Muslim and Western publics continue to see relations between them as generally bad, with both sides holding negative stereotypes of the other. Many in the West see Muslims as fanatical and violent, while few say Muslims are tolerant or respectful of women. Meanwhile, Muslims in the Middle East and Asia generally see Westerners as selfish, immoral and greedy — as well as violent and fanatical.

However, the latest Pew Global Attitudes survey finds somewhat of a thaw in the U.S. and Europe compared with five years ago. A greater percentage of Western publics now see relations between themselves and Muslims as generally good compared with 2006.

In contrast, Muslims in predominantly Muslim nations are as inclined to say relations are generally bad as they were five years ago. And, as in the past, Muslims express more unfavorable opinions about Christians than Americans or Europeans express about Muslims.

For the most part, Muslims and Westerners finger point about the causes of problems in their relations, and about which side holds the high ground on key issues. Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere who say relations with the West are bad overwhelmingly blame the West. However, while Americans and Europeans tend to blame Muslims for bad relations, significant numbers believe Westerners are responsible.

One note of agreement between Westerners and Muslims is that both believe Muslim nations should be more economically prosperous than they are today. But they gauge the problem quite differently. Muslim publics have an aggrieved view of the West — they blame Western policies for their own lack of prosperity. Across the Muslim publics surveyed, a median of 53% say U.S. and Western policies are one of the top two reasons why Muslim nations are not wealthier.

In contrast, few Americans or Western Europeans think the economic challenges facing Muslim countries are a result of Western policies. And although Westerners have become less likely over the last five years to say Islamic fundamentalism is a chief cause of economic problems in Muslim nations, they remain much more likely than Muslims to hold this view.

Still, even on this issue there is some consensus. Both Muslims and Westerners believe corrupt governments and inadequate education in Muslim nations are at least partly responsible for the lack of prosperity. And perhaps reflecting the Arab Spring, in several Muslim and Western nations, people are more likely than they were five years ago to say the dearth of prosperity stems from a lack of democracy.

These are among the key findings from a survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, conducted March 21 to May 15.¹ The survey updates a number of trend questions from a 2006 Pew Global Attitudes poll that explored how Muslim and Western publics view one another. The current survey finds that five years later — and nearly 10 years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — tensions remain high, although there are also some shared concerns.

For instance, both Muslims and Westerners are concerned about Islamic extremism. More than two-thirds in Russia, Germany, Britain, the U.S. and France are worried about Islamic extremists in their country. Fully 77% of Israelis also hold this view.

But extremism is considered a threat in predominantly Muslim nations as well. More than seven-in-ten Palestinian and Lebanese Muslims are worried about Islamic extremists in their countries, as are most Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey. For Muslims, the most common concern about extremism is that it is violent, although in both Egypt and the Palestinian territories the top fear is that extremism could divide the country.

How Muslims, Christians and Jews See Each Other

In four of the six largely Christian nations included in the study, most say they have a positive opinion of Muslims. The exceptions are Germany (45% favorable) and Spain (37%), although views toward Muslims have improved in both countries since 2006.

Also, solid majorities in Western countries have a favorable opinion of Jews. In Spain, 59% now hold this view, up 14 percentage points from 2006.

Muslim views toward Christians vary considerably across countries. In Lebanon, which has a large Christian population, nearly all Muslims (96%) express a positive view of Christians. Narrow majorities of Jordanian (57%), and Indonesian (52%) Muslims also
give Christians a favorable rating, while in Egypt — which has recently experienced violence between elements of its Muslim and Christian communities — views are divided
(48% favorable; 47% unfavorable).

Meanwhile, very few Muslims in Pakistan (16%) or Turkey (6%) have a positive opinion of Christians.

Ratings for Jews are uniformly low in the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed — in all seven of these nations, less than 10% have a positive opinion of Jews. Indeed, outside of Indonesia, less than 5% offer a positive opinion.

Among Israel’s minority Muslim community, however, views are divided: 48% express a positive opinion of Jews, while 49% offer a negative opinion. In contrast, only 9% of Israeli Jews have a positive view of Muslims. Christians receive somewhat higher ratings among Israeli Muslims (67% favorable) than among Israeli Jews (51%).

Characteristics and Stereotypes

Muslims associate a number of negative traits with Westerners. Across the Muslim publics surveyed, the median percentages saying people in Western countries such as the U.S. and Europe are selfish, violent, greedy, immoral, arrogant and fanatical exceed 50%. By contrast, the median percentages of those who say that Westerners are respectful of women, honest, tolerant or generous range below 50%.

Since 2006, Indonesian Muslims have become more likely to associate positive traits with Westerners, but in Pakistan attitudes have moved in the opposite direction — the percentage of Pakistani Muslims saying that Westerners are greedy, immoral, selfish and fanatical has increased by double-digits over the last five years.

Non-Muslims in Western Europe, the U.S. and Russia offer somewhat more positive assessments of Muslims than Muslims do of Westerners. Relatively few, for example, say Muslims are greedy or immoral. However, a median of 58% label Muslims as fanatical and a median of 50% believe Muslims are violent. And few think Muslims are respectful of women.

National vs. Religious Identity

Across the nations surveyed, Christians and Muslims differ in the degree to which religion defines their identity. Among most of the Muslim publics polled, Muslims tend to identify with their religion, rather than their nationality. This is particularly true in Pakistan, where 94% think of themselves primarily as Muslim instead of Pakistani.

Lebanon and the Palestinian territories are exceptions to this pattern, however — more Muslims in both countries identify first with their nationality rather than with their religion. And many Muslims refuse to choose between nation and religion, volunteering that they identify with both.

Throughout Europe, most Christians think of themselves primarily in terms of their national identity. Fully 90% of French Christians take this view. The clear exception is the U.S., where Christians are divided: 46% primarily identify as American and 46% as Christian. Seven-in-ten white evangelical Christians in the U.S. identify first with their religion.
Both of the major religious communities in Israel identify primarily with their religion. Nearly six-in-ten (57%) Jews identify first as Jews, while among the country’s Muslim community 77% think of themselves first as Muslims.

Opinions About September 11

Nearly a decade after Sept. 11, 2001, skepticism about the events of that day persists among Muslim publics.

When asked whether they think groups of Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., most Muslims in the nations surveyed say they do not believe this.

There is no Muslim public in which even 30% accept that Arabs conducted the attacks. Indeed, Muslims in Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey are less likely to accept this today than in 2006.

Read the full report including the survey methodology at pewglobal.org

1.This report features findings from the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Russia, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Lebanon, Pakistan, the Palestinian territories, and Turkey. In predominantly Muslim nations, results are shown for Muslim respondents only. These countries were included in the 23-nation spring 2011 Pew Global Attitudes survey. See www.pewglobal.org for more results from this survey.

These opinions have changed little in recent years. But in March 2002, just 25% saw Islam as more likely to encourage violence while twice as many (51%) disagreed.

The national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Feb. 22-March 1 among 1,504 adults, finds that most young people reject the idea that Islam is more likely than other religions to promote violence. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) of those younger than age 30 say Islam does not encourage violence more than other religions; 31% say it does. By contrast, a plurality of those ages 50 and older (45%) say Islam is more likely to encourage violence.

Political and ideological divisions are even wider: By roughly three-to-one (66% to 21%), conservative Republicans say Islam encourages violence more than other religions. Moderate and liberal Republicans are divided — 46% say Islam is more likely to encourage violence, 47% say it is not.

By more than two-to-one (61% to 29%), liberal Democrats say that Islam is not more likely than other religions to promote violence. Conservative and moderate Democrats, by a smaller margin (48% to 31%), agree.

Fully 67% of those who agree with the Tea Party movement say Islam is more associated with violence than other religions. Among those who disagree with the Tea Party, the balance of opinion is nearly reversed — 62% say Islam is no more likely than other religions to promote violence while 24% say it is. Among the large share of the public that offers no opinion of the Tea Party, 38% say Islam is more likely to promote violence while about the same number (41%) disagrees.

A clear majority of white evangelical Protestants (60%) say that Islam is more likely to encourage violence than are other religions. Far fewer white mainline Protestants (42%) and white Catholics (39%) express this view. And by nearly two-to-one (56% to 30%), the religiously unaffiliated say that the Islamic religion does not encourage violence more than others.

View the topline questionnaire and survey methodology at people-press.org.

Overview

Events and controversies related to Islam dominated U.S. press coverage of religion in 2010, bumping the Catholic Church from the top spot, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Much of the coverage focused on the plan to build a mosque and Islamic center near ground zero in New York City, a Florida pastor’s threat to organize a public burning of the Koran and commemorations of the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Stories related to these three events collectively accounted for more than 40% of all religion-related coverage studied in mainstream U.S. media (broadcast and cable television, newspapers, radio and major news websites).

Mainstream media devoted more attention to religion in 2010 than in any year since the Pew Research Center began measuring coverage of religion and other subjects in 2007. The amount of space or time media devoted to religion doubled between 2009 and 2010, going from about 1% of total coverage to 2%. And for the first time since tracking began in 2007, neither the Catholic Church nor religion’s role in American politics were the No. 1 topic of religion coverage in major news outlets.

These are some of the findings of a new study that examined news stories from Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, 2010.

Among other key findings:

• Although the volume of religion coverage in the mainstream media increased more than two-fold from a year earlier, it was still small compared with coverage of some other topics, especially elections and politics.
• The Tea Party replaced the religious right as the most talked about element of the Republican Party’s grassroots support in coverage of the 2010 midterm elections. Religious individuals, groups or institutions were mentioned in only about 1% of all mainstream media coverage of the elections. By contrast, the Tea Party movement was mentioned in nearly one-in-six midterm election stories (14.1%).
• In 2010, religion appeared as a major topic more often in the blogosphere than it did in traditional media. Religion was among the most-discussed topics on blogs in 12 of the 48 weeks studied by PEJ and the Pew Forum. In three of those weeks, the plan to build a mosque and Islamic center near ground zero was among the top subjects.
• Analysis of social media, produced with technology from Crimson Hexagon, indicates that people who were active on social media sites were deeply divided about the proposed New York City mosque. About a quarter of the comments about the mosque and Islamic center posted on blogs, Twitter and online forums were neutral in character; the remaining comments were roughly evenly divided between those ardently for and those ardently against construction of the proposed mosque and Islamic center, now known as Park51, for its location at 51 Park Place in Lower Manhattan.

The study of traditional news sources analyzed 50,508 stories from newspaper front pages, home pages of major news websites, the first half hour of network and cable television news programs and the first half hour of radio news and talk shows. (For details, see the full methodology.) The new media content was analyzed separately by aggregating and coding a sample of blogs, tweets and other sources monitored by Technorati and Icerocket, which track millions of blogs and social media entries. (For details, see the full New Media Index methodology.) In addition, PEJ and the Pew Forum used software provided by Crimson Hexagon to analyze a broader range of social media conversations about the New York City mosque controversy during the period when the debate was most intense, Aug. 16-Sept. 13, 2010. That analysis monitored the tone of the conversations on blogs, Twitter and public forums. (For details, see Crimson Hexagon’s website.)

Read the full report at pewforum.org or journalism.org.

Amid controversy over the proposed construction of an Islamic cultural center and mosque near the former site of the World Trade Center, more Americans agree with those who object to the building of the center than with the supporters of the project (51% to 34%).

At the same time, 62% say that Muslims should have the same rights as other religious groups to build houses of worship in their local communities; just 25% say local communities should be able to block mosques in their area if they do not want them.

The new poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted Aug. 19-22 among 1,003 adults, finds that opinions about Islam are less favorable than in the summer of 2005.

Currently, 30% say they have a favorable opinion of Islam while slightly more (38%) have an unfavorable view; nearly a third (32%) offer no opinion. In 2005, slightly more expressed a favorable opinion of Islam than an unfavorable opinion (by 41% to 36%).

As in the past, there are substantial partisan, educational and age differences in opinions about Islam. By more than two-to-one (54% to 21%), Republicans express an unfavorable opinion of Islam; the balance of opinion among independents is negative (40% unfavorable vs. 28% favorable). Among Democrats, favorable opinions of Islam outnumber unfavorable ones by 41% to 27%.

While those who are younger than age 50 have mixed views of Islam, the balance of opinion is more negative among those older than age 50 (44% unfavorable vs. 24% favorable). By a margin of 47% to 28%, college graduates express favorable opinions of Islam; pluralities of those with less education express unfavorable views.

Views of Islam and Violence

Opinions about whether Islam is more likely than other religions to promote violence have fluctuated since 2002. In March of that year, 51% said that Islam does not encourage violence more than other religions do, while only about half as many (25%) said that it does. Since then, opinions have been more closely divided. The current measure is comparable to 2009 and 2005, when pluralities said Islam was no more likely than other religions to encourage violence.

There are similar patterns in opinions about whether Islam encourages violence as in overall views of Islam. However, there is no political or demographic group in which a majority says that Islam encourages violence more than other religions. By a modest 47%-to-38% margin, more Republicans say Islam is more likely to encourage violence. Independents are evenly divided (38% say it does encourage violence more, 38% say it does not). Democrats, by about two-to-one (50% to 24%), say Islam is not more likely than other religions to encourage violence.

Opposition to New York Mosque

If anything, there are even starker partisan and age differences over the proposed construction of an Islamic center and mosque a few blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center.

By more than four-to-one (74% to 17%), Republicans say they agree more with those who object to the building of this center; half of independents (50%) agree more with the center’s opponents while 37% agree more with those who say it should be allowed. By contrast, more Democrats agree with the center’s supporters than its opponents (by 47% to 39%).

Those ages 65 and older, as well as those 50 to 64, agree more with the opponents of cultural center and mosque by wide margins. Those younger than age 30 agree more with those who say it should be built, by 50% to 36%.

While there is opposition to building the Islamic cultural center and mosque in New York City, most Americans (62%) say Muslims should have the same rights as other religious groups when it comes to building houses of worship in local communities; 25% say that local communities should be able to prohibit the construction of mosques in their area if they do not want them.

Large majorities of Democrats (74%) and independents (65%) say that Muslims should have the same rights as other religious groups to build houses of worship.

Republicans are closely divided: 47% say Muslims should have the same rights as other religious groups while nearly as many (42%) say local communities should be able to prohibit the construction of mosques if they do not want them.

Majorities of all age groups — except for those ages 65 and older — think that Muslims should have the same rights as other religious groups to build houses of worship. Fewer than half (48%) of those ages 65 and older express this view, while 33% say local communities should be able to block the construction of mosques.

Most Know Little about Muslim Religion

As in previous Pew Research surveys, most Americans say they know little about the Muslim religion. Currently, 55% say they do not know very much (30%) or know nothing at all (25%) about the Muslim religion and its practices; 35% say they know some about the religion while just 9% say they know a great deal. These numbers are largely unchanged from 2007.

Similarly, there has been little change in the percentage of Americans who say they know someone who is Muslim. In the new survey, 41% say they are acquainted with someone who is Muslim; comparable percentages said they knew someone who is Muslim last year and in 2007.

College graduates are far more likely than those with less education to say they know at least something about the Muslim religion. A majority of college graduates (63%) say they know some or a great deal about the religion, compared with 48% of those with some college experience and just 31% with a high school education or less.

Most college graduates (62%) say they know someone who is Muslim; that compares with 44% of those with some college experience and 26% of those with a high school education or less. As in the past, people younger than 50 (49%) are far more likely to be acquainted with a Muslim than are those 50 and older (31%).

View the topline and survey methodology at people-press.org.

On July 13, members of the lower house of the French parliament are expected to vote on a bill that would make it illegal for Muslim women to wear full veils — those that cover all of the face except the eyes — in public places. A survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, conducted April 7 to May 8, finds that the French public overwhelmingly endorses this measure; 82% approve of a ban on Muslim women wearing full veils in public, including schools, hospitals and government offices, while just 17% disapprove.¹

Majorities in Germany (71%), Britain (62%) and Spain (59%) would also support a similar ban in their own countries. In contrast, most Americans would oppose such a measure; 65% say they would disapprove of a ban on Muslim women wearing full veils in public places compared with 28% who say they would approve.

In the four Western European countries surveyed as well as in the U.S., support for a ban on Muslim women wearing a full veil is more pronounced among those who are age 55 and older, although majorities across all age groups in France, Germany and Britain favor a ban. For example, 91% of French respondents age 55 and older approve of restrictions on Muslim women covering their face, compared with 81% of those ages 35 to 54 and 72% of those younger than 35.

In Spain, where 70% in the older group and a narrower majority (55%) of those ages 35 to 54 favor a ban on full veils, younger respondents are closely divided; 49% of those ages 18 to 34 approve of such measures and 47% disapprove. In the U.S., about one-third (35%) of those in the oldest age group say they would welcome a ban on veils that cover the whole face except the eyes, while 28% of those ages 35 to 54 and just 22% of those younger than 35 say the same.

Opinions about banning Muslim women from wearing a full veil do not vary along gender lines in any of the five countries where the question was asked. In France, Britain and the U.S., views on this matter are also similar across education and income groups. However, in Spain and Germany, those in higher income groups are more likely than the less affluent to approve of such a ban; for example, a slim majority (51%) of low-income respondents in Spain favor a ban on full veils, compared with 62% of those in the middle-income range and 68% of those with high incomes.

Ideologically, those on the right in France, Britain and Germany are more likely than those on the left to approve of a ban on women wearing the full Islamic veil in public places, but majorities across the political spectrum in these countries endorse such a ban. In France, 87% of those on the right support prohibiting women from wearing full veils in public, and 75% of those on the political left agree.

Spain is the only Western European country surveyed where those on both ends of the ideology scale express nearly identical views; 59% of those on the right and 57% of those on the left approve of a ban on Muslim women wearing veils that cover the whole face. Ideological differences are also insignificant in the U.S.

_{1. This question was asked in Western Europe and the U.S. as part of the Spring 2010 Pew Global Attitudes Survey, which included 22 nations. For more findings from this survey, see “Obama More Popular Abroad Than at Home, Global Image of U.S. Continues to Benefit,” released June 17, 2010.}

Speaker: Tariq Ramadan, Professor of Islamic Studies, St Antony’s College, Oxford University, president of a Brussels-based think tank, European Muslim Network, and author of more than 20 books.

Moderator: Luis Lugo, Director, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

In the following edited excerpt, ellipses have been eliminated to facilitate reading. Find the complete transcript at pewforum.org.

 Tariq Ramadan

TARIQ RAMADAN: [T]he title for today’s discussion, “Islam, the West and the Challenges of Modernity,” is in fact the title of a book, where I’m trying to deal with Islamic issues and principles and objectives in Muslim-majority countries. I have a series of books on this, so it’s really about what is going on in the Middle East, in Asia, about the contemporary challenges for Muslim-majority countries.

The other series of books is really about Western Muslims. I started by writing a book at the beginning of the ’90s about Muslims in secular societies and then, To be a European Muslim and then, Western Muslims and the Future of Islam.

Radical Reform: Islamic Ethics and Liberation is a book from within the Islamic tradition. It’s to go from what I think are the limits of dealing with fiqh issues, which is Islamic law and jurisprudence, to the fundamentals. And this is across the board. It’s for Muslims living in Muslim-majority countries, as well as Muslims living in the West. These are common challenges, and what I am trying to propose here is a radical reform in the way we deal with the scriptures — rethinking the classical way of reading the scriptural sources and also addressing the contemporary challenges of promoting and applying Islamic ethics for our time.

We need to go from adaptational reform to transformational reform, which is not to adapt ourselves to the way things are, but to propose applied ethics to change them for the better. So it’s with the contribution of Muslim scholars in Muslim-majority countries as well as with the contributions of scholars in the West that we can come to a better understanding of the very meaning of reform.

Having said that, what is also important is to promote a shift in the center of gravity of authority in Islam. And this is what I am trying to advocate in the book, that we cannot rely on scholars of the text. We need to bring on board scholars of the context if we want to be serious about contemporary challenges. This is quite important, but it has to do with a shift in the center of gravity of authority. Why? Because what we are used to is the Islamic answer only coming from scholars of the text.

[I am treating] seven practical areas in the second half of the book, case studies, where I am saying, Muslims are doing good in medicine, but they are not doing so good in anything that has to do with social sciences, with education, with women, with economy, with philosophy and politics. I’m trying to come up with a new framework for Islamic applied ethics. I am saying from within that there is only one Islam, but there are many interpretations and many Islamic cultures, and what we are dealing with today in the West will have and already has had tremendous impact in what is going on in Muslim-majority countries.

With my position at Oxford, I’m trying to establish a double network of scholars in the West and in Muslim-majority countries talking to each other at different levels to promote this applied ethics. It’s a kind of practical translation of the main statements of that book.

My main concern is to go for [an] Islamic applied ethics for contemporary challenges and connecting the Muslim-majority countries with the West, knowing that what we are coming [up] with as responses to our challenges is read and listened to in Muslim-majority countries. This is what I am experiencing when I go to Morocco, to Jordan — in the countries where I can go that are Muslim-majority countries. [I]t’s really clear that our contribution coming from the West is heard even in Malaysia, for example; recently I was there. The Singaporeans’ experience when they speak about the Singaporean Muslim identity is exactly what we are saying about us being European and Muslims at the same time or American and Muslims at the same time.

So this is what I’m trying to do and what I’m trying to promote from within. There is this critical discussion from within with Muslim scholars, Muslim intellectuals and this critical dialogue, and an open dialogue with the surrounding society in the West, but also in Muslim-majority countries.

 Julia Duin

JULIA DUIN, The Washington Times: Mr. Ramadan, you spoke of providing ethics to make things better. Does that mean some form of sharia law in the West?

RAMADAN: No. This is why it’s quite important to read what I am trying to say because I’m quite critical [of] the way we are translating sharia law. For me, the sharia is translated in the book I wrote, Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, as the way towards faithfulness, as in which way we are respectful towards some of our objectives and purposes and aims.

For example, when I am in the United States of America or European countries, where I have the laws saying that we are equal before law, this is my sharia. I don’t need anything else. It’s not two closed systems. This is why I am challenging some of the Islamic trends from within by saying this closed or narrow understanding of what is sharia is something which is wrong.

You can get the sense of what I was trying to say in the discussion we had in the U.K. For example, when the Archbishop of Canterbury was asking for sharia to be accepted, what he was saying is that within the latitude given by the common law in Britain, Muslims can find their way within the law. This is what the Christians are doing, the Jews are doing, the Muslims are doing.

I tried to explain that he was not rightly understood. Muslims don’t need a parallel system. They just abide by the common law, and within the latitude of this law and the flexibility of the Islamic legal tradition, we can find our way. [L]ook at the great majority of Western Muslims in the States, in Canada, in Australia or in European countries that just abide by the law and don’t have a problem. They are not asking for specific laws. I would say that as to the objectives, we are closer to some of the Islamic ideal in Western countries than in the great majority of the Muslim-majority countries.

 Kim Lawton

KIM LAWTON, Religion & Ethics Newsweekly: You spoke, Professor Ramadan, about dealing sometimes with tensions between Western issues and Muslim-majority countries. One practical way where this has played out has been at the international level on the lines between free speech and defamation of religion. [F]or you, where [are] those lines between freedom of speech and when it’s inappropriate, insulting or defaming someone else’s religion. And are those lines universal or do they vary from region to region?

RAMADAN: I think that we have to be fair to our history and to understand from where all these stories are coming. When it comes to the legal framework, I am saying to the Muslims, we don’t need new laws against blasphemy or things like this. I think that what we have now, it’s enough. We don’t want to limit freedom of expression.

I was in Denmark at [the] very moment when the issue about a cartoon satirising the Prophet Muhammad. Then here [and] now is this new story about cartoons. Just take an intellectual critical distance: This is legal. To ridicule religions is something that is part of the Western culture. It has to do with the history. So we don’t want to go for something which is, oh, we need laws to prevent people from doing this. I think that the Muslims should understand where they live, and I would like this also to be understood in Muslim-majority countries, that we don’t have to go against this. I think that we just have to stick to the laws and say, this is legal.

We also know that there are things that are illegal because they are connected to racism and statements that are not acceptable. [W]hen it comes to insulting people, racist statements, we need laws to prevent this from happening. But we all agree on this.

Now, there is something which is much more psychological. Our culture and the way we read law has to do also with our memory. And when we had, for example, Muslim groups in Europe saying the way to show that there is no equality in the way religions are treated and no freedom of speech is to insult the Jews, I told them this is the wrong way forward. Why? Because you have to deal with sensitivity and you have to deal with collective psychology. Yes, it’s legal to insult the Jews and to laugh at their suffering. But it’s wrong ethically and because of the collective psychology.

This is why I am saying to Muslims, take a critical distance but let the people around you understand that even if it’s legal, you don’t like it. React by saying, I don’t like this. It’s not part of me.

I’m saying exactly the same to the French today on another issue. I say, you are responding to the burqa and the niqab with law restricting freedom, and I think that’s not going to work. It’s not the way forward. Speak more about education, psychology. Changing mentality takes time.

I would prefer them to understand that from within we can do the job as Muslims by saying, the niqab or the burqa are not Islamic prescriptions. This is what I believe the mainstream believes as well. So I would say we have to be very cautious not to translate every sensitive issue into a legal issue.

LUIS LUGO: Ross? Speaking of “South Park.”

 Ross Douthat

ROSS DOUTHAT, The New York Times: Speaking of “South Park,” Professor Ramadan, just sort of as a follow-up to Julia’s question, I wonder if you could talk a bit more about what you do think Islam has to offer to the West. I think it’s a very interesting and subtle idea, the idea that reform is something that moves in both directions.

RAMADAN: I’m not speaking about the Islamic economy. I’m not speaking about Islamic finance, Islamic medicine. I’m speaking about Islamic ethics in medicine, Islamic ethics in finance.

Meaning what? That we have a common ground, a common area, where the Christian ethics, the Jewish ethics, the Muslim ethics, the humanist ethics could provide something in that field to reform this for the better. This is where we have to come together. It’s for me to break this perception that we have our sciences — Islamic sciences, Islamic finance — and we have an alternative — which is not true. We don’t have an alternative.

We have some principles and some objectives. But when I deal with Christians, when I deal with some humanists on the ground, I can see that they have the same objectives. So this is, for example, to say, you have to be involved in education in the West not by creating Islamic schools, which are mainly schools for Muslims. It’s to come to the principles about knowledge. So it’s for us when we understand Islam the right way to ask ourselves what our Islamic tradition is giving us to think about spirituality in a consumerist society, for example. It’s always to think about the ends: Why are we doing this?

In economy, for example, just to say we have an alternative Islamic economy by thinking with no riba, no interest, no usury — this is a dream; it’s not working. In fact, we are changing the words, but we are doing exactly the same, seeing the same results with other names. And I think that this is hypocritical.

The way we deal with justice, the way we deal with no discrimination in the job market, the way we deal in your country with some people who are saying there is a second-class citizenship in this country when you are black American or you are Latino — there is something that you have to question here. And I think that this has to do with our ethics, applied ethics. [N]ot something which is specifically Islamic, but something that Islam could be involved in when it comes to a discussion of the ends. Ninety-nine percent of my lectures to the white American or European or Western audiences are always about, oh, you as a problem. I want to change that. It’s me as a contribution.

DOUTHAT: Do you think there is a religious or spiritual crisis in Europe that Islam could be part of the answer to?

RAMADAN: No, I think that we are all facing a crisis from within. I have been dealing for 25 years with the Muslim communities in the West and even in the States. I can tell you something: we are facing a crisis from within — an identity crisis: Who are we, what do we want, how are we going to have a blossoming personality and to be coherent with all our universes of reference? This is something which is common to all of us.

So the people who are now saying, Islam is the solution — I think that this is wrong. It’s not because the number is increasing at an exponential rate. I’m not at all happy with the quality that we are having from within. So I would say that this is where the Muslims should be self-critical.

 Alan Cooperman

ALAN COOPERMAN, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life: How central or primary do you think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to the challenges that the Obama administration faces all around the world?

RAMADAN: Look, it’s quite clear to me that I have been banned from this country exactly for my positions on that: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also the Iraq war because when I went to the American Embassy in Switzerland, 80%, 85% of the questions were around my position and why I was critical of the unilateral support of the United States of America towards successive Israeli governments. I said, you have to be more balanced; it’s not going to work like this. And then, your war in Iraq is illegal, and I think that this is not the way forward.

I think the Palestinian resistance is legitimate, the means are not — killing innocent people, I’ve said it for years. This is something which is quite important for me — to be clear on that.

Now, yes, I really think that it’s central. It’s central psychologically speaking, politically speaking and in the way that you feel at home in this country. Because at the end of the day, you can get social integration, intellectual integration, but miss psychological integration because something is missing, which is the sense of belonging.

The sense of belonging is what I call critical loyalty. I’m loyal to my government when I am able to say, I abide by the law, I love this country, but I don’t like your policies, and not see my citizenship or my belonging questioned because I’m critical. I think that this is where we have to be together — you and me. This is what I call the “new we,” where we are citizens and we are critical.

While I think that what should come now from the new administration is really to deliver on that, it’s quite difficult. I said this from the very beginning. First term, what we got as the first speech one year ago from President Barack Obama was a very good speech — very good. I commented on this by saying, this is the first time we see someone speaking in that way: very cautious with the wording, very cautious also by not only addressing this to Muslims in Muslim-majority countries but also to Americans by telling them Islam is an American religion and Muslims are contributing to the future of this country. He was talking about a “we” as the American nation, and this is very important. Then, to speak about the suffering of the Palestinians and about the fact that we have to look at this issue seriously.

Now, I think that what we got during the last weeks and months is really tension between the Israeli government, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the Obama administration. Still, now, these are words and things are going on there. I would say that within this term, it’s going to be difficult. Next term, I think it’s quite important to see things moving in support of Palestinian rights.

What I am saying to the Muslims is, just don’t assess the Obama administration or any American administration only on that because this obsession with this foreign policy is not helping us to be citizens and to be involved in all the discussions. So I would say, at the same time as we are expecting something from the Obama administration, we also have to say to the American Muslims, you have to be involved in all the discussions.

When it comes to health, for example, what happened in this country is just tremendously important for all the American citizens. You have to be involved in this; you have to be involved in education. You have to acknowledge the fact that there are constructive steps when it comes, for example, to meeting with entrepreneurs and Muslims and trying not to be obsessed only with the idea that Islam means we talk about terrorism.

But I would like, yes, the American administration to be more balanced on Palestinian rights. And it remains central even though I think Muslims should be much more involved in everything which has to do with global politics, beyond only this issue.

 Michele Kelemen

MICHELE KELEMEN, NPR: I wonder how you assess the Obama administration’s outreach to Muslim communities?

RAMADAN: I would say that it’s quite clear that the Obama administration is much more well-perceived by Muslims around the world in Muslim-majority countries. It’s not so difficult after what we got for eight years. But I would say that yes, something is changing, and there is lots of hope coming from Muslims in Muslim-majority countries.

But still, they are suspicious about the room for maneuver he has to change his policy and the way he is dealing with some lobbies here — pro-Israeli lobbies — and is he able to change anything as to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or to go beyond words?

DUIN: Tomorrow there’s going to be a big report coming out on religious freedom around the world. And as you know, one of the West’s biggest values is freedom of religion and the right to change your religion. I think that all four schools of Islamic thought say that if a Muslim changes his religion, it’s punishable by death. In your dialogues with other Muslims, is this something you’re bringing up? And if so, have you been able to get anywhere in terms of talking about religious freedom and the right to, if you’re Muslim, leave your religion?

RAMADAN: Yes, this is why it’s good to read what I’m trying to say and not to Google my name. In a book I wrote in the beginning of the ’90s, and then in another book in ’97, and then in another book recently, and even on The Washington Post and Newsweek‘s “On Faith,” we were asked a few years ago about our position on women and on religious freedom.

My position is clear, and I have said it many times: from the very beginning, scholars during the 8th century, including one of the main scholars, Sufyan al-Thawri, have said that it’s possible, according to Islam, to change your religion. This understanding of the Islamic traditions [making it punishable by death is] a very narrow understanding and out of context because it has to do with people changing their religion in time of war, coming to the Muslim community and taking information and being, well, betrayers [of] the community. But nowhere do we have in the Islamic tradition, and even in the Prophet’s life, anything saying that he killed someone because he changed his religion, or she changed her religion. If you look at my book on the Prophet’s life, you can see that I mention three main cases where they changed their religion and were not killed, and he knew about this.

Read the full transcript at pewforum.org.

Just more than half (52%) of Americans say they are very concerned about the possible rise of Islamic extremism in the United States. That is up from 46% in April 2007. The percentage that says they are somewhat worried dropped slightly from 32% in 2007 to 27%. There has been no significant change in the small percentages who say they are not too worried or not worried at all about the possible rise of Islamic extremism in the United States.

Public concerns about the rise of Islamic extremism around the world largely mirror levels measured in April 2007, according to the latest survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted Nov. 12-15 among 1,003 Americans reached on landlines and cell phones. Today, 49% say they are very concerned about this, compared with 48% in April 2007. Nearly three-in-ten (29%) say they are somewhat concerned, compared with 33% in the 2007 survey.

In recent weeks, the public has paid close attention to the shootings at the Texas Army base that left 13 dead and a Muslim Army psychiatrist charged with the killings. According to the Pew Research Center’s News Interest Index, the public followed the story more closely than any other news the week of the tragedy and continues to closely follow the investigation into the shooting in this week’s News Interest Index.

The Fort Hood shootings came amid an increase in the past year in reports about alleged terror plots or actions undertaken by people within the U.S. said to oppose U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In September, for example, an Afghan-born Muslim man and Denver resident — who reportedly received training and weapons from al-Qaeda in Pakistan — was arrested as part of an alleged bombmaking scheme.

Still, the survey shows no sea change in the population as a whole and only modest political and demographic changes in concerns over increasing Islamic extremism in the United States. Currently, a majority of political independents (55%) say they are very concerned about the possible rise of Islamic extremism in the U.S., up from 43% in 2007. About two-thirds of Republicans (65%) express this view, not much different from the 59% who said this two years ago. There has been virtually no change in opinions among Democrats (44% very concerned today, 46% in 2007).

Young people continue to express far lower levels of concern about the rise of Islamic extremism in the U.S. than do older age groups. Slightly more than a third of those younger than age 30 (36%) say they are very concerned about this, compared with 60% of those 65 and older and 65% of those ages 50 to 64.

More than half of those with no college experience (55%) say they are very concerned about the possible rise of Islamic extremism in the U.S., compared with 46% of college graduates.

View the topline and survey methodology at people-press.org.