|
AMP Comment - February 28, 2008
New massive survey of Muslims belies
Bush rhetoric “why do they hate us?”
Why do they hate us? President George Bush posed this question to the American public shortly after 9/11 terrorist attacks. And in a strong affirmation of the power of propaganda, he replied: “They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”
Tellingly, the presidential rhetoric stands refuted and exposed by the latest survey of 500,000 Muslims in more than 35 Islamic states. Only about 7 per cent of Muslims condone terrorist attacks, but none of these "politically radicalized" gave religious justification for their beliefs, instead voicing fears that the West and the United States are seeking to occupy and dominate the Islamic world.
Most of them actually espouse democratic beliefs but are skeptical of their own governments and the United States' professed intention to spread democracy in the Muslim world.
Those were some of the key messages from the authors of a new book, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, which outlines the results from a Gallup poll. Based on the largest and most in-depth study of its kind, this book presents the first ever data-based analysis of the points of view of more than 90% of the global Muslim community.
The book is authored by John L. Esposito, a professor of international affairs and Islamic studies at Georgetown University, and Dalia Mogahed, Gallup's executive director of Muslim studies. It offers an evidence-based understanding of extremism, Islam, democracy and what approximately 1.3 billion Muslims really think about the West.
The survey of the world's Muslim community was commissioned by Gallup's chairman, Jim Clifton, shortly after US President George W Bush asked in a speech to congress ten days after 9/11: "Why do they hate us?"
Gallup posed questions on the minds of millions of people: Is Islam to blame for terrorism? Why is there so much anti-Americanism in the Muslim world? Who are the extremists? Where are the moderates?
Many of the poll's findings went against the "conventional wisdom" of US politicians, media commentators and the American public about Muslims' views of the West, the role of religion and the value of democracy, according to John L Esposito.
"What we have here is the ability to get beyond the battle of the experts" and let "the data lead the discourse," Esposito said while launching the book in Washington recently. What is needed is an overhaul of how the United States reaches out to people in the Muslim world, Esposito said, criticizing the current approach as "public diplomacy defined as public relations."
Gallup's polling found that most Americans - politicians and people - suggest improvements in education and more exchanges as a means of improving ties between the West and Islamic countries. What Americans fail to recognize, Esposito argued, is that Muslims lobbied just as hard for changes in US foreign policy - including a perceived "double standard" in promoting democracy around the world.
"One also has to face the fact that policy really does matter, It's the political grievances that are the real drivers" of radicalization,” said Esposito. In other words, it was not religious beliefs that have driven some Muslims to believe that the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington were justified.
Interestingly, among the overwhelming majority of Muslims, their views were driven less by a hatred of the West than a perception that the West hates them. Only 17 per cent said the West "respects" Islam.
When asked how the West could improve relations with the Muslim world, the most often offered response was: respect Islam, stop treating us like we’re inferior, stop degrading Muslims in your media.
The Gallup poll findings are not surprising. President Bush’s rhetoric - Why do they hate us? - was dehumanizing the enemy which is the first unwritten rule of war. To dehumanize, the enemy is portrayed as rude, crude and uncivilized. He is the other. He is not human. He is irrational.
Since a group stripped of its humanity is not seen as having human worth, they have no human rights. Such a demonized, out-group is not deserving of the protections that other human groups are entitled under international law and conventions. Such a development helps powerful governments and military alliances, and their media outlets, to justify the bombing and killing of civilians, and the ignoring of the human rights of the demonized group. (Burchfield cited by Erin S. LaPorte, The Criminal Race)
Once demonized and stripped of their humanity, it not only makes it easier for the battlefield solider to kill the “faceless, non-human enemy,” it is also easier to indiscriminately kill any member of “the enemy.” (Sam Keen cited by Erin S. LaPorte)
The war on terror was premised on this key question: why do they hate us? The common answer from Washington is that Muslim ‘radicals’ hate our way of life, our freedom and our democracy. It means that Muslims do not believe in freedom and democracy, in other words they are primitive people. After stripping Muslims from their humanity it was possible for us to indiscriminately kill them in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And finally, it will not be too much to say that the horrible US abuses in the Abu Ghraib prison of Iraq were possible after dehumanizing the Muslims.
Highlights of the poll:
Politicization of scholars
The politicization of scholars, experts and media commentators post 9/11 has created a minefield for policymakers and the general public as they search for answers to questions like: “What are the causes of radicalism and anti-Americanism?”, “Why do they hate us?”, “What do Muslim women think about their status in Islam?” “Is Islam compatible with democracy?”, “What are the causes of global terrorism?” and so many others. Suddenly a new empirically grounded tool emerged to get us beyond the limited interpretations and opinions of experts when answering the question: What do Muslims think and what do they care about?
West-East religious and cultural differences
While many believe anti-Americanism is tied to deep West-East religious and cultural differences, the data contradict these views. When asked what they admired most about the West, many Muslims – both politically radicalized and moderates – say they admire the West’s technology, freedom of speech, and value system of hard work.
In contrast, 57 percent of Americans when asked what they most admire about Muslim societies offer two responses: “Nothing” and “I don’t know.”
And even more surprising, the politically radicalized are more likely than moderates to associate Arab/Islamic nations with an eagerness to have better relationships with the West: Fifty-eight percent of the politically radicalized (versus 44 percent of moderates) expressed this.
Finally, no significant difference exists between the percentage of the politically radicalized and moderates who said: “better understanding between the West and Arab/Islamic cultures concerns me a lot.”
Although many in the West believe that anti-Americanism is tethered to a basic hatred of the West, respondents’ assessments of individual Western countries reveal a different picture.
How widespread is political radicalism?
Given the seemingly global presence and threat of extremism and terrorism, a basic question is how widespread is political radicalism, and thus the potential pool of extremism. The key questions asked to demarcate moderates from the politically radicalized was whether the 9/11 attacks were completely justified and whether they have an unfavorable or favorable view of the United States. Respondents were then categorized as moderate or politically radicalized:
(1) Moderate – the vast majority who said the 9/11 attacks were unjustified
(2) Politically Radicalized and thus potential supporters of extremism – 7 percent – who said the attacks were completely justified and view the United States unfavorably. Identification as “politically radicalized” does not mean they commit acts of violence but that they are a potential source for recruitment or support for terrorist groups. The intensity of their commitment to changing political situations makes them more likely to view other civilian attacks as justifiable.
Where relevant subsequent responses to additional questions (attitudes towards the West, democracy, etc.) were broken out or assessed in terms of these categories.
Defying the conventional wisdom about the drivers of Islamic extremism, both moderates and politically radicalized have similarly strong religious sentiments, as measured by frequency of religious service attendance and affirmation that religion is an important part of their lives. The politically radicalized are on average more educated and affluent than moderates; convey a more intense sense of being "dominated" or even "occupied" by the West. Responding to an open-ended question, politically radicalized frequently cite "occupation/U.S. domination" as their biggest fear, while moderates most often mention economic problems.
Who are the politically radicalized?
The conventional wisdom and intuitive sense of many has been that extremism and terrorism are driven by profound psychological, economic, political or religious problems: deranged, social misfits, unemployed, poorly educated, reject democracy and modernization, religious fanatics or zealots.
Thus, there has often been a reluctance to see extremists as otherwise intelligent, rational people responding to perceived grievances. Within weeks after 9/11, the media reported the “stunning discovery” that the attackers were not from the poor, unemployed and dispossessed.
The politically radicalized, on average, are more educated than moderates: 67 percent of those with extremist views have secondary or higher educations (vs. 52 percent of moderates). They are also more likely to report average or above-average income: 65 percent of the politically radicalized say they have average or above-average income versus 55 percent of moderates.
While unemployment, like poverty, is a major social problem in many Muslim countries, neither unemployment nor job status differentiate the politically radicalized from moderates. No difference exists in the unemployment rate among politically radicalized and moderates. Among those who are employed, the politically radicalized hold jobs with greater responsibility. They are not more “hopeless” than the mainstream.
However, they are more concerned and pessimistic about world affairs and international politics regarding issues like U.S. hegemony, invasion, and dependency.
Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of the politically radicalized compared to 48 percent of moderates disagree that “the U.S. will allow people in the region to ’fashion their own political future as they see fit without direct U.S. influence’.” Surprisingly, 50 percent of the politically radicalized feel more strongly that their progress will be helped by “moving toward governmental democracy” compared to 35 percent of moderates.
Ninety percent of the politically radicalized and 62 percent of moderates express absolute dislike for George W. Bush; 70 percent of the politically radicalized and 43 percent of moderates do not like former British Prime Minister Tony Blair “at all.” That level of dislike does not extend to other Western leaders. For example, dislike of former French President Jacques Chirac is significantly lower: 39 percent among the politically radicalized and 24 percent among moderates.
How to improve relations?
If, as conventional wisdom often indicates, the heart of Muslim resentment is an envy of our success, wealth and prosperity, they ‘hate’ us for what we have, not what we do, then does it mean that what Muslims really want to ‘improve relations’ with the West is for the West to provide economic support?
When asked how the West could improve relations with the Muslim world, the most often offered response was: respect Islam, stop treating us like we’re inferior, stop degrading Muslims in your media as well as a desire for assistance with technology, jobs and economic development.
The politically radicalized (40 percent) are far more likely than moderates (20 percent) to say Western societies do not show any concern for better co-existence with the Arab-Muslim world. The politically radicalized (37 percent) are also far more likely than moderates (20 percent) to feel the time for a better understanding between the West and the Arab/Muslim world probably will never come.
Americans, like the vast majority in the Muslim world, share a fundamental aversion to extremism. Asked what they admire least about the Muslim world, Americans said overwhelmingly “extremism/radicalism/not open to others’ ideas.” Likewise, when asked what they admired least about their own societies, Muslims’ top concerns included extremism and terrorism. This should not be surprising if we recall that the primary victims of Muslim extremism and terrorism have been Muslims. The “terrorist fringe,” far from being glorified, is rejected by citizens of predominantly Muslim countries just as it is by citizens in the United States.
Diagnosis or Misdiagnosis?
Diagnosing terrorism as a symptom and Islam as the problem, though popular in some circles, is flawed and has serious risks with dangerous repercussions. It confirms extremist beliefs and fears, alienates the moderate Muslim majority, and reinforces a belief that the war against global terrorism is really war against Islam. Whether one is radical or moderate, this negative attitude is a widespread perception.
The good news is that Americans and Muslims throughout the world have a fundamental aversion to extremism and terrorism. In addition, 9 out of 10 Muslims are moderates, another piece of good news for those optimistic about coexistence. However, if the 7 percent (91 million) of 1.3 billion Muslims today worldwide are politically radicalized and they continue to feel politically dominated, occupied and disrespected, the West’s opportunity to address these drivers of extremism will be as great as the challenge of succeeding.
From: Listening to the Voices of a Billion Muslims by John L. Esposito
|
