What *do* they believe anyway? #Islam

More than two years after the death of Osama bin Laden, concern about Islamic extremism remains widespread among Muslims from South Asia to the Middle East to sub-Saharan Africa. Across 11 Muslim publics surveyed by the Pew Research Center, a median of 67% say they are somewhat or very concerned about Islamic extremism. In five countries – Pakistan, Jordan, Tunisia, Turkey and Indonesia – Muslim worries about extremism have increased in the past year.

Against this backdrop, extremist groups, including al Qaeda, garner little popular support. Even before his death in 2011, confidence in al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had plummeted among many Muslims. Today, al Qaeda is widely reviled, with a median of 57% across the 11 Muslims publics surveyed saying they have an unfavorable opinion of the terrorist organization that launched the twin attacks on New York City and Washington, DC more than a decade ago.

The Taliban, who once shared Afghanistan as a base of operation with al Qaeda, are viewed negatively by a median of 51% of Muslims in the countries polled. Hezbollah and Hamas fare little better. Hezbollah, in particular, has seen its support slip in key Middle Eastern countries, including a 38 percentage point drop in favorable views among Egyptian Muslims since 2007.

In many of the countries surveyed, clear majorities of Muslims oppose violence in the name of Islam. Indeed, about three-quarters or more in Pakistan (89%), Indonesia (81%), Nigeria (78%) and Tunisia (77%), say suicide bombings or other acts of violence that target civilians are never justified. And although substantial percentages in some countries do think suicide bombing is often or sometimes justified – including a 62%-majority of Palestinian Muslims, overall support for violence in the name of Islam has declined among Muslim publics during the past decade.

These are among the key findings from a survey of 11 Muslim publics conducted by the Pew Research Center from March 3 to April 7, 2013. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 8,989 Muslims in Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Palestinian territories, Senegal, Tunisia and Turkey. The survey also finds that Nigerian Muslims overwhelmingly oppose Boko Haram, the extremist movement at the center of a violent uprising in northern Nigeria. One of Boko Haram’s stated aims is to establish sharia, or Islamic law, as the official law of the land. Nigerian Muslims are divided on whether their country’s laws should closely follow the teachings of the Quran.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, social scientists and counterterrorism experts have been struggling to understand what provokes someone to deliberately take the lives of innocent people. The religious veneer of al Qaeda's public posture led many analysts to search for answers in Islam's teachings. Some analysts have even argued that a wholesale revision of Muslim theology is the only way to defeat violent extremism.

Empirical evidence paints a different picture. Gallup analysis suggests that one's religious identity and level of devotion have little to do with one's views about targeting civilians. According to the largest global study of its kind, covering 131 countries, it is human development and governance - not piety or culture - that are the strongest factors in explaining differences in how the public perceives this type of violence.

The implications of these findings on public policy are far-reaching. The research suggests that to increase the public's rejection of targeting civilians, leaders would do well to focus far more on education and government accountability, and far less on religious ideology.

Human Development and Societal Stability Linked to Public Rejection of Violence

Rather than look to religion to explain public acceptance of violence, Gallup's analysis suggests that leaders should consider social and economic development and better governance. The way individuals think about violence against civilians, whether it is committed by the military or by an individual actor or small group, directly relates to the development and stability of society more broadly. Gallup analysts, however, cannot determine the direction of causality from the correlation.

Measuring Public Attitudes About Targeting Civilians

Gallup analysts set out to measure global opinion about the deliberate targeting of civilians by state and non-state actors, and its relationship to independent indicators, rather than attempt to define "terrorism." The Geneva Conventions of 1949, which deal with the protection of civilians, informed our survey question about military attacks on civilians. The U.S. Department of State report on Patterns of International Terrorism[1] guided our measurement of public attitudes toward individual or small group violence aimed at civilians. It is important to note that the questions specifically address the "targeting" of civilians, not simply their unintended harm as collateral damage.

Gallup scientists asked people to choose between absolutely rejecting targeting civilians as "never justified" and conditionally accepting the tactic as "sometimes justified." This simplification makes it easier to ask the same question globally.