Study: Muslim majorities turning backs on terrorism

by ryan | July 25, 2007 at 10:23 am

885 views | 8 Recommendations | 8 comments

As the threat of terrorism [defined as a violent attack on civilians by a non-military actor] becomes clouded in political mire, the cause of the tension and violence is often overlooked.

Fully 70 percent of Palestinians believe that suicide bombing is justified but support for terrorism is falling in the wider Muslim world, according to a comprehensive US survey released Tuesday.

The Pew Research Center said that its annual "Global Attitudes" report also showed that the United States' image in Muslim-majority countries remains "abysmal," and that solid majorities see Washington as a military threat.

And although this study does not identify causes for the attitudes the disparities, such as 70% of Palestinians believe suicide bombings are justified while only 34% of Lebanese (that is however down from a staggering 74% in 2002) agree does imply what is behind this attitude. I'm not going to draw conclusions because we all know that we can't conclude causality based on such circumstantial observations.

Nevertheless, let me observe that the terrorists movements in Palestine are more political in nature rather than fundamentally or religiously motivated. That is not to say that there is no religious component to the Palestinian struggle - there is especially within Hamas - however it is not necessarily the primary factor. This element of the Palestinian struggle perhaps makes it easier to justify suicide bombings and the fact that Israeli citizens are mandated to perform army service also affects the logic behind it.

Support for terrorist tactics has fallen in seven of the eight countries polled on that question since 2002, the Washington-based group said.

In Lebanon, those believing that suicide bombing is justified often or sometimes has slumped from 74 percent five years ago to 34 percent now.

In Pakistan, where Islamist violence has surged, the figure is just 9 percent. In parallel, the Pew group reported "large drops in support for Osama Bin Laden," the Al Qaeda founder blamed for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

It cited Jordan, where the percentage of Muslims who have "confidence in Bin Laden as a world leader" has slumped 36 percentage points since 2003.

But in the Palestinian territories, 41 percent said that suicide bombing was justified often, and 29 percent said sometimes. Just 6 percent said that it was never justified, by far the smallest proportion of the places polled.

"Acceptance of extreme terrorist tactics in the Palestinian territories is remarkably uniform across major demographic groups," including women, the young and the old, and those less religiously minded, Pew said.

Across the Muslim world, majorities fret that the United States could become a military threat to their country, including 93 percent of Bangladeshis, 77 percent of people in NATO ally Turkey, and 73 percent of Pakistanis.

The poll also found broad concern that tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims are not confined to Iraq and represent a growing problem across the global Islamic population.

That concern was greatest in Lebanon, at 88 percent, but dwindled further away from the region with majorities in Indonesia and Malaysia believing that the sectarian strife will be limited to Iraq.

2 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Langoustine

at 14:19 on July 25th, 2007

I think the horrific aspect of suicide bombings is that the bombers usually blow groups of civilians to smithereens - passengers on a bus or eaters in a pizzeria - not that the person who detonates the bomb also kills themself. In the Israeli/Palestinian conflict great numbers of Palestinian civilians are killed in Israeli military action. It;s fair to say that while the Israeli army does not try to kill civilians, it isn't that bothered when it does. It's also fair to say that over the last 6 months, many Palestinian civilians have died at the hands of Palestinian gunmen during the Hamas/Fatah fighting. If the definition of terrorism is people who are not in a recognised army targeting civilians, then of course only one side in the Israel/Palestine fight can ever be the terrorists, and thus the bad guys. The word has lost all meaning. What is interesting for me is the way people think about the conflict may perhaps be moving from "terrorism" (where we know that the Muslims are the bad guys who "hate our way of life") to "Apartheid" (where we know that the oppressors who appear so unjustifiably cruel are racist and wrong and why can;t they just understand that those they oppress are human beings with rights just like them). In this scenario the dispossessed and occupied Palestinians change from being cast as aggressors to victims, which is at least closer to their own narrative of what has happened to them over the past 60 years.

ryan

at 15:22 on July 25th, 2007

you are right when you say that according the definition of terrorism i referred to the israeli army would not be considered a terrorist orgainzation - however that does not mean that the israeli army is not held responsible for its actions or that it can do no wrong. perhaps the opposite, as an official defense force it is held to a higher standard of responsibility.

i do not agree that the word has lost all meaning. the goal of terrorism is to create terror within a society and to achieve a stated goal not my military means but rather by psychological means. that is terrorism and another factor which distinguishes it from an official military actor, like the IDF or the US Armed Forces. these organizations are 'victorious' when peace (on their tearms) is achieved.

Langoustine

at 02:48 on July 26th, 2007

Ryan, what you say is of course theoretically correct - but it bears little relation to what happens on the ground, which I have seen at first hand having spent the last year working there as a journalist on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. In theory of course the IDF is held responsible for its actions. If you phone up the IDF spokesman's office the guys there will of course tell you that the IDF holds its soldiers accountable for what they do. That's because they understand that if they did not say that then the IDF and its deeds would be less easy for the world to swallow. However, a very high number of Palestinian civilians have been killed by the Israeli military in recent years, more than the number of Israeli civilians who have died in suicide bombings, and the number of Israeli soldiers who have been punished for killing them is miniscule. Also, for the majority of the recent period, a law has been in place which states that no Palestinian can pursue legal cases for compensation against the State of Israel for the loss or injury to relatives or damage or loss of property during military operations. It all adds up to Israel being able to act with impunity against anyone, civilian or otherwise, without any checks whatsoever, despite the formal existence of such procedures. I'm not saying that the Israeli military is any worse than any other military in the world, or that if the Palestinians had better weapons they would not try to kill more Israeli civilians. I'm merely stating the facts of the matter as I saw them.

I think you are also naive in your definition of terrorism. Using bombs or guns to kill people is military action - doesn;t matter if you are a soldier in a recognised army or in an unrecognised armed group. Violence of any sort creates psychological fear. On my first night in Gaza I saw missiles shot by an Israeli F-16 jet just tear out of the night sky and blow up a nearby house. It was like a film. In the street, people covered in blood, hit by the bits of concrete that flew everywhere, were being loaded into cars and driven to hospital. Every morning kids were waking up to the sound of heavy machine gun fire from Israeli apache helicopter gunships or to AK47 fire from Hamas and Fatah militants fighting each other. Those kids are wide-eyed with terror. Like Israeli kids when Hezbollah or Hamas were trying to rocket them.

The point i am trying to make, Ryan, is that the use of the word "terrorism" as it is in the article you cite divides the world into two - those who don;t support terrorism = non-muslims, and those who do = some Muslims. It is an oversimplified manichean good vs bad view of the world which does not do justice to the complexity of individual situations and perpetuates a dumbed-down way of looking at them on the part of the public, which in turn will end up perpetuating the conflicts themselves. Pernicious.

bo_gazi

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 15:09 on July 25th, 2007

Ryan Nadel,

First, thanks for asking to use my graphic design about terrorism. Glad you like it!

Second, as a Muslim, I have few words to say about your subject. There are many, many groups in Islam as any other religion in the world. Maybe the two major groups are Sunna and Shiite. Under each one of those, there are many groups also. There are some "crazy" groups such as "Wahabisim", the group that controls Saudie Arabia. The biggest terrorists in the world such as Ben Laden are believers of this group. I gotta say also that non-Muslims aren't the first victim of that group. We're, Shiite, Muslims, suffered from them more than any group! Many terrorism attacks in Iraq prove that like the attackes that accured in Karbala city, where most people there are shiites. Also, our holy shrines are suffered from them. We have a holy shrine in Albaqee, Saudi Arabia, and it was destroyed by that group a hundred years ago. We have one also in Samurra, Iraq, and it was just destroyed by the same group.

I'm Muslim, and I admit we do have bad groups, but they misunderstood Islam. Islam means in Arabic "Peace." I can't cause harm to anyone just because he or she has different believes!!! By the of God in Koran, the holy book of Muslims, it says "We created you people in different tribes and cultures to know each other." The real Muslim believes in non-violence, peace, and freedom.

Thanks again Ryan for the nice, nutral article!

Faisal Husain
Pennsylvania, USA

ryan

at 15:33 on July 25th, 2007

Faisal,

Thanks for your comment. The first hand insight into the situation is helpful and makes it all that more frustrating.

I know that many Muslims are peace loving people and that Islam can and should be a religion of peace. the question I struggle is why has the extremist version of Islam become the most vocal and seemingly the most prominent...but that's the million dollar question. What do you think can be done?

bo_gazi

at 18:12 on July 25th, 2007

Good question. I think those groups have the power! Countries support those groups such as Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest Islamic countries, but the religious group that controls the country is "Wahabisim." In Saudi Arabia, if you're Shiite, which is an Islamic group, you won't be able to build a place to worship God (Like church for Christians) in your way. They have money, media, and power.

However, people should be open minded and they shouldn't take those Muslims (They call themselves Muslims!) as an example of Islam. If a Jew does something wrong, that doesn't mean all Jews are bad!

In brief, I think it's my responsibilty as a Muslims to show people the bright side of Islam. And it's all people's responsibility to search and look at the issue from all the angles.

Peace be with you all

korzac

at 23:35 on August 4th, 2007

To Moonwolf.

I quote from your own comments:

1. "I have done an extensive amount of research on the situation in the middle east and that "oversimplified manichean view" is what is promulgated constantly in North American and doubtless in Britain and Australia."

You should know that many others also did " an extensive amount of research...." and their findings are much more moderate than yours.

So you are perhaps a non-falsifiable man, and facts and argumentation of the others are your non-grata territory.

______________

2. "Could it be because the most extreme version of Judaism, Zionism, and extremist Christianity wielded against Muslim populations and countries since Biblical times have created the monster of Islamic militancy?

Cause and effect. It really is that simple."

You should know that many other think that there are very extremist versions of Islamic "faith". ("It really is that simple" as you said).

So you are perhaps a non-falsifiable man, and your faith in the extremism of Judaism, Zionism and Chirstianity is unbatable and non-negotiable.

________________

3. "99% of Muslims are just ordinary, hard working family folk, and the muslim population of the Middle East has, in my opinion been damned patient with white, christian and zionist treachery, as well as that perpetrated against them by their own despots and religious zealots."

You should know that 99% of Jews are just ordinary, hard working folk...

So you are perhaps a non-falsifiable man, and armed with your own blend of "white christian and zionists treachery" (as you said} what is left of this miserable world?

_______________

4. "The infallible Israeli propaganda machine, which for so long was able to control the message is breaking down. The internet is now allowing anyone who wants to investigate and find some truth to see past their chicanery and manipulation."

You should know that a majority of the israeli people think that their "infallible" propaganda machine did always a very bad job, and as you say, the internet, also allow to investigate the chicanery and manipulation of all sort of people.

So you are perhaps a non-falsifiable man, the internet is the new Messiah where your only truths shall be revealed.

__________________

5. "As in most conversations, like a rule of thumb, most everything that comes after the word "but" is bullshit, generally a bunch of justifying and explaining."

You should know that the word but, as a conjunction between two or more clauses, is a very useful word. If you say "..But I love you!" Is 'I love you', coming after the word 'but', bullshit? Or let me quote you again (from your reply to underthebridge.abovethewater) "..When your guys kill innocent people they have made mistakes", but the other guys when they kill people it's terrorism." How should you read the words coming after but, as bullshit?

So you are perhaps a non-falsifiable-men, the word 'but' revealing the weakness, stupidity, treachery and who knows what more, of all the others.

_________________________

And finally, thank you for agreeing that there is a fact called the state of Israel.