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

A quick google search.

The largest terrorist groups in comparison

 

Interestingly they omit all the Christian terror groups.

Here are a few.
6 modern-day Christian terrorist groups our media conveniently ignores

Wikipedia used to have a list of all know chrisrian terrorist groups but they seem to have been edited out.
Christian terrorism - Wikipedia

 

I don't know much about any studies but I have some possible reasons why it seems that Muslims are more likely to be terrorists:

• We usually don't know the reason for a terror act immediately. Except from Muslims, they shout "Allahu akbar" to make it clear why they do it.
• Islamistic terror groups, especially the IS, don't differentiate between religion and politics because they want a theocratic state. So their political motivation is the same as their religious one.
• In the west, Muslim is often used synonymously to Arab. If Arabs are more violent than other ethnicities (maybe because their diet lacks zinc, as has been proposed) it reflects on all Muslims (even though most Muslims live in East Asia).

 

Maybe because these Christian groups are not the largest (in terms of number of attacks and deaths).

 

Some of those groups in the OP link show very few attacks and deaths. Certainly anti-balaka are responsible for hundreds of attacks and thousands of deaths. And i think the LRA have not been wanting either.

I think it more likely that there is Christian influence in the editing

 

To be fair his article focused on very recent terrorist attacks, from 2013 through 2017. The acts of Christian terrorist groups were a bit older than that. Oh, one more thing, Timothy McVeigh claimed to be an atheist that found God after his conviction. Do I believe him? No.

 

It's rather frustrating to watch you require "factual scientific evidence" (whatever the heck that might mean) as you feel perfectly free to feed us unsubstantiated claims.

 

You’re talking about the OP link. Did you look at the link I posted? The groups at the top are responsible for thousands of attacks and tens of thousands of deaths. Is there a comparable non-Islam terrorist group?

 

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.

 

Yes i did check out your link, it was one o commented on regarding its lack of Christian terrorism

In just a 2 day period, anti balaka killed over 1000 people in one town. They will commonly attack a village and kill the entire population.

How many overall i really don't know but from various snippets you can guess it's more than a few

According to the UN the LRA are responsible for over 100,000 deaths and at least 60,000 child abductions.

 

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.

 

Try this book on for size. It discusses many forms of religious terrorism. From the Oklahoma city bombing, to the Sikh violence in India.

"Terror in the Mind of God" by Mark Jurgensmeyer

 

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.

 

Indeed I agree. Violence is violence. Given the terror campaign from the Russian invasion attacking civilian targets in Ukraine, mass raping and murdering etc, Russia and Putin are way up their in the terror list.

 

Not all violence is violence.
But we agree that Russia is a terrorist country.
Let invading Russian soldiers die a quick & painful death.
And let their families see the evil of this war, inspiring them
to effect positive change.

 

I don’t understand all of the cultural issues in play, but it does seem that Islamic cultures utilize the behaviors we label as Terror a lot more than other groups.

They are not alone however. Although we don’t call the mafia Catholic Terrorists we could. The west tends to separate label terror by things other than religion for most groups (race, nation etc.).

End of the day I don’t blame a billion plus people for the evils of a few.

 

Not sure what the OP would consider scientific evidence.

Statistically and sociologically, sure, there is plenty of evidence.

Actually, all it takes is paying attention to either the Qur'an or to actual Muslim teachings and communities.

There are reasons why people try so hard to reassure us otherwise - and why they keep having to try, year after year, century after century.

I attempted that myself for a good, long spell.

But when the tire meets the tarmac, the directives are deeply ingrained in the Qur'an itself and they just don't leave a lot of room for people willing to instill some human values in the mix.

Islam's many spontaneous herectics can heal the doctrine only so much.

 

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.