A Pilgrim’s Digression

A minor controversy has erupted here in Washington over statements made on Monday by an AM talk radio host that “Islam is a terror organization.” You may not have heard this story yet; I don’t believe it’s made the news anywhere but in Washington.

The host in question is a fellow on WMAL, Michael Graham. I don’t listen to his program, since it airs during the workday, so as my sources for this blog, I am using Graham’s blog and a Washington Post article, Muslims call comments by WMAL host “hate-filled.”

What strikes me as most interesting is that Graham has said nothing that Limbaugh, Boortz, and Savage haven’t been saying since the very beginning of the war on terror: because the terrorists are Muslim, Islam is itself the root cause of terrorism.

What Graham said (quoting from his blog) was:

Islam is a terror organization. For years, I�ve been trying to give the world�s Muslim community the benefit of the doubt, along with the benefit of my typical-American�s complete disinterest in their faith…Immediately after 9/11, I nodded in ignorant agreement as President Bush assured me that �Islam is a religion of peace.� But nearly four years later, nobody can defend that statement. And I mean �nobody.�

Graham goes on to play the usual right-wing talk radio game of complaining about “moderate” muslims not standing up and rooting out terrorism on their own.

And the reason Islam has itself become a terrorist organization is that it cannot address its own role in this violence. It cannot cast out the murderers from its members. I know it can�t, because �moderate� Muslim imams keep telling me they can�t. �We have no control over these radical young men,� one London imam moaned to the local papers.

Before I dissect Graham’s argument any further, I should point out that just a few days previously, in an article titled UK Muslims at Forefront of Terror Fight, the Post reported an Imam as saying to more than 2000 men and boys in a mosque, “We must save Islam from the dark forces of hate.” The article quotes a fatwa issued shortly after the attacks of 7/7 as saying, “The attacks in London have no Islamic justification, are totally condemned and we equally condemn those who have been behind the masterminding of these acts.”

Maybe these denunciations of terrorism aren’t good enough for Graham. Or maybe he knows nothing about them. Just as Conservatives accuse the media of ignoring the “good news” in Iraq, so (as a liberal) I would accuse the media of underreporting stories about the vast majority of Muslims who reject terrorist violence while playing up the moderate/fundamentalist “divisions” within Islam. So giving Graham the benefit of the doubt, maybe he hasn’t read these stories. Instead, he probably only read the story Moderate Muslims Split on Suicide Bombing.

Let’s also use a tactic of argument familiar to the right. Whenever a liberal is perceived as criticizing Christianity, Conservatives like to play role-reversal and say, “What if he’d said this about Jews?” So let’s reverse roles here and see if Graham’s argument stands up to close scrutiny.

Suppose for a moment that we were dealing with, say, abortion-clinic bombers (yes, Christians have committed acts of terror: Eric Rudolph, anyone?). Do you think for a moment that if in response to a wave of abortion-clinic bombings Al Franken said on his radio program “Christianity is a terror organization” that Conservatives would not have dragged the man into the street for a public lynching?

First of all, examine the ludicrousness of such a sweeping statement as “Islam (or Christianity) is a terror organization.” First of all, it presumes unanimity of belief: the doctrine of the religion itself and all those who profess belief in it promotes/condones/sanctions terrorist violence. One doesn’t need an article from the Washington Post as a source to undercut this portion of Graham’s argument. Reason alone is enough.

Second, Graham’s argument presumes that because there is division with Islam, this invalidates the beliefs and actions of all the millions of Muslims who stand resolute against terrorism. There are certainly many Muslims who believe that suicide bombing is justified in some cases. There are also many Christians, some of them no doubt the equivalent of Muslim Imams, who believe it is perfectly justifiable to bomb an abortion clinic killing doctors, nurses, and patients alike. Does the fact that there is this division within Christianity somehow mean that Christianity is itself a violent “terror organization?” Of course not.

Another premise of Graham’s argument is that there is one or maybe two Islams, a moderate Islam and a Fundamentalist Islam. Again, the comparison with Christianity points out the absurdity of this assumption. There are hundreds of sects within Christianity and within those sects there are divisions as well. Christianity is divided right down to the pastoral level. I can go to one Catholic church and hear doctrine expounded one way by one priest, and I can go to another Catholic church and hear it explained another way. Thus it is the height of presumption to say as Graham does that there is a “fundamental theology of Islam as it is constituted today [that] allows for hatreds most Muslims do not share to thrive, and for criminals they oppose to operate in the name of their faith.” I confess I myself do not know if Islam is as theologically diverse as Christianity, but I’d be surprised if Islamic theology is as consistent as Graham suggests. Graham even compares it to the Boy Scouts of America, suggesting that if ten BSA members committed an act of terrorism, the BSA itself would be considered a terrorist organization. Again, he presumes some kind of unanimity of belief and purpose, similar to the BSA. Graham may even contradict himself on this issue since he admits to a division between what he calls “most Muslims” and the terrorist supporters. How can there be a division if “Islam is a terrorist organization?” By default, to define something as a terrorist organization suggests a singularity of purpose and belief within that organization.

Graham’s problem is he consistently paints with a sweeping brush, refusing to acknowledge distinctions or give credit to those Muslims who do speak out against terror. One has to ask why? I would suggest first of all that it makes for good talk radio to be inflammatory. That is the obvious answer. The Post reports that a spokesperson for WMAL said, “Remember that this is talk radio. We don’t do the dainty minuet of the newspaper editorial page. It’s not ‘Washington Week in Review.’ It depends on pungent statements to drive it. Michael is rattling the cage. It’s designed to start and further a conversation, and it has certainly done that.”

This alone tells you where Graham is coming from. Don’t expect carefully reasoned argument. Graham is just rattling the cage, that’s all. This is basically the criticism liberals have levelled against talk radio for decades, and here it is being used as an excuse by a talk radio executive.

I would also suggest that as the war on terror drags on with no end in sight, expect the right wingers like Graham to become ever more strident and belligerant. Recall that during Vietnam, the worse the war went, the more belligerant the hardliners became, eventually calling for the nuking of Hanoi. If American cities are ever struck again with a major terror incident (and all the Conservatives assure us such an attack is coming), expect people like Graham to demand some real payback. All they know is how to escalate violence. Winning a war, to them, means “getting tougher,” rather than getting smarter. Meanwhile, while the violence continues unabated, the government will just strip a few more of our civil liberties away.

As an example of what we might expect from people like Graham, another story out of Washington you may not have heard about involves Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado. The Post reported last week that on Pat Campbell’s radio talk show, Tancredo proposed bombing Islam’s holy cities as a response to a nuclear attack on the United States.

Congressman threatens Islamic holy sites.

“Well, what if you said something like—if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites,” Tancredo answered.

“You’re talking about bombing Mecca,” Campbell said.

“Yeah,” Tancredo responded.

Killing civilians indiscriminantly, attacking holy sites, and fomenting religious war between Christians and Muslims is a valid response to a nuclear attack against the U.S. by a few disaffected individuals? Unfortunately, these are the kind of cranks who are going to be in charge of an American response to another terrorist attack. Feel safer yet?