As we reflect on the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 and look to the future, we must challenge the assumptions of the past decade concerning support for violence. Though al Qaeda’s religious posture led many to blame terrorism on Islam’s teachings, rigorous research reveals a different reality.

A new study by the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center entitled Views of Violence: What drives public acceptance and rejection of attacks on civilians 10 years after 9/11, suggests that religious identity and level of devotion have little to do with views of terrorism.

According to the largest global study of its kind, covering more than 130 countries, it is human development and governance — not piety or culture — that most strongly affect public rejection or acceptance of this kind of violence.

The consequences of these findings for public policy are far reaching. The research suggests that to achieve greater public rejection for attacks on civilians, leaders should focus far more on societal progress and far less on religion.

Since 9/11, the voices arguing that Islam encourages aggression have grown louder — most recently that of Anders Breivik, who argued, shortly before gunning down more than 70 people in Norway, that the faith of one-fifth of the world’s inhabitants was intrinsically violent.

If this claim were true, it would logically follow that Muslims would be more likely than others to condone violence, even if most do not personally engage in it.

The evidence refutes this argument. In reality, those living in Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states are slightly less likely than non-members to view military attacks on civilians as “sometimes justified,” and are as likely as those of non-member states to say the same about individual attacks on civilians.

Some pundits have accused not only Islam, but all religions of encouraging violence. The findings also challenge this notion.

Gallup’s global study finds that public sympathy for violence against non-combatants is not linked to religious devotion.

In Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, those who reject both military and individual attacks on civilians are as likely as those who see them as sometimes acceptable to hold religion in high esteem. In Europe and the Middle East and North Africa, those who reject both military and individual attacks on civilians are more likely to say religion is an important part of their daily lives.

Rather than look to religious devotion to explain sympathy for violence, leaders should instead consider social and economic development and better governance. Gallup analysts tested correlations between the level at which populations said attacks on civilians were “sometimes justified” and a number of independent indicators.

One of the strongest predictors of public tolerance for attacks on civilians is low human development. In those countries with lower United Nations Development Program – Human Development Index Scores, people are more likely to say individual and military attacks on civilians are sometimes justified. In addition, the percentage of a nation’s GDP devoted to education correlates with lower public acceptance of individual attacks on civilians.

Another important link the analysis uncovered is between popular sympathy for violence and bad governance. Poor government accountability, lower transparency, and less political freedom are linked to higher public tolerance for individual attacks on civilians.

While the destructive actions of the few may have shaped the last decade, this year’s historic transformations suggest that the aspirations of the many will shape the next 10 years. To meet this challenge, leaders must invest in developing better societies as the best immunization against public sympathy for violence.