Myths about Islam

Most Muslim are Arabs :
While Islam is often associated with Arabs, they make up only 15% of the world's Muslim population. The country with the largest population of Muslims is Indonesia. Muslims make up 1/5 of the world's population, with large numbers found in Asia (69%), Africa (27%), Europe (3%) and other parts of the world.

World's Muslim Population
Statistics About the Muslim Population of the World

Nearly one-fourth of the world’s population today is Muslim. The Muslim population is a diverse community of believers spanning the globe. Over fifty countries have Muslim-majority populations, while other groups of believers are clustered in minority communities on nearly every continent.
Although Islam is often associated with the Arab world and the Middle East, fewer than 15% of Muslims are Arab.
Countries With The Largest Muslim Populations (2009):
Country
Number of Muslims
Indonesia
203 million
Pakistan
174 million
India
161 million
Bangladesh
145 million
Egypt
79 million
Nigeria
78 million
Iran
74 million
Turkey
74 million
Algeria
34 million
Morocco
32 million
Iraq
30 million
Sudan
30 million
Afghanistan
28 million
Ethiopia
28 million
Uzbekistan
26 million
Saudi Arabia
25 million
Yemen
23 million
China
22 million
Syria
20 million
Russia
16 million

It has been argued by many that the invasion of Iraq will only produce more terrorism; therefore, invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do because it undermines our efforts against terrorism. A common counter-argument to this is to point out that the leading ideological voices of Islamic extremism, like Sayyid Qutb, have relied more heavily upon Islamic tradition than Western imperialism to make their case. Thus, the driving force of Islamic extremism is Islam itself, not the acts of the West. Is this a valid argument?
In fact, it is partially correct and partially mistaken. Yes, the ideas of Qutb (and others) are more dependent upon Islamic tradition than American actions and these ideas are a significant basis for the ideologies and theologies of Muslim terrorists. All of that is true - we really can't understand modern Islamic extremists without being familiar with people like Qutb.
But that's not the end of it. The fact of the matter is, Qutb's conception of Islam is not the only one, nor is it the most logical or most reasonable or best organization of traditional Muslim doctrines. It is an Islamic path and it is not an unjustified Islamic path, but it is not the only Islamic path. Thus, the question that needs to be answered is: why has this path become popular?
As a loose analogy, consider the case of Pat Robertson. He offers a Christian path and it's not an unjustified Christian path (in that it can be reasonably derived from Christian traditions), but it is certainly not the only Christian path. Thus, we cannot explain the existence of Pat Robertson fundamentalism simply by stating that it "finds its essence in the nature of Christianity." We might be right, but we aren't answering the right question.
While it may be comforting to some to imagine that there are simple ways to connect the dots between the traditions of Islam and the modern phenomenon of Muslim terrorists, reality is much more complicated than there. There is certainly a close relationship, but it is not an automatic or necessary relationship - there is a key ingredient missing.

So, why are the ideas of Islamic extremists like Sayyid Qutb so popular? That's where Western geopolitics, including our imperialism, play a role. The Arabic world suffers from an extreme case of an inferiority complex (I'm not using this in a harshly critical sense - it just seems to be the best label). Islam was once "Number One," but now it's at the bottom of the heap when it comes to military, political, scientific, economic, and cultural influence.
Sure, we get the "0" from Arabic, but how many world-renown mathematicians and computer scientists come from the Muslim Arabic world? Sure, medieval Arab physicians were an important link in the development of modern medicine, but how many ground-breaking medical techniques are developed in the Muslim Arab world? How many of the rich and famous go to Damascus or Medina for important medical procedures?
I don't mean to suggest that Arab Muslims are not capable of rising to the highest levels of science, medicine, art, or culture. I'm also not suggesting that there are none who have, here and there. Instead, I'm arguing that they are unusual. Too unusual, given the proporition of the planet's inhabitants who come from the Arab Muslim world.
German mathematicians, British computer engineers, and American doctors who are on the cutting edge of their fields are not odd. Ideally, it also wouldn't be odd if we replaced those nationalities with Syrian, Iraqi, and Jordanian. Someone who says "I'm going to New York to study the latest medical techniques" is not odd. Someone who says "I'm going to Damascus to study the latest medical techniques" is. That's what needs to be changed.
Islam went from the top to the bottom - Muslims can't explain why and can't explain how, but they want answers and they want changes. Quite understandable. Who can blame them? Unfortunately, in situations like this, people often end up looking for enemies - internal and external. Both share the lamentable characteristic of not being Muslim enough (reaching for old traditions that characterized a supposed Golden Age is another common feature of these situations).
That's the environment that produced Qutb - it produced his ideological predecessor, Ibn Taymiyyah (who struggled against the domination of the Mongols), and it produced his successors, like Muhammad Abd al-Salam Faraj and Osama bin Laden. If the above are the conditions which went a long way to making people like Qutb possible and his ideas popular, then surely it is reasonable to conclude that further demonstrations of Arab Muslim impotence in the face of a militarily and technologically superior West can only exacerbate things.
So does that mean that the invasion will produce more terrorists? Perhaps. An important point to note here, and which not everyone catches, is that a failure to invade wouldn't have suddenly made the Arab Muslim world feel powerful again. The invasion exacerbates the situation, but it doesn't create it - thus, a lack of an invasion would not produce a lack of the problematic situation. This means that the observation "this will produce more terrorists" is a valid observation, especially since it might well produce more terrorists than a lack of an invasion, but I'm not sure it qualifies as a clear argument against the invasion.
Setting aside the question of whether the invasion of Iraq was justified, we are still left with the very serious problem of Islamic extremism and Muslim terrorists. If the above helps us understand why Islamic Extremism is so popular in the Arab Muslim world, does it also help us see a way to solve the problems?

Is there a solution to the problem of the popularity of Islamic Extremism in the Arab Muslim world? Well, yes - sort of. One of the problems of the Arab Muslim world is oil - they rely on it too much. Everything is invested in oil capital, none invested in human capital. They don't produce the best and brightest who could make Damascus or Baghdad important centers of science, art, music, culture, technology, etc.
If people can achieve such goals, and do so in a secular context, then Arab Muslims could lose the inferiority complex which breeds extremism, but without resorting to Islamic fundamentalism. Everyone wins - not only do Arab Muslims benefit, but everyone else will benefit from what they can provide the rest of the world, just as they once did in their Golden Age.
This suggests, then, that post-invasion the United States and Great Britain must invest heavily in the infrastructure of secular education, not just democratic institutions. It also suggests that decreasing our reliance on foreign oil, often touted as important for the future of the West, may also be just as important for the future of the Middle East. That's awfully curious.
But will a post-war Iraq receive the support needed for developing secular education and for reducing its dependence upon oil exports? It would be wise to be skeptical of that occurring so long as the current American administration remains in power.
For one thing, the Bush administration has been very active in reducing the strength of public, secular education in favor of increased reliance upon religious education - for example, through educational voucher schemes. That is exactly what the Middle East does not need more of.
For another thing, the Bush administration has been very active in developing new and expanded sources of oil, for example by drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It doesn't seem very likely that these same people would then turn around and help Iraq spend less on oil capital and more on human capital.
Nobody knows what the future will bring, but it will help to understand what sorts of things we really should be hoping for.