As Islam continues to be a centerpiece of politics and conflict in the region, a new book has recently emerged attempting to battle the rising tide of misconceptions that haunt Muslims by allowing them to speak up. Based on a comprehensive six-year survey, Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think has set a new milestone in the pursuit of knowledge regarding the contemporary Muslim world. Naseem Tarawnah discusses the findings of the survey with the book’s esteemed co-authors, John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed.

In the wake of 9/11, America, and indeed the non-Muslim world, was left struggling for answers to help explain the horrific event, which has since ushered in an era of terrorism and a global conflict between two civilizations. However, in retrospect, few realized at the time that the hijacking of two planes would come to personify the seizing of an entire religion by extremists, giving way to an era of radicalism and a battle within the Muslim world to find a collective voice. Indeed, in the months and years that followed, the most audible voices that seemed to emanate from the Muslim world were those of an extremist minority, be they in the form of pseudo-scholars issuing controversial fatwas in Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, or the sudden rise of infamous militant leaders such as Osama Bin Laden, Zarqawi and Zawahri. Such voices were only complemented by American pundits and intellectuals, who were called on by what felt like every major news network in the Western hemisphere, to make sense of a world that remains foreign to Western audiences. These voices conquered the airwaves of mass media, with labels such as “expert” and “authority” flashing beneath their names, granting them the mandate to speak on behalf of a religion and its 1.3 billion followers, whom they knew very little about.

In the ensuing chaos, confusion was born and has continued to thrive with unbridled enthusiasm by its instigators; confusion that has allowed stereotypes and assumptions to pass as conventional knowledge. Yet, in the shadows of the Muslim world, a cloak of silence has descended upon the majority of the population that has been unable, or perhaps unwilling, to amplify its own voice in the face of an overbearing minority. It has been in this context that the average Muslim, waking up every day to go to school or work, has suddenly been called upon to defend their religion, and it has been in this context that many have asked the quintessential question: who really speaks for Islam?

The Gallup Organization sought to answer this question in the aftermath of the events of 9/11, conducting an unprecedented extensive poll that spanned six years. Between 2001 and 2007, over 50,000 interviews in more than 35 predominantly Muslim countries were conducted in face-to-face, hour-long sessions. Muslims of all ages, genders, educational and socioeconomic backgrounds, were asked the questions that the non-Muslim world has long sought answers to since that tragic September day. From questions regarding Sharia and democracy, to how they, as Muslims, believed the West could improve relations with their part of the world, these tens of thousands of Muslims were given a microphone to speak for the silenced majority.

Defying the boundaries of so-called conventional wisdom, this new collective voice has been documented by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, who together, co-authored a book based on the findings of the comprehensive study. Recently released, Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think analyzes the numbers and provides the commentary that has become essential in an era of global conflict that seems to center on the Muslim world.

Recently, Jordan Business posed its own questions to the two distinguished authors, in an attempt to understand just what the numbers mean for the region, while framing inquiries about the study itself.

JB: Do you feel the findings of this research will change negative perceptions and/or stereotypes of the Muslim world in America?
JE/DM: The data has the potential to change the discourse. This has already been demonstrated by the use of this data at the World Economic Forum, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, and many international meetings; the requests and responses by policymakers, think-tanks and corporate leaders who have received briefings and the number of requests for permission to translate the book. It is also reflected in the extraordinary way international media has responded with articles in major newspapers globally, radio interviews and TV, and reflected in the more than 70,000 entries that have appeared on Yahoo! and Google.  

JB: Despite the findings of such research, do you feel it is difficult, in fact, to overcome any role the Western media plays in affirming such stereotypes?
JE/DM: The Western media does play a major role. Regrettably, it is conflict, violence and war that attracts TV audiences and sells newspapers. Note how it is the terrorists and the preachers of hate - Muslim and Christian alike - that easily attract media coverage. At the same time, and despite those who continuously charge that Muslims do not speak out against extremism and terrorism, the media has failed to adequately cover major Muslim statements such as the Amman Message or A Common Word. However, major media in the UK (BBC, The Guardian, Times), France (Le Monde), Germany (Die Welt) and others, from Lebanon to Pakistan, India, Thailand, Indonesia, China and Australia, have already written articles.

JB: With the study pointing to nine out of 10 Muslims being labeled as “moderates,” how were definitions for “moderates” and “extremists” determined?  
JE/DM: Our team defined “political radicals” as those who told us the attacks of 9/11 were “completely justified,” and who had unfavorable views of the US.  Those with a favorable opinion of the US but who also oppose 9/11 we call “pro-US.” They make up about 35%. The remainder are “skeptical moderates” who opposed 9/11, but do not have favorable opinions of the US. This middle group is especially interesting because they make up the largest segment and show that widespread anger at the US does not translate into across-the-board support for terrorism.  

JB: Based on the research, has extremism throughout the Muslim world increased over the past decade? If so, what have been the main driving forces behind such a trend?  
JE/DM: Our research extends back to shortly after 9/11. According to our data, the percentage of “political radicals” has stayed constant over the past six years - this despite a strong increase in unfavorable views of the US. This suggests that most people oppose terrorism on principle, even when they express anger toward the US. The politically radicalized have a stronger sense of being threatened and dominated by the West in general, and the US in particular. While expressing personal concern for better relations with the West, they are less likely than the moderates to believe the West shows the same concern. What differentiates those who condone terrorism and all others is politics not piety.  

JB: In recent years, there has been a notable rise and strengthening of political Islam in the Middle East, as personified by such forces as Hamas, Hizballah, as well as institutions like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Much of their success has relied on their ability to effectively represent and offer social networks to their respective populations in a manner that their governments have not. In your opinion, will their popularity continue to increase, and will this remain a source of conflict with the Western world who views them as terrorist organizations? Moreover, do you think much of their support also stems from US foreign policy in the region?
JE/DM: It is clear that across the Muslim world, given the number of authoritarian governments, the failures (political, economic, and cultural) of many governments, limited political options (political parties) and the desire among many for greater democratization but with the incorporation of  Islamic values, that political Islam will continue to be a significant force in politics and civil society. The challenge in the West is to distinguish between terrorist organizations and those movements and organizations that function “within” mainstream society. Equally challenging is how to distinguish between, and respond to, movements like Hamas and Hizballah that are both political movements, participate in elections, and are democratically elected but whose militias engage in violence.     

JB: With Iran, Hizballah and Syria entwined in an obvious alliance, as well as a prevailing sectarian conflict in Iraq, do you believe that the Muslim world is entering an era of civil war between the major sects of Sunni and Shia?
JE/DM: While there is, and has been, violence between Sunni and Shia in the cases you cite as well as in Pakistan, most of these conflicts (as in Iraq today) are primarily about political and economic leverage and power. We should not forget that in the Iran-Iraq war, Iraqi Shias did not heed the calls of Ayatollah Khomeini and side with Iran; their Iraqi Arab nationalism prevailed. Syria’s interventions in Lebanon and its support for Hizballah are based on the Syrian (Alawi) governments’ perceptions of its political interests, not a sense of religious identity. In addition, this alliance also often includes Hamas, a Sunni organization.

Moreover, in a religiously pluralistic nation like Lebanon, [the study showed that] citizens expressed mostly positive views of other sectarian and religious groups.
JB: According to the results of the study, Muslims believe that the most important thing Westerners can do to improve relations with their societies is to re-evaluate their foreign policies towards Arabs and Israel alike. Do you believe that Western relations with the Muslim world would dramatically improve if the former did indeed change its foreign policy towards the Middle East?
JE/DM: Yes. While many political, economic, and social problems in the Middle East have serious domestic causes (autocrats, entrenched elites, corruption, misdistribution of wealth), Western support for authoritarian regimes, its double standard in promoting democracy and human rights, in addition to the failure to pursue an even-handed policy as witnessed in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Hizballah-Israeli war, as well as the invasion and occupation of Iraq, contribute to widespread anger and anti-Americanism in the Middle East, as it does in other parts of the non-Muslim world. Most importantly, as Gallup data shows, these policies contribute to greater alienation, cynicism, and fears among the politically radicalized (7%) to fear hegemony, interference, dependency, invasion, and even occupation.

JB: A common perception in the region has tended to label the impoverished and less-educated as being more inclined towards radicalism, while your research indicates that the contrary is true. How credible and/or valid, in your opinion, is this perception?  What do you think has caused it?
JE/DM: The results of our study are complex. While the politically radicalized are indeed more likely to be educated and affluent, this group also contains the poor and uneducated. People are attracted to radicalism for a complex set of reasons; some out of hopelessness and others out of a sense of moral outrage and perceived injustice.  What our data would suggest, however, is that the dominant trend among those who sympathize with terrorism is more about politics than poverty or piety. The politically radicalized are similar to others throughout history, who sympathized with violent revolutions.

JB: Another growing perception throughout the Arab and Muslim world has been what is believed to be a Western cultural attack on all that is Islamic, manifested in the likes of the Danish cartoons that lampooned the Prophet Mohammad. Do you think such acts serve to fuel what has been labeled the “clash of civilizations”?
JE/DM: Much progress has been made in recent years in inter-civilization dialogue and improving relations between the Muslim world and the West. However, at the same time, extremists in the Muslim world and the West, both violent and non-violent, have engaged in rhetoric and actions that inflame.
Too often in the West, while aware of terrorists like Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda members and others from London and Baghdad to those responsible for the Bali bombings, we do not adequately appreciate the role that anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim politicians and ideologues who fail to distinguish between the mainstream Muslim majority and the actions of extremists. The sense of threat to cultural identity is enhanced by a predominant feeling that a secular and powerful West that does not share its values is overwhelming the Muslim world. When asked the open-ended question, “In your own words, what do you resent most about the West?” the most frequent response across all countries for both moderates and politically radicalized was “Sexual and cultural promiscuity;” followed by “ethical and moral corruption” and “hatred of Muslims.”

In a context in which, as our Gallup data demonstrates, majorities of Muslims across the world resent the denigration of Islam and Muslims, feelings of humiliation and distrust are exacerbated by incidents like the Danish cartoons. The result is greater frustration and moral outrage among a majority of Muslims, and the inexcusable resort to violence by a militant minority.     

JB: Running parallel to the rise of radical Islam in recent years, there has emerged a case for “scholarly” or “intellectual” Islam to serve as an instrument to combat radicalism. Do you think that radicalism could indeed be deterred with such a counterweight, or do you feel it is a force that relies on much broader elements?
JE/DM: Gallup data makes it clear that the primary drivers of radicalism and violence are political and economic. However, religion does play a significant role as it is used to legitimize and mobilize. Thus, the work of religious leaders and scholars in denouncing religious extremism and terrorism through their fatwas, writings and preaching that offers religious refutations of the false religious interpretations; fatwas and actions of religious extremists do play a significant role. While they may not reach the majority of terrorists, their more important role is in de-legitimating extremism and terrorism in the eyes of those whom terrorists seek to recruit or appeal to for support.  

Finding A Voice
While the Gallup poll may be the most comprehensive study ever done on Muslim opinions in the post-9/11 era, others have attempted to follow similar paths in the last few years, with the results echoing many of this poll’s findings. Thus, the likelihood that the voices of this silenced majority will be heard by the rest of the world and, in the process, change minds, is somewhat slim. Nevertheless, the study, as personified by this new book, may inspire a dialogue that is much-needed in this era of conflict, where the widening gap between two civilizations on either ends of the world appears as an endless abyss that few have attempted to resolve. In this context, there may never be a better time for such voices to be heard across the globe.

John L. Esposito is university professor of religion and international affairs and director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University.  Dalia Mogahed is a Gallup senior analyst and executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think, was published in February 2008.