Realpolitik vs. pretendpolitik

Diana West wrote in JWR Unbowed, if unemployed, Michael Graham (fired from WMAL for saying Islam is a Terrorist Organization) issued a thought-provoking challenge as his airtime on "The O'Reilly Factor" ran down to a break. Before discussing Graham's final words on "O'Reilly," it's worth mentioning that Graham's argument linking terrorism to Islam is posted at JewishWorldReview.com in a column he wrote after the second London Underground bombing. Sure, the stand-alone scare quote ("I. is a T.O.") collides head-on with 21st-century sensibilities, but Graham builds his argument carefully.

And after reading his article I think more of him than I did when I just heard the quote he was fired for.

He makes the politically incorrect kind of sense, supported by fact (e.g., more than one in four British Muslims said they wouldn't tell police of a planned terrorist attack) and observation (Islamic teachings drive terrorist jihad), that the open-eyed child in "The Emperor's New Clothes" would instantly recognize.... And then, in closing, Graham said this: "(t)ell me one terrorist attack that's going to be stopped because we stopped this conversation" — that is, by WMAL taking Graham off the air.... Surely, we are more "sensitive," meaning more guarded, even nervous about what is currently permissible to say, at least according to CAIR's enforcers. Even so, ending a conversation about jihad and Islam doesn't end Islamic jihad.

CAIR's objective is to promote, not end, Islamic Jihad, but if they can intimidate people not to talk about it, the Jihadists will have a better chance.

Nor does cutting the talk about links between Islam and terrorism cut the links between Islam and terrorism. The fact is, the train of logic doesn't change its destination no matter how many of us — radio stations, pundits, academics, politicians — hop off.... This reality includes the fact that what we know as "terrorism" is directly linked to the centrality of jihad (holy war) and dhimmitude (non-Muslim inferiority) in Islam, no hijackings necessary.... Protected against reality, we see only good in any religion because it is a religion. Secure from the truth, we see only liberty and justice in any constitution because it is a constitution.

I am not sure I agree with this. As a religion the five pillars of Islam are not bad, but some evil people have hijacked Islam. Our Holy Bible describes times when people were slaves, and when women had no rights. But we do not claim that because those things happened 2,000 years ago, they should still happen today.

Our only problems stem from "extremism," which not only defines nothing, but also offends no one. Or does it? Out of Great Britain this month came a communique from nearly 40 Muslim leaders and groups. Their message? In part to renounce the label of "extremism." They wrote: "To equate 'extremism' with the aspirations of Muslims for Sharia laws in the Muslim world or the desire to see unification towards a Caliphate in the Muslim lands ... is inaccurate and disingenuous.

If the British Muslims really aspire to having Sharia laws apply in the Muslim world, why dont they leave Britain and go live in a Muslim country. They are asking for Sharia to apply to them in Britain.

It indicates ignorance of what Sharia is and what a Caliphate is and will alienate and victimize the Muslim community unnecessarily." In other words, not only does terrorism have nothing to do with Islam, as WMAL seems to have determined, but sharia (repressive Islamic law) and the caliphate (Islamic empire) have nothing to do with extremism, as Britain's Muslim leaders have explained.

They must have written that after smoking hashish.

Clearly, our vocabulary is shrinking as fast the ranks of bold talk-show hosts. But isn't there so much more to talk about?