background. Isn’t Christianity not supposed to mould and refine the behaviour of these countries and their leadership? For instance, who can deny that former US president Bush said that God asked him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq (see video below)? But why don’t we also blame all Christians and Christianity for the these equally terrorist or illegal acts? Because America controls the media and our thinking process, and they did not deem it fit to have us think along this line?
Video [Bush said God asked him to go to war and as far as I know Bush worships the Christian God]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKt56ztXSK0
Apart from Iraq and Afghanistan, it was Christian countries of NATO that also bombarded Libya, killed Ghaddafi and caused endless chaos that spill over all parts of West Africa. Yet, we never associate their terrorist acts with their religion because they did not say they were inspired by the Bible, right? But doesn’t the action as we have seen justify the label? Or why do we belive the minute muslim minority terrorists saying they were inspired by Quran but refuse to believe the majority of muslims who explicitly or implicitly through their peaceful actions and demeanour tell us their religion doe not inspire violence? Why should what a minority say and do have more credibility than what the majority say and do? Because we are blinded by hate and hatred for muslims and the Islamic faith?

Finally, since all the weapons used by terrorists are manufactured in Christian countries, I wonder why Christianity has not been able to influence those Christian countries to stop manufacturing those deadly weapons for us all to know peace. Also, there are ample evidence that America, a country we all hail created Taliban, AlQaeda, and ISIL (see videos below). Yet, we pin all blames on the Quran, Islam and muslims as we brush aside all other political economy factors that conduce to make terrorism thrive in our midst.

(1) America created the Taliban

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9j1H330Nmo
(2) America created the ISIL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU2avVIHde8
(3) Clinton confirms thruth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9riC3944m8

NoSentiment:

Currently, there are around 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, and out of this number less than 1% are violent or terrorists. In statistics, we are told it is statistically biased to use a small sample to generalize on the larger population. Yet, today even though less than one 1% of Muslims are terrorists, why do people generalize, stereotype and stigmatize Muslims as terrorists?

The big question now is what constitute a terrorist act? Is it the action or the intention of the terrorists or both?
If we say it is the action, then we may define terrorist as “the act of killing or maiming non-combatants or innocent people”. Here we are only concerned about the action that makes a terrorist or constitute terrorism.

Using this action-based definition, we cannot in all fairness say that terrorism is the exclusive preserve of muslims. Many non-muslim state and non-state actors have, over the course of history, committed (and continue to commit) acts of terrorism. For instance, cultists and ritualists in Southern Nigeria commit acts of terrorism for several decades. They kill, maim and cause public fear. Other terrorists in the south also commit terrorist acts by setting petty thieves ablaze. Armed robbers who detonate explosive devices at banks in the south also commit acts of terrorism. Boko Haram and Fulani bandits also commit acts of terrorism in this regard as their despicable actions also demonstrate. Therefore, using this ACTION-FOCUSSED definition of terrorism, it CANNOT BE ESTYABLISHED THAT TERRORISM IS THE EXCLUSIVE PRESERVE OF NORTHERN NIGERIA OR MUSLIMS. Rather, both north and south, both Christian and muslims are guilty of terrorism.

On another hand, we can also define terrorism in terms of the motivation of the perpetrator. That is whether the perpetrator implicitly or explicitly says they derive their motivation from a Holly Text (Quran or Bible or whatever). For this type of terrorism, the first thing we need to interrogate is the claim of the perpetrator that their holly scripture provides the motivation for his action. Thus, first of all we need to study the scripture as unbiased researchers to establish the veracity of the claim of the terrorists that they are motivated by their holly book. Secondly, we need to establish whether the majority of those sharing the same religion also believe and derive the same violent motivation from their holly text.

WHAT DO THE SCRIPTURES SAY?

Both the Bible and Quran are not pacifistic scriptures. They both have verses talking about warfare and violence. However, contrary to what many may be inclined to believing, the Bible is adjudged by experts to contain more violent verse than all the religious scriptures in the world (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788 ). When u google ‘The most violent religious scripture’, all the entries you will find relate to the Bible. Some of these violent biblical verses can be rationalized within the context of history but many others cannot be justified. The story in the bible of how the Amalekites were annihilated by the Christian God remains a classic example of genocide unrivalled by any holly texts. Similarly, there are verses in the Quran that are adjudged by many as violent and the muslims too, like Christians claim that those verse can be rationalized when applied to their historical contexts. Thus, the issue now is how do we ascertain the truth? We can research these scriptures ourselves and form our own opinion on whether they are violent or not and which are more violent than others. However, the ideal thing to do now is to look at how the majority of believers in these holly texts (Bible and Quran) are influenced or motivated by their respective holly texts.

HOW ARE THE ADHERENTS INFLUENCED OR MOTIVATED?

In order not to take the claims of the terrorists at face value, we need to ask the question of how the vast majority of other believers sharing the same religion with terrorists are motivated. Are they also violent or not? If the vast majority of the adherents of a holly text are violent, then there are enough evidence to conclude that their scriptural text provides the motivation for terrorism. If, however, it is the small terrorist fringe elements that are violent, then it would be unjust to conclude that the Holly text that is able to have a peaceful influence on the majority but a violent one on a minority (the terrorists) is actually a violent text. This is being unfair to the holly text and is akin to blaming and condemning a father/mother of 10 children simply because two of their sons are wayward. This is most unjust, unfair and unscientific way to generalize. And unfortunately, this is what we do to muslims. All the terrorists in the world put together are not up to 1% of the 10% of the 1.8 billion muslims in all corners of the globe. But why use the actions of 10% (?) to condemn the vast majority of the 90%? The entire Fulani ethnic group and the Kanuri tribe from whom bandits and boko haram come from respectively, do not represent 30% of the muslims in the north (Fulanis are just 9% while Kanuris are definitely less than that in the country). Even if both BH and bandits represent 30% of muslims in Nigeria, is it scientifically justifiable to use the bad actions of 30% to condemn the majority 70% ? Or is it fair to pin the blame on the muslim holly text (Quran) that is able to raise a whopping 70% of peaceful children just because the remaining 30% are wayward?

Moreover, when talking about terrorism, there are other mundane issues or political-economic factors that we conveniently overlook in our attempt to paint all muslims with a black broad brush. Most of the acts of terrorism going on in muslim majority countries or regions have the belssings of countries in the West that can conveniently be called Christian countries (e.g the USA, UK, Germany, and others). Yet, we always delineate and dissociate (because failure is an orphan) the actions of these countries from their Christian religion background. Isn’t Christianity not supposed to mould and refine the behaviour of these countries and their leadership? For instance, who can deny that former US president Bush said that God asked him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq (see video below)? But why don’t we also blame all Christians and Christianity for the these equally terrorist or illegal acts? Because America controls the media and our thinking process, and they did not deem it fit to have us think along this line?
Video [Bush said God asked him to go to war and as far as I know Bush worships the Christian God]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKt56ztXSK0
Apart from Iraq and Afghanistan, it was Christian countries of NATO that also bombarded Libya, killed Ghaddafi and caused endless chaos that spill over all parts of West Africa. Yet, we never associate their terrorist acts with their religion because they did not say they were inspired by the Bible, right? But doesn’t the action as we have seen justify the label? Or why do we belive the minute muslim minority terrorists saying they were inspired by Quran but refuse to believe the majority of muslims who explicitly or implicitly through their peaceful actions and demeanour tell us their religion doe not inspire violence? Why should what a minority say and do have more credibility than what the majority say and do? Because we are blinded by hate and hatred for muslims and the Islamic faith?

Finally, since all the weapons used by terrorists are manufactured in Christian countries, I wonder why Christianity has not been able to influence those Christian countries to stop manufacturing those deadly weapons for us all to know peace. Also, there are ample evidence that America, a country we all hail created Taliban, AlQaeda, and ISIL (see videos below). Yet, we pin all blames on the Quran, Islam and muslims as we brush aside all other political economy factors that conduce to make terrorism thrive in our midst.

(1) America created the Taliban

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9j1H330Nmo
(2) America created the ISIL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU2avVIHde8
(3) Clinton confirms thruth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9riC3944m8

You are technically confused

72 virgins in the after life is no joke. Abdul my friend would die for that.

If only 1% of muslims are terrorists, then there are only 1% of true and real muslims, because every good muslim is the one that follows the teachings and footsteps of Mohammad to the letter, and we know that Mohammad waged wars and murdered people and pillaged and shared the proceeds of those wars with his goons, we also know that every good muslim is expected to do jihad and kill on defense of Mohammad's name, no amount of spinning can change these true facts, any one that says that osama is not a good muslim, should prove to me here how and why

Infact America also created Islam and the Quran Terrorist manual that explains the way to kill kufir



Have you asked why Islam is called religion of peace?


Well it's like the reverse psychology of a thief who is always obsessed with the word honest