Pew Poll of American Muslims: Substance Behind the Hot Buttons

— -- A hot-button question in a unique poll of American Muslims threatens to overshadow what's truly an extraordinary and invaluable study. It shouldn't.

The question in the Pew Center survey led much of the news pickup of the poll, taking a lot of oxygen with it. "Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified," it read. "Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?"

Eight percent of American Muslims said such attacks could often or sometimes be justified; among those under 30, it was 15 percent. (Add in those who say suicide attacks can be justified "rarely" and the net results go to 13 and 26 percent, respectively.)

There's plenty here to debate. The question suggests as a given that there are enemies of Islam against which the religion needs defense; better perhaps to ask this than to posit it. And it's hypothetical, leaving ample room for respondents to imagine scenarios of their choosing. Had it asked about justification for specific attacks – 9/11, Bali, the London subway, the Samarra mosque, the streets of Baghdad or Tel Aviv – one can imagine different results. Reality has a way of focusing the attention.

There's good evidence of that. When a previous Pew poll asked the same question among Jordanians in May 2005, 57 percent said attacks of this nature could often or sometimes be justified. When Pew re-asked it in April 2006 – after the November 2005 hotel bombings in Amman – just half as many, 29 percent, still held that view. Attitudes on hypotheticals can shift dramatically in the fire of experience.

The answer in Pew's poll of U.S. Muslims begs for more. How many Muslims indeed believe Islam has enemies against whom it must be defended? Who are these perceived enemies, what's seen as the nature and cause of their enmity, and what defense, if needed, is seen as most appropriate? All those could add context and clarity.