Re: What do you do?

Description: Mogahed is a translator between two cultures in conflict.

Question: Beyond a simple title, how would you describe what you do for a living?

Transcript: Well what I do for a living is to try to understand, from an empirical viewpoint, the views, opinions, perceptions and aspirations of Muslim populations around the world.  What I try to do is, through survey research, give this population a voice through their own words.  Not by projecting my ideas on to them, but by essentially through my analysis being a mouthpiece for their voice.  Because I feel that without that – in the absence of a scholarly tool that really represents the views of entire populations – that people in general are silenced by a vocal fringe. I would define myself as a scientist, and as a translator between two cultures that today are in conflict, but that I believe can live and even thrive by cooperating.

Question: What are you best known for?

Transcript: In my career today, I think I’m best known for the discovery of some very interesting, counterintuitive pearls in survey research on Muslim populations around the world. I think some of the most interesting key findings are that, for example, the panel I did today here at Aspen.  The characteristics that define people who sympathize with extremism are very counterintuitive.  So, for example, they are no more likely than the population at large to be religious.  So religiosity does not correlate with sympathy for extremism, which the conventional wisdom says it’s all about religious fanaticism.  And that simply isn’t seen in the empirical data.  Another interesting finding is that the . . . those who sympathize with extremism are, on average, more educated and more affluent than the general population.  What we discovered through our analysis is that what is driving sympathy for extremism is neither poverty or piety, but instead political perceptions.

Question: Are extremists likely to be religious fanatics?

Transcript: Well, it’s an interesting question.  I guess my answer is I’m not sure, because we haven’t actually talked to people who actually would or have committed acts of terrorism.  But what we have done is looked at those who were maybe likely recruits because they sympathized with the tactics of terrorism.  And this group is not driven at all by a greater sense of personal piety, or a greater importance of religion in their lives.  On the contrary, when we ask people, “Do you think 9/11 was justified?” and then ask a follow-up question, “Why do you say so?” . . . those who say that 9/11 was not justified – those who condemn 9/11 – actually justify that answer by citing religious theology.  Things like the Koran prohibits killing women and children; murder angers God.  But those who condone the attacks and say that they are justified don’t cite religion at all.  They actually cite political grievances.  They call America an imperialist power.  They discuss things like its support of the state of Israel, but don’t ever go and recite a verse from the Koran to justify their statement that 9/11 was justified.  So what we’ve found is that first, those who sympathize are no more religious than the rest of the group.  But even more than that, the justifications they actually give for their position are also not religious justifications.

Recorded on: 7/3/07