New Muslim Public Opinion Survey

PIPA has just released the results of another major public opinion survey in four Muslim countries (Egypt, Indonesia, Morocco, and Pakistan).   The survey is unusually interesting, with some very well-designed questions.  Overall, the survey strongly supports the notion that al-Qaeda's "frame" has made great inroads even if the organization itself has not:  strikingly high percentages of Arabs (especially) have come to share key elements of the al-Qaeda worldview, which represents considerable success for what I've called "al-Qaeda's constructivist strategy."   At the same time, there are important nuances in these views which should be recognized.

Egypt is the most interesting of the countries for me, though all of course are important. Only 25% of Egyptians say that they agree with al-Qaeda's goals and its attacks on Americans, while 31% say they agree with al-Qaeda's views of America but not its attacks on Americans (31% say they disagree with both). Only 15% consider attacks on civilians for political purposes to be justified, and 88% consider groups which commit such attacks (such as al-Qaeda, named in the question) to be violating the principles of Islam.  Only 8% say that attacks on civilians in the United States or American citizens working in Islamic countries would be justified (and only 4% say the same about Europeans).   I've argued in numerous forums that a narrowly defined 'war of ideas' - focusing specifically on delegitimizing the use of violence against civilians for political ends - was very winnable.   These results demonstrate this quite graphically. 

But this 'narrow' success doesn't necessarily translate up to a higher political plane.  Even as most Egyptians rejected terrorist methods, only 20% expressed negative feelings about Osama bin Laden personally. 91% of Egyptians approve of attacks on American soldiers in Iraq.  Egyptians strongly supported most of the specific goals associated with al-Qaeda, despite their ambivalence about the organization itself or its methods.    90% said they supported the goal of "standing up to America and affirming the dignity of the  Islamic people."  91% want to "keep Western values out of Islamic countries."  92% agree that the US goal is to weaken and divide the Islamic world, and only 9% think that the US-led war on terror is intended primarly to protect the US from terrorism. 45% see a clash of civilizations as inevitable (by far the highest of any of the four countries surveyed).    In short, the al-Qaeda worldview - of a world divided between clashing civilizations and Islam under a comprehensive assault from the West - seems widely spread and increasingly entrenched.

In the domestic sphere, the survey - like all other comparable surveys - shows very strong support for democracy alongside strong support for more Islamic government.  74% support the strict application of sharia law, while 67% supported the idea of establishing an Islamic caliphate.  But 92% view economic interdependence and global communications favorably.  82% view democracy favorably.   88% say that "people of any religion should be free to worship according to their own beliefs".  What these findings suggest is that whatever Western scholars conclude about the compatibility of Islamism and democracy, Egyptians do not seem to see any intrinsic conflict.   

There is a lot more of interest in this survey, and interested readers should most definitely study the findings themselves. 

Comments

[Ms .45]

"74% support the strict application of sharia law... 82% view democracy favorably."

What exactly do you think they mean by "strict application of sharia law" or "democracy"? For instance, does "sharia law" mean hudud laws? I note that Indonesians had a bulge in the "agree somewhat" category, and Indonesians in the past have not been known for their interest in cutting people's hands off. Are they thinking of issues such as corruption when they say they want sharia law?

Conversely, I don't want to crap on their idea of democracy - plenty of Westerners don't have a sophisticated idea of democracy - but I'm guessing they don't mean liberal democracy? This wasn't a terrible survey, but I'd still like better questions.

Also, when you finally get around to blogging about the Leiken vs. Muravchik debate, I've written something at http://jovialfellow.blogspot.com/2007/04/conservative-infighting-over-muslim.html

[Bob Saccamanno]

I take your point about "meaning" but this is a fundamental problem for any survey. When not explicitly defined as part of the questionnaire by the principal investigator, the standard answer is to tell the respondent, "x is whatever it means to you" so that the bias of definitions falls onto the respondent side of the equation rather than being influenced by the interviewer's understanding. And it is my understanding that this is the way PIPA handles things as well. Your point would be stronger were this a survey specifically about application of Shari`ah or of democratic practices where you could delve into more specifics. Researchers have to balance not having too many questions (which causes people to opt out and creates nonresponse error) against posing more detailed questions to aid interpretation of results.

[Ms .45]

Oh, I'm not criticising the survey itself - it's just frustrating because I know that mainstream media are likely to report this as "ZOMG Mooslims want to cut off ur handz!!!1!" (my own government has been quite happy to wave the 'strict sharia law' red flag to frighten the electorate), which is why I crave more detail.

I used to do market research in a call centre (please forgive me) and it was so frustrating when people would ask "what do you mean by that?" and I wasn't allowed to tell them (and yes, my calls were monitored). After about three weeks we had Christmas holidays and they phoned and told me not to come back. Best sacking ever.

[Benjamin Cook]

The debate shouldn't be framed in an Islam / Democracy way. Rather is sould be Religion / Democracy. Eventually a "State" religion will discriminate against those that do not practice. This is an act of "othering" that leads down all sorts of roads. (One of which is political violence.) This act of othering will eventually deny equal access to the public apparatus. This access is a pillar of democracy. It is necessary but not sufficient.

You can have all the religous political parties you like. But codified "State" religions will never meet even the basic definitions of democracy, much less... Liberal Democracy. So let's not waste further time debating something that comes up lame right out of the gate. Islam is not compatible with Democracy, nor is Christianity or Hinduism if you are trying to codify its importance or preeminence.

B.
http://arenablog.blogspot.com

[Moloch-Agonistes]

While of course violence against other human beings is unfortunate and would never be be endorsed by me, I'm not so sure I would see the 91% support for attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq as evidence of an "Al Qaida worldview." Unless, oh I don't know, Ahmed Ben Bella was a member of Al Qaida. Don't even know that it's such a setback for America on the political plane, unless one wants to maintain troops in Iraq indefinitely. More of a status assessment. It's certainly a setback for the Bush State Department.