Our leaders say he [bin Laden] and his followers hate us because of who
we are, because we have early primaries in Iowa every four years and
allow women in the workplace. That’s nonsense. I don’t think he would
have those things in his country. But that’s not why he opposes us. I read
bin Laden’s writings and I take him at his word. He and his followers hate
us because of specific aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Bin Laden lays them
out for anyone to read. Six elements: our unqualified support for Israel;
our presence on the Arabian peninsula, which is land they deem holy; our
military presence in other Islamic countries; our support of foreign states
that oppress Muslims, especially Russia, China and India; our long-term
policy of keeping oil prices artificially low to the benefit of Western consumers
but the detriment of the Arab people; and our support for Arab
tyrannies who will do that.1 (emphasis added)

Scheuer’s analysis is supported by opinion polls of the Muslim public. A survey by the Project on International Public Attitudes (PIPA) in April 2007 shows large majorities of Muslims polled throughout the world now believe the United States seeks to “weaken and divide the Islamic world.” Consequently, in the same poll corresponding majorities also want American troops to withdraw from Muslim lands.

Scheuer also observes that a new generation of well-educated and middle-class Muslims is providing a fresh batch of recruits for al-Qaeda. Terrorism researchers like Marc Sageman and Randall Collins find that middle-class individuals, not poor and uneducated people, fit the ideal psychological and intellectual profiles for terrorists who can easily move within societies and attack targets without drawing much attention. Furthermore, a recent Gallup World poll found middle-class Muslims were more likely to support radical organizations like al-Qaeda than poorer individuals.

Finally, we turn to the issue of policies. Neo-conservative analyses ranging from academics like Samuel Huntington, Fouad  Ajami, and (now ex-neo con) Francis Fukuyama to the blogger pundits at Jihad Watch et al., tend to blame Islamic religious principles for violence and the lack of democracy. In other words, Islam is a violent and backward religion that opposes democracy and modernity.

Leaving aside the fact that Islam is not the only religion that has been abused by extremist ideologues for violent political purposes, or that Muslim leaders have been extremely vocal in denouncing terrorist attacks, let’s begin by looking at what ordinary Muslims themselves say. In the PIPA poll, while Muslims believe that the United States is engaged in some effort to weaken and divide Muslim countries, a majority of responses show they also reject bin Laden, and react positively to democracy. Similarly, in the Gallup World poll, both radical and moderate respondents had equally positive views of democracy and free speech. The difference is that the radicals are more skeptical that western countries will allow the Muslim world to have democracy, blaming them for keeping dictators in power. The bottom line: Muslims are opposed to American foreign policy, but not necessarily American political values and economic prosperity. Similar polling conducted by the World Values Survey and Terror Free Tomorrow also draw very similar conclusions.

Furthermore, empirical research testing so-called “culturalist” assumptions debunked notions that Islam, rather than politics and policies, is to blame for the lack of democracy and violence in Muslim countries. Culture and religion are not statistically significant factors in the violence and lack of democracy affecting Muslim nations. In fact, another empirical study finds that even when looking at culture as a separate variable, Catholic Latin American countries, not Muslim countries, are more prone to violence. However, that study identified oil, economic well-being, and the lack of democracy as the main culprits. Culture remained an insignificant variable. Perhaps this is why Graham Fuller, a former CIA analyst, recently wrote in Foreign Affairs that even if Islam did not exist, the same bloody geopolitics of natural resources, ethnicity, nationalism, and colonialism in the Middle East would exist. Anti-Americanism and anti-Europeanism would remain.

• click for a full article in pdf