Engaging Muslims in counter-terrorism (CT) has proved challenging for police worldwide. Some research has focussed on the utility of police being procedurally just in their CT strategies to enhance their legitimacy and subsequent cooperation from Muslims. Despite the efficacy of procedural justice, however, some have argued that procedural justice scholarship is too narrowly focussed on how police treat citizens. Citizens’ concerns about police acting within the limits of appropriate power (i.e., “bounded-authority” concerns), as well as representativeness in policing (i.e., “representative bureaucracy”), can also influence citizens’ judgments of police legitimacy. This study explores how, when, and why procedural justice, bounded authority, and representation concerns shape Muslims’ perceptions of police CT measures and police legitimacy. Using focus group data from 104 Australian-Muslims, results revealed that CT measures that include Muslims as partners in terrorism prevention and those that draw on principles of procedural justice were perceived most favourably, and were seen to promote police legitimacy. Measures that were condemned were perceived as bounded-authority violations and damaged police legitimacy. Implications for theory and police practice are discussed.

事实证明，让穆斯林参与反恐 (CT) 对全世界的警察来说都是一项挑战。一些研究集中在警察在程序上公正的效用在他们的反恐战略中，以提高他们的合法性和随后与穆斯林的合作。然而，尽管程序正义很有效，但有些人认为程序正义研究过于狭隘地关注警察如何对待公民。公民对警察在适当权力范围内行事的担忧（即“有限权力”关注）以及警务中的代表性（即“代表性官僚机构”）也会影响公民对警察合法性的判断。本研究探讨了程序正义、有限权威和代表性问题如何、何时以及为何影响穆斯林对警察反恐措施和警察合法性的看法。使用来自 104 名澳大利亚穆斯林的焦点小组数据，结果显示，将穆斯林作为预防恐怖主义合作伙伴的反恐措施和那些借鉴程序正义原则的反恐措施被认为是最有利的，并且被视为促进了警察的合法性。受到谴责的措施被认为是侵犯了权威并损害了警察的合法性。讨论了对理论和警察实践的影响。