This is the same with all kind of violence most of it doesn't have a reason.
But in this case it has. In the case of terrorism it's a business. Their goal it's to stablish an image and get the people that might oppose them prefer to do not intervene. And the people they want submission be that submissive. With this they can exercise control. Impose authority, sell protection (for example) and control any kind of illicit activities.
It's the same with the drug cartels like "The knights of Sinaloa", the organized crime remember the "Cossa Nostra". The mongols to cite an old example.
Conquer by fear.
To end it, well that's another issue. You need to end their flux of money. Cut their recruitment systems. End the fear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
End it by replacing guns with first aid and tanks with schools. End it by replacing violence with empathy, by replacing fear with love.
There are some issues that are global such as basic human rights and we can't just say we won't interfere. If you expect to export your oil to us and do business with us then don't take away basic rights and freedoms from people who don't agree with the majority, i.e. with Islamic theocracy.
If you think women rights are suppressed in east countries you are wrong, why? 1. you dont live there, so you cannot give objective idea. 2. things which are strange to our culture might be totally acceptable for their culture and maybe they are happy with that. Think about western women who wears anything she likes or even doesnt wear anything if she wants, so does this mean eastern people should come to west and bomb europe and say hey you are violating women right as we believe in our culture? what the hell is this? is this acceptable? when charlie hebdo creates comicses about died Russian people in Egypt is this acceptable? or do you say this is freedom of speech? f..k this kind of dual face freedom of speech and democracy, give people their rights to live on their country with their culture in peace, do your business in your country, if you want to buy something, buy it, dont try to teach them how to live, they know how to live, if they dont they are trying to find a way, this is a nature of human.
So in that sense, there is no Muslim-violence problem any more than there is a Christian-violence problem, or a Hebrew-violence problem. So I don't think the solutions to this problem would be in any way specific to Islam. We, generally (the US included) have a serious mass-violence problem. We're all aware of the school shootings, and army base shootings, and theater shootings, and other kinds of violence domestically. I'm hoping that there is a solution to address all of these types of violence.
So far, the only thing I can think of is: better mental health care. But I'm sure there are many reasons that's not a real solution.
Ending it will take decades, as trust comes on foot but leaves on horseback.
Here is a sample of such quotes directly from the Quran:
"Believers, if you yield to the infidels they will drag you back to unbelief and you will return headlong to perdition. . . .We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. . . . The Fire shall be their home" (3:149-51)
"Believers, do not follow the example of the infidels, who say of their brothers when they meet death abroad or in battle: ‘Had they stayed with us they would not have died, nor would they have been killed.' God will cause them to regret their words. . . . If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, God's forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches they amass" (3:156).
"God will not forgive those who serve other gods besides Him; but He will forgive whom He will for other sins. He that serves other gods besides God is guilty of a heinous sin. . . . Consider those to whom a portion of the Scriptures was given. They believe in idols and false gods and say of the infidels: ‘These are better guided than the believers'" (4:50–51).
Yes there are also some quotes in the Quran that contradict these quotes (like all religious texts, it's highly contradictory), and some people may be animated by charismatic individuals who distort the text, but Muslims who commit violence in the name of Allah need not believe anything more than the specific claims that the Quran makes to rationalize their violent actions.
The solution to this problem is like asking, "What's the solution to someone who still believes in Santa Claus at the age of 30?"
If you encountered such a person, would you let them continue to believe in Santa Claus or would you empathetically attempt to communicate to that person that they need to deeply examine their beliefs and ensure they're based in reality, based on evidence that can be readily observed.
But when most atheists and agnostics encounter a Muslim (or a Christian, or a Jew, or any religious person), they simply roll their eyes and shrug it off because they don't "want to get into it with them."
I'm not saying you have to go around trying to prove everybody wrong all the time, that's a recipe for ensuring everyone hates you. But religious beliefs are dangerous and they are the direct cause of violence -- not just Muslims of course, the Crusades are an obvious example of Christianity being the direct cause of violence.
The solution is to be empathetic, but not apologetic about the fact that their religious beliefs are not rooted in reality, and all beliefs should be.
TL;DR -- When you encounter a religious person, be empathetic, but not apologetic when communicating that their beliefs are based on a made up story rather than rooted in reality (as all beliefs should be).
If language advocating violence in a religion's scriptures were in itself sufficient to motivate its adherents to commit acts of violence, I would expect comparable levels of violence from these other religions. Given that this is clearly a problem unique to Islam in the modern age, it seems that the proximate cause can't be the Islamic scriptures alone.
Even if I'm not convinced, I disagree that you deserve to be downvoted. You've voiced an unpopular opinion, but it isn't rude or inflammatory (except possibly for the Santa analogy) and doesn't advocate inhumane behavior toward Muslims.
My hypothesis is twofold: (1) The people doing the violence have been sold on these passages of the scriptures by others; and (2) The people doing this selling are acting for another reason. Hence, the scriptures are serving as a justification, not a cause in and of themselves. There were plenty of times in history where Christians used passages to justify their actions, while the actions themselves were motivated by completely different desires. Essentially the people in discussion here are using scriptures in the same way that lawyers use legal code -- not as a reason to sue, but as a justification of why suit is permissible.
It's all too easy to point a finger at the justification being used. In fact, the ego loves doing so since it helps one to remain willfully ignorant of the actual reasons behind the occurrences. Religion is not the cause; Religion is the justification. Without looking at the cause, one cannot answer the why, nor can one know how to resolve the issue without jumping on the "It's all the religion's fault" bandwagon. The ego loves the path of least resistance.
For example, the Tsarnaev brothers were born in Kyrgyzstan and raised and educated in the West, yet they committed acts of violence against the United States in retaliation for its foreign policy in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What would have motivated them to commit these acts on behalf of Afghanistan and Iraq, countries to which they had no personal attachment, except for their religious belief that jihad was justified after the invasion of Muslim lands? In other words, what renders a person susceptible to "being sold" Islamic demagoguery other than the content of Islam itself?
As far as susceptibility, I would imagine it's pretty much the same as for all sorts of other fringe groups, such as the KKK. Sometime individuals join such groups to give themselves a sense of brotherhood, which is probably more tempting for individuals who don't fit into other circles of society for one reason or another.
Perhaps what makes these Islamic extremist groups different from many others is that (a) they are often completely underground and (b) they actively (and successfully) recruit people who may be susceptible. My guess is this active recruitment (a) makes the groups bigger, (b) provides them with the tools they need, and (c) gives the participants an assurance that they will be remembered for helping the group in its goals.
Back to the original point, I'm thinking that those at the top of these groups are like politicians in Western states -- they issue plans and orders to those below them, who don't necessary know what the true cause behind the acts is. By appealing to a higher power (the Quran), the higher-ups are able to obscure the true reasons behind the plans.
The true reasons are probably known only at the top. Any grievances between groups of people could be included in these reasons, whether over resources, dominance, influence, ethnicity, land, or culture. I guess what I was trying to say from the beginning is that the primary drive is probably one of the more common reasons listed above, while the official justification involves the scriptures. Few groups of people in this world, it seems, will admit that they are acting out of self-interest. A more popular approach seems to be saying it was a higher power's wishes.
A good counterargument might be that these people are acting in violence to gain their reward(s) in the afterlife. The Bible too calls for violence in various instances, to my understanding, but it sounds like the Quran is more explicit about the rewards for violence. Nevertheless, people are tricksters. It would not surprise me if the higher-ups are using these rewards to drive those at the bottom to carry out acts toward a defined worldly goal. After all, then there would be benefit both for the higher-ups and for the suicide bombers. Being able to convince others that they will receive grand rewards in the afterlife if they just carry out your plans would be a very powerful tool.
You're right that other religions have similarly violent claims (like Christianity), but we generally don't see people going around committing violent acts and using the Bible as justification for them.
Here's how I account for the difference -- most Christians no longer deeply believe in the more violent passages in the Bible anymore. For example, what would the average Christian say if you asked that person, "should adulterers be put to death?" [1] The far majority of Christians will say no. You don't see many pastors and priests preaching fire and brimstone anymore. All their parishioners have gone elsewhere (but those verses are still in the Bible!) Nonetheless, Christians certainly had their turn in senselessly murdering people (e.g. the Crusades), and those people rationalized their actions using actual verses in the Bible.
However, if you ask the average Muslim, "Can suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam be justified?" A large percentage of them will say yes! [2] Even if it's not a majority of Muslims, the fact that there are double-digit percentages who either "sometimes" or "rarely" say such actions are justified is scary.
Now as for the question of WHY do most Christians no longer believe in violence while Muslims do, I don't have a fully formed opinion on that matter, so I'll withhold it. But I still think it's valid to claim that religious texts can and are used as justification for violence.
[1] Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death."
[2] Using the numbering at the bottom of the page, see the table on page 53 --http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-ameri...
Given that people are always motivated by their beliefs, isn't the reason that Muslims hold their beliefs the "root cause" of Muslim violence? You seem to argue that the reason is simply that violence is promoted by the Quran. But this begs the question of why they believe the violent parts of the Quran, while other religious groups ignore similar passages in their own holy texts.
I think those who disagree with you would claim that many Muslims hold to a fundamentalist interpretation of their scriptures for historical reasons unrelated to the text itself, Western misadventures in the Near East among them.
I think to answer the question I need to start by researching why Christians stopped being animated by the violent passages of the Bible, and only subscribe to the (relatively) more benign ones (generally).
I think the point I was actually making (albeit inadvertently) is that as long as Muslims believe the full text of the Quran is actually true, they will be motivated to violence (yes it may require some charismatic person to push them, or some sort of social encouragement, but that person or group also generally believes in the text of the Quran).
In contrast, someone who subscribes to Jainism could never be animated to commit a violent act rationalized by their religious text, because Jainism is against all forms of violence.
TL;DR - The content of the religious text matters, even if other factors are also at play.
I think it should be pointed out though that you have basically made a good and qualified epistemological argument for empiricism. Again, I see nothing wrong with that. But these arguments are nothing new and have, quite literally, been around for millennia. Religion, with all of the varying texts and belief systems, falls squarely into an argument within epistemology. All I ask is that people remember there are many theories in this space of philosophy and while you might "communicat[e] that their beliefs are based on a made up story rather than rooter in reality", they may point out that your reality has changed significantly over a very very short periods of time as abilities to use your senses in different ways to gather knowledge have evolved and changes, and that your reality will continue to do so.
Now, with that, these are philosophies! I can't stand when we teach philosophies as sciences in school (yes, I know, this is a personal belief, but it still drives me batty).
I'm not claiming that I perfectly understand reality (who does?), but I am claiming that religious texts (and the people who wrote them) that unequivocally claim that there is a god and they know the will of god, are not rooted in reality. I don't think any religious people claim there is verifiable evidence that their beliefs are correct.
And if you're willing to adopt beliefs on faith alone, how do you decide which beliefs you require evidence for and which beliefs you don't require evidence for?