Steven Fish is a Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. He was educated at Cornell University, Johns Hopkins University and Stanford University. A specialist in international politics, Fish is the author of several books, such as “Democracy from Scratch: Opposition and Regime in the New Russian Revolution” (Princeton, 1995). In his new study, he takes a comparative look at the world's Muslims and non-Muslims through a scientific lens. He aims to “remove discussion of whether Muslims differ from non-Muslims from the arena of polemics, accusations, and apologetics and place it in the realm of social-scientific investigation.” His book is not just for specialists and academics; it will illuminate a broad audience of educated readers. Professor Fish discusses his book with Saudi Gazette. What inspired your interest in becoming a political scientist, and in studying this topic? I have always been fascinated by the way we humans think and behave, and political science provides a broad venue for studying people. As for studying Muslims, questions on how Muslims and non-Muslims differ have become prominent in public discussions around the world in recent decades, but scientific studies are scarce. The shortage of social-scientific analysis leaves debates over crucial questions in the hands of polemicists and pundits, whose arguments are rarely based on hard evidence. If we are to live in a better world, adherents of the major faiths need to know much more about each other than we do now, and we need findings based on scientific research. Did you enjoy living in Indonesia? What impressed you about the country? I love Indonesia. One thing that impressed me was the religious commitment of the people. According to cross-national data, Indonesian Muslims are more observant than are Muslims in much of North Africa and the Middle East, and I found ample evidence to support those data. I was struck by the way that the Islamic mass organizations, Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama, have forged a muscular civil society. I enjoyed the openness, vigor, and sophistication of public debates over politics, religion, and society, which I was frequently invited to join. I was impressed by the country's progress on democratization. Indonesians have created a distinctly Indonesian form of popular rule. Like South Korean democracy, Indonesian democracy is not at all “Western”; it is nationally distinctive. It differs in many ways from what I find in the United States. Yet Indonesia, like South Korea, is every bit as much a democracy as America is. Why are there so few scientific studies about Muslims? Social scientists often have been averse to undertaking such studies because the issues that arise are extremely politically sensitive. Merely asking the questions can provoke charges of ethnocentricism and cultural insensitivity. What is more, studying Muslims – or, for that matter, Hindus, Christians, or adherents of any other faith – requires making generalizations, and many scholars are uncomfortable with making any generalizations about members of religious groups. Many scholars are also loath to undertake studies that might yield findings that reinforce stereotypes. You state that there is “widespread unease about Islam.” Will your book help to decrease this anxiety? I hope so. The intent of the book is faithfully to report the evidence, not to decrease anxiety. But perhaps that very fact will make the book useful for lessening anxiety. Many works have a political agenda. They cast Muslims either as victims of Western exploitation or as carriers of a threat to the West. Their authors pick and choose data to fit their pet arguments. Such studies don't allay readers' anxieties since readers understandably don't trust the authors' objectivity. I hope that by addressing some of hard questions head-on, without prejudice or concern for political sensibilities, my book will facilitate open discussion. When it comes to alleviating anxiety, nothing works better than commitment to transparency, full disclosure, and fidelity to evidence. What do you think are the biggest surprises readers will find in your book? Muslims and non-Muslims alike tend to regard Muslims as being particularly well-disposed to fusing religious and political authority. Yet I find that Muslims are just as likely as Christians to endorse separating sacred and temporal power. Another intriguing finding is that murder rates are much lower among Muslims than non-Muslims. A shortage of democracy in the Muslim world does not explain the effect since democracies do not have higher murder rates than non-democracies do. I also find that sex-based inequalities are greater among Muslims than non-Muslims, but socioeconomic inequity is lower among Muslims. On sex-based equality, Muslims lag; on class equality, Muslims lead. Does the current turbulence in North Africa and the Middle East confirm or challenge your findings? So far it confirms them. Many observers have been wary of the turbulence, since they have feared that the only alternative to secularist despotism is rule by Islamist extremists. This fear is based on the supposition that the Muslim masses seek to combine religious and political power. But my findings suggest that Muslims are not especially keen on joining religious and political power. I am therefore unsurprised to see the protesters pressing for self-government, not for trading secular dictatorship for rule by religious guides. What is more, while I find that predominantly Muslim societies lag on democracy at the present time, I find nothing in Islam itself that that disfavors self-government. I expect that in the year 2025 North Africa and the Middle East will look much like the postcommunist region does today: a mélange of political orders that includes some vigorous, vibrant democracies.
