But how can one reconcile these results with other polls, such as the Pew study, that find that the majority of Muslims in Great Britain, Spain, and Germany choose Muslim identity over national identity? Is this not proof that Muslims in Europe reject the West? The evidence suggests otherwise. A primarily religious identity hardly means a crisis of integration. In predominantly Muslim countries, the Pew study also found the majority of Muslims in Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, and even Turkey consider themselves Muslims first, rather than citizens of their country. Significantly, the same poll found that Christian Americans—seldom accused of lacking national pride—were almost evenly split between those who said they were first Christian and those who said they were first US citizens. Clearly, expressing a religious primary identity does not necessarily mean rejecting one’s country. The commonality among these communities is not a lack of patriotism, but a majority who considers religion important—and therefore at the heart of its identity.

Radical Rejection

But should this strong Muslim religiosity scare the West? Is this a sign of sympathy for terrorism? According to the data, the answer is no. The results from the Gallup study challenge the common dogma underpinning current discourse on radicalization and show that Muslim communities are as likely as any other to reject terrorism. In light of this evidence, the primary motivation for Muslim integration into mainstream European societies must shift from a desire to reduce security risks to a desire to promote equal citizen contribution and national unity, thus reducing suspicion and alienation of the public’s Muslim neighbors.

Those who push for integration primarily as a security measure assume that communities in Europe with a disproportionate percentage of Muslims provide a sympathetic environment for terrorism, and therefore act as a “cesspool” for radicalization—an assertion unsubstantiated by evidence. Countering perceptions of religious radicalization, Muslims in these three cities were at least as likely as the general public to condemn terrorist attacks on civilians and to find no moral justification for using violence, even for a “noble cause.” This data suggests that Muslim neighborhoods are no more hospitable to terrorist cells than any other neighborhood.

Some sympathy for terrorist acts does exist in the Muslim world, but in a very small minority. After analyzing survey data of over 90 percent of the global Muslim population, Gallup found that despite widespread religiosity and anger at some regional Western policies, only a small percentage sympathized with the attacks of September 11.

Even more significantly, there was no correlation between level of religiosity and sympathy for terrorism. The real difference between those who condone terrorist acts and the vast majority who condemn them stems from political, rather than religious or cultural distinctions. To gain a deeper understanding of what drives public sympathy as well as public disgust for terrorism, Gallup asked both those who condoned and those who condemned extremist acts, “Why do you say that?” The responses may be surprising. For example, in Indonesia, the largest Muslim majority country in the world, not a single respondent from the small minority who condoned the attacks of September 11 cited the West’s perceived moral decay or the Qur’an for justification. Instead, this group’s responses were markedly secular and worldly, mostly relating to US foreign policy. For example, one Indonesian respondent said, “The US government is too controlling toward other countries, seems like colonizing.” Another said, “The US has helped the Zionist country, Israel, to attack Palestine.” Similarly, one of the people responsible for Europe’s own September 11, the July 7, 2005 London train bombings, cited political, not cultural or religious justifications for his horrific acts.

Moreover, while residents of predominantly Muslim countries are critical of the West’s perceived breakdown of traditional values, this is neither the primary driver of extremist views nor the demanded change that Muslims cite for better relations with the West. To the question of what the West can do to improve relations with the Muslim world, the most frequent responses were neither for Western societies to be less democratic nor less liberal. Far from it—what Muslims said they admired most about Western societies were their democratic systems of government, and accompanying features like government transparency and freedom of speech. Instead, to improve relations, Muslims called for Western societies to change their economic and political policies toward Muslim nations, but most of all to “stop thinking of Muslims as inferior and to respect Islam.” It is not that most Muslims believe there is nothing to respect about the West, but rather that they believe the West finds nothing to respect about them. Gallup results have shown this recurrent theme in the West-Islam relationship, with the divide a result of Western misperception of Muslims rather than Muslim antagonism of the West.

In fact, instead of using religious doctrine to condone terrorism, many Muslims refer to their beliefs to condemn it. For example, to explain why she could find no moral justification for the September 11 attacks, one Indonesian woman said, “It was similar with a murder, an act forbidden in our religion.” Another said, “Killing one’s life is as sinful as killing the whole world,” paraphrasing verse 5:32 in the Qur’an. Far from reviving terrorism, the Qur’an is, for many Muslims, the inspiration for rejecting it, again challenging the perceived risk of Muslim religiosity in Europe.

Voting, Veils, Values: Rethinking Integration

Even with the fear of religious radicalization aside, Muslims and fellow non-Muslim citizens will not progress toward greater national unity until they work together to forge a new meaning for integration. This new paradigm must focus less on cultural conformity, and more on the emergence of shared goals and a commitment to democracy to leverage untapped common ground.

However, the measuring stick so far for Muslim integration has focused on symbolic rather than substantive issues, the foremost being Muslim women’s dress code. Few clothing items have enjoyed the attention or notoriety of the Muslim veil. Former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw touched off a flurry of controversy last year when he asked one of his constituents to take off her veil, which Prime Minister Tony Blair later called “a mark of separation.” Portrayed, ironically, as either a sign of docility or defiance, the veil is the subject of new legislation that allows public schools to ban the full-face cover. France already banned the headscarf from public schools several years ago, despite French and global Muslim protest.