Andrew C. McCarthy on Michael Graham

From National Review Online

Why has brutality in the name of Islam endured? Well, it is because, as Graham posits, this violence--driven by an interpretation of scriptures that self-evidently lend themselves to just such an interpretation--has long been coupled with 'an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam's name.''

The eminent Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis described the phenomenon in his 1993 book, Islam and the West. Divergences among Muslims in the interpretation of Islam, Lewis explained, are not easily labeled 'heterodox' or 'heretical,' for such notions are Western ones that have 'little or no relevance to the history of Islam, which has no synods, churches, or councils to define orthodoxy, and therefore none to define and condemn departures from orthodoxy.'

Taken together, the lack of formal hierarchy, the plain language of Koranic passages, and what is, indisputably, the military tradition out of which Islam emerged, have made it difficult for Muslims convincingly to condemn terrorism as antithetical to their creed. Meanwhile, acts of terrorism have continued unabated. Thus, the system is open to the reasonable conclusions that: (a) it promotes violence, (b) it has spawned violence, and (c) it has been unable to restrain violence despite the vastly superior number of non-violent adherents.

Michael Graham connected these dots and reasonably found that the system, Islam, was to blame. Now, do I wish he hadn't phrased it quite so bluntly by calling Islam itself a 'terror organization'? Yes. Even if his conclusion was within the bounds of acceptable argument, in the same sense that branding the entire company a 'fraud' is not unreasonable in my multi-national corporation example, the comment was not helpful. It was certain to irritate our allies in the war--authentic moderate Muslims--to call their religion 'a terrorist organization.' And even if Graham was convinced he was right, being right is not always a complete defense to incivility when one has been gratuitously provocative. He certainly could have found a way to apologize for his tone without apologizing for his point.

But all this is substantially mitigated by Graham's closing sentiments. He pointedly left his listeners with the 'good news' that the vast majority of Muslims do not support terror committed in the name of their religion. And he offered what sounded like a very sincere hope that they can and will take steps to marginalize and discredit the militants’ use of Islam.

On balance, Graham did what successful radio hosts do. He made a defensible argument in a manner designed to startle. The controversial phrase was ill-advised, but it was very far from the hanging offense it has become. And while it seems unduly stubborn for him to have resisted at least some expression of regret about his phrasing, that should not, in any event, have been a precondition for keeping his job.

The role of Islam in terrorism is a crucial issue. There is currently a good deal of contention, much of it from Muslim interest groups, that terrorism is a reaction to political conditions rather than a result of doctrine. That many of us would disagree--vehemently--with that assessment hardly means the argument should not be heard. But it is at least equally viable and appropriate to air the position that much of the problem of Islamic terrorism lies with Islam itself--something that even courageous Muslim moderates have acknowledged.