They make up about 2-3% of the population in Western Europe and North America.
So presumably the next time someone sets off a bomb at a crowded concert or sporting event random chance would suggest it's got a 1-in-40 or so chance to be a muslim.
Do you care to make a bet on those odds?
For all bomb attacks on crowds in the US, Canada and Western Europe:
- If the bomber is not a Muslim I give you $100.
- If the bomber is a Muslim you give me $4000.
Seems fair. Even in your favor since the point of this thread is Muslims are even less likely than average to be terrorists.
I am certain that that is not a fair structuring of the betting game given that you've not taken into consideration other factors. We already know that in our modern time terrorism is used as a catch-all phrase for radical Islamic terrorism and has tended to exclude other types of mass shooting and murders committed, this despite the fact that FBI has long divided terrorism into two categories: domestic and international. Domestic terrorism is defined as
“the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States (or its territories) without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” International terrorism is defined as “
violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. Acts are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government. These acts transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate, or the locale in which perpetrators operate.” So, for example, despite this model and definition of terrorism, 2012 Aurora mass shooting is not classified as domestic terrorism nor is 2016 Charleston Church massacre. However, ask the people in the theater or church how they felt when bullets started flying; the survivors will tell you they did feel terrorized. Please understand that the definition of terrorism has been politicized; that is why in the media words like "mass murderer" are used and not terrorism even when the violent or threatened act of violence fits the FBI's textbook definition of domestic terrorism under the broader bracket and umbrella of "terrorism."
Therefore, while it is true that Muslims are less likely than on average to be terrorists, it is highly unlikely to be the case that you cannot surmise correctly the perpetrator's religion from news coverage when the media starts using the term "terrorism."
Furthermore, CNN in 2014 published an article which estimated that "
on the low end, an estimated 85,000 men are fighting in jihadist groups around the world; on the high end, 106,000." Pew Research Study published in 2017 an article which places the
number of Muslims worldwide in the year 2010 to have been an estimate of 1.6 billion. So doing some basic arithmetic, we get that about 0.006625% of the Muslim population are
jihadists.
Additionally, the single biggest predictor in our time at least of when any person is going to become a terrorist or is about to commit a terrorist action is not religion but instead a person's content on social media pages and participation, whether that is FB, MySpace, Instagram, Twitter, forums, etc. Most people, at least of the Millennial or Gen Z generation, inhabit the space of social media as if it is the real world, and they imbibe social media participation as part of their identity and lifeblood. Therefore, social media is likely to give more information about a person's thinking patterns indicative of any problems ranging alienation or wanting to vent grievance to endorsement of violence and contemplation of violence than picking out any single person based on orientation in any religion, race, or culture.
Moreover, extremists are generally a vocal peoples; they want to be heard and they will likely have been using some avenue to vent their extremism or trying to find like-minded people whether that is out on the Internet or real life. They only seem "invisible" to the average person right before their moment of extreme and heightened visibility on news media because we've been not been paying attention to the signs and have not been taking them literally at their word. Let me give you an example: If a person says, "I think abortion is wrong," though of course we cannot know for 100% sure, we'd still have to say he is unlikely to be a person who's going to be willing or wanting to shoot up an abortion clinic because those words are not indicative of wanting to do harm to anyone. However, a person saying, "Those murderers who have been killing babies deserve to be shot" is an indicative of an extremist mentality. And a person saying, "I hate abortion clinics and shooting the murderers is a noble service I'm willing to do" is instructive of how this person is no longer just content to sit around but is now in contemplation stage of committing domestic terrorism.
Peace.
