On Islam and Violence

By Dyab Abou Jahjah

​Why are Muslims so violent? Why does it seem that most acts of violence are committed in the name of Islam? Is Islam merely the victim of bad PR and a continuous smear campaign? Or is the truth somewhere in the middle?
These are questions many of us are confronted with on a daily basis—and they deserve an answer.

Let me start by saying that questions about human nature are rarely driven by a pure pursuit of truth. Every question we ask is shaped by our worldview, our experiences, our emotions, and our biases.
Some Muslims are violent—that is a fact. And not just the extreme cases of fascist movements like ISIL and other Salafi-Jihadi groups. Ordinary Muslims can be violent too—violent husbands, violent fathers, violent police officers, violent rulers, violent football players, and so on. But the same can be said for Christians, atheists, Jews, Buddhists, and every other group of people. The real question is not whether Muslims can be violent, because violence is a universal human trait. Animals are violent. Nature itself is violent.
The real question is twofold: Are Muslims more violent than other people? And if they are, is that because they are Muslim?
Comparing the ComparableTo answer this, we must compare like with like. We can compare Muslims and Christians, because both are religious communities. But we cannot compare Muslims to, say, Americans—because one category is a religious identity, while the other is a national identity. More importantly, millions of Americans are Muslim.
However, just as Turkey—a secular but Muslim-majority nation—should be included in any discussion about Muslim violence, the same logic applies to Christian-majority nations like the United States or European countries. When assessing the historical and contemporary record of violence, one cannot ignore Christian heritage nations simply because they do not identify as Christian states today. Their history, shaped by Christian traditions and institutions, must be accounted for in the same way Muslim-majority nations are.
So again: Are Muslims more violent than Christians?
Methodology: Texts or Actions?How do we answer this question? Should we compare the scriptures of Islam and Christianity to see which one is more violent? Or should we examine the historical and contemporary behavior of both communities and base our conclusions on facts?
Since we are talking about violence, we are referring to actions—not beliefs, not interpretations, but concrete events. We are looking at massacres, wars, genocides, body counts. Violence is not an idea; it is an act. Therefore, if we want to analyze who is more violent, we must look at historical and contemporary realities—not just religious texts.
If we later decide to explore the roots of violence, an analysis of ideas, beliefs, and theological interpretations may be useful. But first, we must establish the factual basis: Who has committed more violence, Muslims or Christians?
A Historical ComparisonIf we compare the historical record of Muslim violence with that of Christian violence, the numbers are telling. The Holocaust, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the brutality of European colonialism, the Transatlantic slave trade, and even the Crusades—these atrocities, one way or another, are linked to Christianity and the Christian West. Some were explicitly carried out as Christian wars or religious endeavors; others were justified under Christian theological, political, or moral frameworks.
The Muslim world, by contrast, has never produced anything close to the scale, industrial efficiency, or ideological fervor of mass murder that Christianity and the culturally Christian West have displayed throughout history—and into the present day.
Yes, Arab, Turkish, and other Muslim-majority powers have waged wars and committed atrocities in the name of God, and they continue to do so today. But the sheer quantity and quality of violence—both in terms of numbers and systematic execution—pales in comparison to what Western, Christian-heritage nations have inflicted on the world.

for more info see: White, Matthew (2012). Atrocities: The 100 Deadliest Episodes in Human History. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. pp. 271, 578.

But did Christians kill because they were religious or had a Christian culture? Or did they kill in spite of it?
Is Christianity an inherently evil teaching? Does it encourage genocide, slavery, and racism?
Opinions may differ on this, and that is understandable. However, beyond any subjective interpretation, the facts and figures speak for themselves. Objectively, Christians and culturally Christian nations have killed more—and have been much better at it. The fact that they use advanced technology does not change the nature of the deed. Cutting innocent people to pieces is an atrocity, whether it is done with a kitchen knife or with a remote-controlled, satellite-guided drone.
But did Christians kill over faith, or did people kill for money, power, or pride—and they just happened to be Christian?
Let’s reframe the question: Did Nazism emerge in Germany because Hitler’s ideas were so convincing to the masses? Or did Hitler’s ideas resonate with Germans in the 1930s because of the specific conditions of their time?
To put it more philosophically: Do we live in a world of ideas, or do ideas emerge from the world we live in and the conditions within it?
This is not a simple debate. Great philosophical traditions have waged intellectual battles over this question for centuries—and still do today. But why does it even matter?
Do Muslims kill over faith? Or are they driven by other motives, using faith merely as a narrative to justify their actions? It is the same question—and it can always be asked.
Avoiding the Question?It may seem reasonable to object at this point and argue that we started discussing the alleged violent nature of Islam, yet somehow ended up discussing the violent history of the West and Christianity.
Is this a form of deflection? Are Muslims simply trying to evade criticism of their own violent religion by shifting the focus elsewhere?
And besides, why even bring up history when we are talking about the world today? Sure, the West was violent in the past—perhaps even because of Christianity. But both the West and Christianity have evolved into civilized and pacifist societies. Can we say the same about Islam and the Islamic world?
The Myth of Western PacifismNothing could be further from the truth. The West, shaped by its Christian heritage and led by the United States as its political and military powerhouse, remains extremely belligerent and aggressive in our modern era.
This is not about invoking some distant and forgotten history to make a point. The United States and its allies have fought the most wars in modern times, have killed the largest number of people, and continue to do so on a daily basis.
To claim that the West is pacifist is merely to echo the propaganda that is fed to a gullible public.

Comparison of death tall (prof. Juan Cole)

Where Does This Leave Us?To start with, it ridicules the question of whether Muslims are more violent. When put to the test of reality, this question—often little more than a statement—collapses like a house of cards. Not only are Muslims not more violent, but they are also among the biggest losers in the global cycle of violence.
Considering the fact that there are around 1.5 billion Muslims in the world and that many Muslim-majority regions and countries are occupied, colonized, or under attack by Western powers and their allies (Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Mali, Chechnya, Kashmir, etc.), the actual level of violence committed by Muslims is relatively minor compared to the reputation they have been given.
The Spectacle of Islamist TerrorismThe emergence of Muslim fascism in the early 1990s—primarily through Al-Qaeda and its later offshoots like ISIL—has played a significant role in shaping this perception.
The global terrorist network Al-Qaeda, which was formed during the Afghan jihad with CIA and Saudi support before going rogue in the early 1990s, has actually killed far fewer people than the Christian fundamentalist Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, to name just one example. However, the difference is that Al-Qaeda operated on a global scale and targeted the heart of international power—the United States, and to a lesser extent, Europe—while the LRA remained largely confined to Uganda and neighboring African countries.
This global reach made Islamist terrorism more spectacular, with events such as 9/11, the USS Cole bombing, and ISIL’s execution of Western hostages, ensuring maximum visibility. On top of that, Al-Qaeda and its affiliates perfected the art of media manipulation, crafting dramatic and gruesome spectacles that were broadcast worldwide.
The Symbiotic Relationship Between Jihadists and IslamophobesAt the other end of the spectrum, right-wing conservatives and racist ideologues have amplified this distorted image, reinforcing the same narrative that jihadists themselves propagate. Instead of recognizing Islamic fascism as a fringe movement—and more importantly, acknowledging that the vast majority of its victims are Muslims and that those fighting against it are also predominantly Muslims—it is often falsely portrayed as the mainstream of Islam.
This fuels Islamophobia and strengthens the conflict-driven worldview that groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIL seek to promote.
Israeli propaganda and diplomacy have also capitalized on this fear of Islamist extremism, using it to discredit Palestinian resistance factions by falsely equating ISIL and Al-Qaeda with Hamas and other political Islamist movements. However, this comparison is completely misleading. In reality, the Muslim Brotherhood-inspired ideology that Hamas follows is one of the fiercest ideological enemies of jihadist extremism.
As a matter of fact, Hamas is actively fighting ISIL right now in Yarmouk Camp in Damascus and beyond.
Islamists and Islamophobes: Two Sides of the Same CoinIn this sense, Western Islamophobes and Islamist fascists are objective allies. They share the same reductionist and binary vision of the world:

• Both insist that Islamic terrorism represents mainstream Islam
• Both seek to discredit attempts by moderate Muslims and non-Muslims to find common ground
• Both feed off fear, division, and conflict

By reinforcing these divisions, they serve the same ultimate goal: to prevent coexistence and to justify perpetual cycles of violence.