80

Those arguing for more profiling quite frequently claim that while not all Muslims are terrorists, most terrorists are muslim. Is there data to show that more than 50% of terrorists attacks can be attributed to any one religious or political affiliation.

To clarify some.
Terrorism : The use of violence, outside of war, to manipulate or coerce a population.
Region : US and Europe

jjj
  • 1,008
  • 1
  • 7
  • 13
  • 11
    -1 for a poorly-worded question (besides being rather inflammatory). Define a date range, define location(s), define "terrorist" in context of the question. It is someone that commits an crime resulting in death, or just injury? Someone that runs a forum where people promote the above? – ropable Mar 23 '11 at 05:25
  • 28
    I'm not trying to prove or state anything. I have repeated a claim we all know people make that I am skeptical of but do not have hard numbers for – jjj Mar 23 '11 at 12:21
  • 21
    The biggest problems I see here is one of geographical perspective and how you define "terrorist". If you ask someone from Northern Ireland, I suspect they might tell you that most terrorists, from their point of view, are Christian. If you ask one of these "terrorists" (from whatever background or fighting for whatever cause) or someone who has similar aims to them, they will probably tell you that they are not a terrorist at all. – Rob Moir Mar 23 '11 at 13:46
  • This question is too subjective based on your definition of "terrorist" and based on locality. There is also no consensus on whether this is about sheer population within terrorist groups, attacks, victims killed, etc. Vote to close. – Ustice Mar 23 '11 at 15:19
  • 2
    Unfortunately, terrorism is a term of political propaganda. You find animal activists counted as terrorists in some western states, including the US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AETA , GB http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/25/animal-research-animal-welfare and austria http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/obskurer-prozess-in-wien-die-tierschutz-terroristen-1.1067066 My opinion: Mainly, to get more rights for the police in ways to pursuit them. – user unknown Mar 23 '11 at 15:26
  • 4
    @user unknown: And you're claiming that animal activists haven't engaged in terrorism? – Andrew Grimm Apr 29 '11 at 14:41
  • I don't know of animal activism against human life, using explosives and actions, which are useful to spread fear. Not every criminal action is terrorism. – user unknown Apr 29 '11 at 14:47
  • 4
    @user unknown: The murderer of Pim Fortuyn (Dutch politician) was an animal activist. While no explosives were involved, I believe that to be irrelevant. Killing a politician that's about to win the elections is a message to the electorate. – MSalters Jun 17 '11 at 08:09
  • 2
    Terrorism is one of the hardest things to define. Were french resistants terrorists? And Afghans resisting the western soldiers in their own country? And people hijacking aircrafts in Cuba? And israeli soldiers bombing Gaza? 193 countries, at least 193 definitions of the word "terrorism"... – Alexis Dufrenoy Jun 17 '11 at 10:40
  • 3
    @user unknown: being in research I personally know people who got their cars burnt and received very serious threatening letters, even regarding members of their family, from animal activists. – nico Aug 03 '11 at 15:41
  • @nico: OK. And those animal activists- where they muslim? Did they act in the last decade (before the question was stated) and how many did you count? – user unknown Aug 03 '11 at 16:37
  • 1
    @user: I don't know if they were Muslim but, of course, I don't have names and number, you should ask the FBI... my point merely was that there are animal activists groups (PETA anyone?) that are involved in terroristic actions (and are being officially investigated for that). – nico Aug 03 '11 at 17:25
  • @nico: Well, I didn't knew that, but I know that in Austria, there was a scandal about treating animal activists as terrorist. I guess they didn't burn cars of somebody. If you are in research, where and when did animal activist burn cars of their enemies or relatives of their enemies? – user unknown Aug 03 '11 at 20:34
  • 2
    @jjj, there has been some debate in the comments in Kit's question: Are you counting number of perpetrators (very difficult), number of arrested/convicted perpetrators, number of attacks (biases answer towards "minor" incidents, if you will forgive the wording), number of deaths (biases data towards a few bigger tragedies) or number of suicide attacks (limited scope)? – Oddthinking Aug 04 '11 at 02:16
  • @Oddthinking: Do you want to fit the question to the most upvoted answer? Isn't `while not all Muslims are terrorists, most terrorists are muslim` pretty clear? – user unknown Aug 04 '11 at 04:40
  • @user unknown: No, not necessarily the most upvoted answer - I offer quite a few choices. In practice, the question is not clear because we have a lot of discussion and a lot of answers interpreting it different ways. From the current definitions provided in the question, it seems to me that schoolyard bullying is the biggest source of terrorism - but clearly this isn't what people are fearing. Not trying to be a smart alec, just pointing out some terrorism is more fearsome than others, and it may have different answers depending on definitions. – Oddthinking Aug 04 '11 at 04:51
  • Wikipedia won't even define "terrorist" it was coined by the media long ago, a bogus term for what they don't understand. – Moab Aug 08 '11 at 03:11
  • 10
    One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen Aug 15 '11 at 16:34
  • 2
    Freedom fighters initiate violence against civilians, Thorbjørn? – Cees Timmerman Sep 21 '12 at 12:05
  • 1
    Why exclude the context of war in the definition of terrorism? The [dictionary definition](https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A%20terrorism) doesn't. As per the dictionary definition, many recent presidents of the U.S. are terrorists, which I whole-heartedly agree. – Dheeraj Vepakomma Jan 13 '13 at 17:37
  • 3
    This question is so badly worded for the reason that __magnitude of terrorist act__ isn't being considered. __Terrorist attack A ≠ Terrorist attack B__ when A has 0 casualties and B has 10,000. – bobobobo Apr 02 '13 at 00:11
  • Over any particular time period? Or the whole of recorded history? – A E Nov 25 '15 at 19:58
  • This question could benefit from a specific instance or instances of this claim. – Andrew Grimm Nov 26 '15 at 08:03

5 Answers5

66

The answer to this question varies greatly, depending on country you are from.

If you're from the Netherlands, Islamists represented 100% of the individuals suspected of terrorism each year from 2006 to 2009 (between 2 or 6 per year), except in 2007. On the other hand, if you are from France, then, while Islamists do represent a sizable number of the arrested suspects, the percentage is far lower (342 out of 1468, or 23.2%) in the same timespan.

In the United States, more than 80% (186 out of 228) of all convictions tied to international terrorist groups since 9/11 involve defendants driven by a radical Islamist agenda.

The European Union has a graph of arrested terrorism suspects by Member State in its Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2010:

enter image description here

It also states that:

The number of arrests relating to Islamist terrorism (110) decreased by 41 % compared to 2008, which continues the trend of a steady decrease since 2006.

Since you're interested in those numbers to discuss more profiling, arrested suspects are not what is interesting to look at. Instead, that would be successful attempts.

There are few successful attempts, at least in Europe, over the last few years. For example, there was only one attempt in 2009:

enter image description here

..and it was foiled.

The preceding years are not very different. In the recent years, Islamist terrorism has not been very successful. For example, the Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2008, which reports on terrorism in the European Union in 2007, states that:

With regard to Islamist terrorism, two failed and two attempted attacks were reported for 2007. As in 2006, failed or attempted Islamist terrorist attacks took place in the UK, Denmark and Germany. Police investigations into the attempted attacks in Denmark and Germany have shown that the intended targets were likely to be located on their national territory.

However, as the report notes, "The failed and attempted attacks mainly aimed at causing indiscriminate mass casualties." As such, even one successful attack can lead to a large amount of causalities.

Resources used:

Sébastien
  • 286
  • 2
  • 10
Borror0
  • 7,581
  • 6
  • 48
  • 67
  • 32
    Very misleading. Vast majority of "terrorist attacks" in Spain are mostly Kale Borroka or commies torching some ATM or breaking some windows. If not for their links with ETA, it would be classified as vandalism, not terrorism. By comparison in 2004 Madrid, Al-Qaida killed 192 people. Yes, that was **just one** attack. Like 9/11 was just one event. 11-M or 9/11 cannot be counted as equivalent to event like *"Molotov cocktail attacks on a court and several banks in the town of Amorebieta. The attacks caused minor damage and no injuries"* – vartec Jul 04 '11 at 10:15
  • 6
    Well, @vartec, according to the definition of the question, it is disputable, what counts as a terrorist act. But if you think, that an attack with much victims should not be compared with an attack without deads, you should protest against the question, not the answer. On the other side: Why don't we count the US torture system as terrorism? – user unknown Aug 03 '11 at 16:46
  • 19
    I haven't read the report, but it is interesting that they choose to measure arrests rather than convictions. – Oddthinking Aug 04 '11 at 02:19
  • 2
    @userunknown, because history is written by the winners, and the present is written by the powerful? =/ – Brian S Sep 26 '14 at 22:16
  • 15
    There's also a bit of a self-fulfilling issue here -- when a white Christian firebombs an abortion clinic, it's a "disturbed loner". When a bunch of white extremist Tea Partiers call for an armed march on Washington it's just "misguided patriotism", but when a soldier with documented depression issues who happens to be muslim snaps and opens fire while on the base, it's labeled a "terrorist attack". These statistics are essentially useless. – Shadur May 27 '15 at 21:22
  • 2
    @Shadur I was poring over documented "terrorist incidents" yesterday and came to the same conclusion. There is not a consistency of reporting. The numbers as reported look pretty damning for Islamists, but I was surprised to see how basically any violent event involving someone who might be Muslim was called "Islamist terrorism" whereas with other events it actually had to be a somewhat serious incident to be recorded and the religion of the perpetrator(s) wasn't even recorded. – called2voyage Nov 25 '15 at 14:17
  • 1
    I think a lot has changed in France recently. – Bradman175 Sep 16 '16 at 09:02
  • @Shadur The terrorism database does include abortion related attacks. https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?country=217 Five are listed in 2015 in the USA. 7/19 Aurora, IL; 8/1 New Orleans; 9/4 Pullman, WA; 9/30 Thousand Oaks, CA; 11/27 Colorado Springs. – DavePhD Oct 26 '16 at 11:21
  • @Oddthinking the TESAT reports provide both arrest and conviction numbers. (Of course the people convicted for terrorist attacks committed in year X, and the people convicted in year X for terrorist attacks, are two wholly different groups, and TESAT being a yearly report, it can only provide the former.) – Tgr Dec 03 '17 at 02:59
40

According to the FBI data only 6% of all terrorist in the US between 1980 and 2005 were Muslim. There were even more Jewish terrorists.

For the US the categorical claim "more than 50% of terrorists attacks can be attributed to Muslims" is therefore false.

Christian
  • 33,271
  • 15
  • 112
  • 266
  • 43
    The world is a very big place and some parts of it are not America. – Rob Moir Mar 23 '11 at 14:24
  • 10
    +1 - The question is vague, I accept restricting it for the purpose of giving a definitive answer :) – Russell Steen Mar 23 '11 at 14:47
  • 14
    your data goes back 25 years, the claim is recent and relevant to the current situation. – jwenting Mar 23 '11 at 20:29
  • 3
    Ah damn, we need the original data on this. Apparently everybody cites it without anybody giving the source. This is a problem. – Konrad Rudolph Nov 04 '11 at 13:34
  • 1
    @Konrad: The article that I linked to links to http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum . That's the original source that lists the groups. You might need an additional source to decide which of those groups happen to be Muslim based. In many cases the purpose of the group however seems clear. – Christian Nov 08 '11 at 13:29
  • 7
    If you do it by death toll, 2 of those Islamist attacks constitute 13042/14038 = 93% of the total deaths. This answer misrepresents that data by not including that caveat. – bobobobo Apr 01 '13 at 20:45
  • @bobobobo: Which 2? – endolith May 02 '13 at 00:37
  • 1
    @endolith [9/11 and 2/26/1993 New York, NY Car Bombing](http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum). I actually made a mistake and tallied the two columns both as "deaths". But if you tally _only_ the inner column, you still get 2978/3175.=93%. – bobobobo May 02 '13 at 02:24
  • 3
    @bobobobo : This answer is counting terrorists not about counting the victims. – Christian Nov 01 '15 at 12:06
  • @Christian An act of terror without victims doesn't seem to be as harmful as an act of terror with victims. – bobobobo Nov 06 '15 at 19:59
  • 4
    @bobobobo : The question isn't about how harmful certain acts are. The question is about whether most terrorists are muslim. Either someone is a terrorist or they aren't. – Christian Nov 06 '15 at 20:01
  • 2
    If the acts of terror committed by non-muslims have 0 injuries and 0 casualties, I can't see them as nearly as harmful as terrorist attacks by muslims, which can have in the hundreds or thousands of casualties. – bobobobo Nov 11 '15 at 00:02
  • _"the categorical claim "more than 50% of terrorists attacks can be attributed to Muslims" is therefore false."_ Well, I think that statement is true. On the other hand, if it said "**rightfully** attributed"... – xDaizu May 22 '17 at 12:10
21

Robert Pape, in Dying To Win, provides evidence that most suicide terrorists are not Muslim:

"No previous analysis of suicide terrorism has been able to draw on a complete survey of suicide terrorist attacks worldwide. This drawback, together with the fact that many such attacks, including all those against Americans, have been committed by Muslims have led many in the United States to assume that Islamic fundamentalism must be the main underlying cause. This, in turn, has fuelled a belief that anti-American terrorism can be stopped only by wholesale transformation of Muslim societies, a belief that helped create public support of the invasion of Iraq. Comprehensive study of the phenomenon of suicide terrorism, however, shows that the presumed connection to Islamic fundamentalism is misleading." (p38 of the 2006 paperback edition)

He goes on to show that most suicide attacks are carried out by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. Again, this evidence is just for suicide terrorism, so much depends on how you define 'terrorism'.

Mike
  • 455
  • 2
  • 7
  • +1 just because Pape's book *Dying to Win* is very good. – ShreevatsaR Apr 17 '11 at 18:53
  • 4
    -1. You're giving Pape an opportunity to soapbox here without providing solid enough evidence. Islamic terrorists blew up 2 planes and killed thousands of people on 9/11/2001. "the presumed connection to Islamic fundamentalism is misleading."? That much is obvious, and tying knots around people's heads with complicated excuses doesn't change the fact. – bobobobo Apr 01 '13 at 20:34
  • 2
    @bobobobo, you have hilariously misunderstood the statement. He means that when you look at a large number of suicide attacks, there is no statistical evidence that Islamic fundamentalism is responsible for most of them, not that any specific attack is unconnected with Islam. – James McLeod Sep 27 '14 at 13:03
  • @bobobobo 9/11 shows an example of islamist terrorists who are more successful, not more numerous, than their non-islamists counterparts. – gerrit Dec 03 '15 at 19:17
7

According to the American National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), the majority of terrorist deaths with known perpetrators worldwide between 2005 to 2010 were caused by Sunni Muslim terrorists. For years where it also reported the number of attacks (2009-2010), Sunni Muslim terrorist attacks also made up a majority.

The NCTC used to publish yearly reports via the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS), which indicated the religion group of perpetrators of terrorist attacks worldwide. This service was discontinued in 2012, however all of their reports have been archived.

For the purposes of this analysis, the NCTC used the following definition of "terrorist":

NCTC analysts determine if an event meets the definitional criteria of 22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2) as an act of terrorism

22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2):

the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

Their yearly reports clearly show that Sunni terrorists make up an absolute majority of deaths caused. The majority holds for all of the individual years that were available on the archives. For example, this is the deaths breakdown by perpetrator group for the year 2008:

enter image description here

In the years where the number of attacks was not broken down by religion, the number of deaths was, and it always exceeded 50%.

While the breakdown by number of attacks was not stated in the reports from 2005-2008, they stated in their 2010 report that Sunni terrorists made 60% of attacks in 2010, and caused 70% of all terrorism-related deaths.:

Sunni extremists committed almost 60 percent of all worldwide terrorist attacks. These attacks caused approximately 70 percent of terrorism-related deaths, a significant increase from the almost 62 percent in 2009.

In their 2009 report, the NCTC also made similar statements:

Sunni extremists were identified with about one-half of all attacks in 2009. Almost 90 groups were associated with these attacks. According to open source reports, the Taliban claimed credit for the largest number of attacks causing the highest number of fatalities. Al-Shabaab was the second deadliest group, followed by al-Qa’ida in Iraq as the third deadliest group.

Therefore, for the limited timeframe surveyed by the NCTC WITS, we can say that Muslim terrorists perpetrated the most attacks and caused the most deaths worldwide.

March Ho
  • 18,688
  • 12
  • 81
  • 109
  • 1
    But was this in the US and Europe as per the question - 75% of terrorist acts are in a handful of countries in Middle East and Africa - Iraq and Syria as mentioned here are in the top few – mmmmmm Nov 25 '15 at 19:32
  • -1 This is interesting information but misleadingly presented, at least in the context of the question which asks about the EU and US. E.g. in 2008 (the year shown on the pie chart) there have been 15,765 total deaths, but only 33 of those in the US (and no islamist attacks at all in the EU, per [TESAT 2009](https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/tesat2009_1.pdf)). – Tgr Dec 03 '17 at 02:49
  • The NCTC report does not include breakdown of perpetrators per country, but [GTD](https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?expanded=no&casualties_type=b&casualties_max=&start_year=2008&start_month=1&start_day=1&end_year=2008&end_month=12&end_day=31&dtp2=all&success=yes&country=217&ob=GTDID&od=desc&page=1&count=100#results-table) does, and according to that none of the 2008 US terrorist attacks were islamist either (mostly far-right andeco-terrorist). – Tgr Dec 03 '17 at 02:54
6

According to dictionary the definition of terrorism:

"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

Using this definition for terrorism then no, most terrorists are not Muslim. The largest group of terrorists includes people from different religions and ethnic backgrounds who all wear government uniforms (some examples are here, here, and here).

As Brendan Behan so astutely pointed out:

"The terrorist is the one with the small bomb."

Muro
  • 669
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
    So is your claim that all war is terrorism? – Russell Steen Mar 23 '11 at 14:56
  • 11
    From the definition of terrorism - yes. War usually involves a political entity and terrorism is defined as using violence for political purposes. – Muro Mar 23 '11 at 15:02
  • 3
    Some definitions of terrorism (what’s the current UN definition?) explicitly exclude acts of war (i.e. acts sponsored by a government) but by this definition the 9/11 attacks wouldn’t be terrorism either. So I’m actually fine with the above definition. – Konrad Rudolph Mar 24 '11 at 13:38
  • 9
    Nowhere in your definition contains the word civilians. If you throw in the word civilians after the word coerce or "violence targetted at innocent civilians" then your definition makes some sense. I don't consider attacking a military base the same as attacking a bus full of civilians. Likewise, I don't consider targetting terrorists with a side affect of killing civilians as terrorism because the intent was not to intimidate or coerce the civilians. The intent was to kill the bad guys. I think most non-muslims agree that terrorism specifically targets civilians. – Dunk Apr 01 '11 at 21:02
  • 4
    Many acts of "war" in World War II targeted civilians. From both sides. I propose we retire the term terrorism. – gerrit Feb 13 '13 at 18:27
  • Wikipedia lists 30 millions civilian casualties in WW2 as opposed to 24 millions military casualties. So by this definition, WW2 has seen plentiful of terrorism. More details : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties – Autar Nov 25 '15 at 15:57
  • @Dunk: There's also the problem that before 9/11 Al-Qaeda attacked military targets exclusively. But those attacks were still reported as terrorism by the media and US government. – slebetman Nov 26 '15 at 07:45
  • Can you cite the dictionary you used? – Andrew Grimm Nov 26 '15 at 08:15
  • @Autar - I guess I have to repeat myself. Targeting civilians for the sake of killing civilians is quite different from civilians being killed during the course of hitting a military "relevant" target. I also think the holocaust and what Stalin did are a totally different category beyond terrorism. – Dunk Dec 03 '15 at 17:48
  • @gerrit - Please list examples and explain how the targets were not militarily relevant? The term terrorism has a very clear meaning by people who use it. So there is no need to "retire it". Just because civilians die because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time does not make the action terrorism. What makes it terrorism is the indiscriminate attacking of civilians with no military advantage to be gained at all from the action. e.g. Blowing up a bomb in a market is definitely terrorism. Blowing up a wall in a market in order to gain entry to invade the walled city is not terrorism. – Dunk Dec 03 '15 at 17:52
  • @slebetman - If there's a grey area then this is where it lies. Is a civilian or radical group a terrorist when they only attack military targets? I admit to maybe waffle on this one, but I would have to say yes they are terrorists because there is no military advantage to be gained from the attack. – Dunk Dec 03 '15 at 17:59
  • @Dunk How would you classify an attack aiming to kill the civilians employed in the production of military equipment? It's not always easy to distinguish what is a military target and what isn't. – gerrit Dec 03 '15 at 18:27
  • 1
    @Dunk Some accounts consider that the bombing of Dresden and other German cities were in part to demoralise the German population. In the end the debate on the word "terrorism" is about what was in the mind of the people who took the decisions, which is precisely why the term is problematic. [NB: I deleted an earlier comment where I mentioned allied strafing of civilians, of which there apparently is very limited reliable evidence] – gerrit Dec 03 '15 at 18:34