Andrew McCarthy is not just any lawyer; he is a seasoned former federal prosecutor who has dedicated a significant portion of his career to understanding the complexities of Islamic extremism and its implications for national security. His unique perspective, honed through years of experience in the courtroom and deep engagement with Islamic doctrine, offers critical insights into a topic often clouded by political correctness and misinformation. This article, inspired by McCarthy’s speech at Hillsdale College, delves into the uncomfortable realities surrounding Islam and terrorism, challenging conventional narratives and urging a more honest and informed approach to combating radical Islamism.
In 1993, Andrew McCarthy, then a federal prosecutor, found himself leading the charge against a terrorist cell responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing and plotting further devastating attacks in New York City. Initially, like many Americans, McCarthy held a somewhat naive understanding of Islam, accepting the prevailing narrative that the actions of these terrorists were aberrations, distortions of a peaceful religion. However, the demands of his profession – the imperative to prove not just the what but the why behind these heinous acts – compelled him to delve deeper, to scrutinize the claims made by both the government and the terrorists themselves. This journey of investigation led Andrew McCarthy, the lawyer, to confront uncomfortable truths about the relationship between Islamic doctrine and extremist violence.
One of McCarthy’s pivotal discoveries centered around Omar Abdel Rahman, infamously known as the Blind Sheikh, the spiritual leader of the terror cell. Contrary to the government’s portrayal of him as a fringe lunatic misrepresenting Islam, Andrew McCarthy, the prosecutor, unearthed a different reality. Abdel Rahman was not a charlatan but a highly respected Islamic scholar, a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence from the prestigious al-Azhar University, a cornerstone of Sunni Islamic learning. His expertise lay in Sharia, Islamic law. This revelation prompted a crucial question for Andrew McCarthy, the lawyer: why were government officials, lacking any comparable expertise in Islamic studies, so confident in dismissing the interpretations of a figure revered within significant segments of the Islamic world? Furthermore, the Blind Sheikh’s physical incapacities – his blindness and other ailments – seemed incongruous with the demanding nature of orchestrating terrorism, further suggesting that his influence stemmed from his religious authority, not operational prowess.
As Andrew McCarthy prepared for the trial, he recognized the necessity of directly engaging with the theological justifications presented by the defendants. Knowing he could not out-argue a Doctor of Islamic Jurisprudence on matters of theology, McCarthy adopted a strategic approach. He reasoned that if the government’s narrative of Islamic perversion held true, there must be clear contradictions between the Blind Sheikh’s pronouncements and core Islamic doctrine. McCarthy and his team meticulously examined the Blind Sheikh’s extensive writings, expecting to find distortions and misinterpretations of Islamic scripture. However, their findings were deeply unsettling: whenever Abdel Rahman cited the Quran or other authoritative Islamic texts, he did so accurately. This painstaking investigation by Andrew McCarthy, the lawyer, revealed a stark and uncomfortable truth: the Blind Sheikh was not fabricating Islamic justifications for terrorism; he was drawing upon established interpretations within Islamic scripture.
When the Blind Sheikh asserted that Islamic scriptures command Muslims to instill terror in the hearts of Islam’s enemies, Andrew McCarthy’s legal team found the scriptural basis for this claim.
When he proclaimed that Allah enjoined all Muslims to wage jihad until Islamic law prevails globally, the scriptures, as interpreted by the Blind Sheikh and many others, supported this assertion.
When he declared that Islam forbids Muslims from taking Jews and Christians as friends, again, scriptural interpretations could be cited in support.
While acknowledging the possibility of alternative interpretations, Andrew McCarthy, drawing upon his prosecutorial rigor, pointed out a crucial and often overlooked fact: the jihadists’ interpretations are not easily dismissed as fringe or heretical. They possess a seemingly straightforward and literal reading of Islamic texts. Those who attempt to present Islam as inherently peaceful often resort to complex contextualizations and reinterpretations, sometimes appearing to dance around the plain meaning of the scriptures. For Andrew McCarthy, the lawyer focused on evidence and clear reasoning, the Blind Sheikh’s call to jihad was undeniably rooted in a coherent, if unsettling, interpretation of Islamic doctrine. He was not perverting Islam; he was highlighting an interpretation that demands serious consideration and, potentially, reform.
Furthermore, Andrew McCarthy challenges the common refrain that “Islam is a religion of peace.” While acknowledging that benign interpretations of Islam exist, he argues that even these interpretations do not inherently equate to a call for peace in the Western sense. Verses explicitly commanding believers to “fight those who believe not in Allah” and to “fight and slay the pagans” are not peaceful exhortations, regardless of contextualization. This direct and unflinching analysis from Andrew McCarthy, the lawyer, forces a reconsideration of simplistic characterizations of Islam and its relationship to violence.
Adding another layer of complexity, Andrew McCarthy recounts the disturbing testimony of character witnesses during the Blind Sheikh trial. These were not extremists but moderate, peaceful Muslim Americans. Yet, when questioned about core Islamic concepts like jihad and Sharia, they deferred to Islamic scholars, implicitly acknowledging figures like the Blind Sheikh as authorities on these matters. This highlighted a critical point for Andrew McCarthy, the prosecutor: even moderate Muslims often recognize the authority of extremist scholars on doctrinal issues, even if they personally reject extremist actions. This does not imply endorsement of terrorism, but it does suggest a broader acceptance of certain interpretations of Islamic doctrine than is often acknowledged in mainstream discourse.
Andrew McCarthy draws a historical parallel to Winston Churchill’s observations on Islamic supremacism. Churchill, having witnessed it firsthand in British colonial territories, described “Mohammedanism” as laying “dreadful curses” on its followers, citing “fanatical frenzy” and “fatalistic apathy.” Churchill noted the societal consequences, including “improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property” in Muslim-majority regions. While acknowledging individual Muslims’ “splendid qualities,” Churchill, like Andrew McCarthy, identified the problem not with the people, but with certain aspects of the doctrine itself.
Andrew McCarthy further reinforces his analysis by referencing Robert Jackson, a towering figure in American law. Justice Jackson, in his foreword to Law in the Middle East, contrasted Islamic law (Sharia) with Western law, emphasizing their fundamental “inconsistencies” and “contrarieties” in “source, scope, and sanctions.” Jackson viewed Sharia as “the antithesis of Western law.” This stark contrast, highlighted by both Jackson and Andrew McCarthy, the lawyer, underscores the significant differences in legal and societal frameworks, differences often downplayed in contemporary discussions about Islam and the West. McCarthy points to the post-Taliban Afghan constitution, with its uneasy mix of human rights tropes and the establishment of Islam as the state religion and Sharia as a principal source of law, as a concrete example of this inherent tension. He emphasizes that Sharia, in its traditional interpretations, fundamentally clashes with Western values regarding freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equal rights. It is a comprehensive system governing all aspects of life, aiming to rule both believers and non-believers, and sanctioning jihad to achieve this goal.
Andrew McCarthy directly challenges the assertion, often repeated by political leaders, that extremist interpretations of Islam are not mainstream. He argues that, in many parts of the world, these interpretations are mainstream. He points to the example of Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally, where beheadings for Sharia violations are a reality, contrasting this with the outrage expressed by Western politicians at ISIS beheadings, often accompanied by denials of any connection to Islam. This comparison, drawn by Andrew McCarthy, the lawyer, exposes a double standard and a reluctance to confront the reality of Sharia’s application in various parts of the Muslim world.
McCarthy then addresses the disturbing trend of downplaying or mischaracterizing terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims. He cites the San Bernardino attack and the Fort Hood shooting as examples where the government seemed hesitant to label these acts as “terrorist attacks,” despite clear evidence of jihadist motivations. Andrew McCarthy, drawing on his prosecutorial experience, questions this reluctance, arguing that it stems from a “willful blindness” and “political correctness” that prioritizes a constructed, sanitized version of Islam over confronting uncomfortable realities. He critiques the notion of terrorism as “anti-Islamic activity,” as described by former British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, arguing that this framing obscures the ideological roots of Islamic extremism. This reluctance to acknowledge the role of Islamic ideology, according to Andrew McCarthy, leads to misguided policies, such as focusing on “radicalization” as a spontaneous phenomenon, detached from any underlying belief system.
Finally, Andrew McCarthy warns against the dangerous implications of this “political correctness,” which extends to a generalized acceptance of any organization publicly associated with Islam as inherently peaceful. He points to the Muslim Brotherhood, a highly influential Islamic supremacist organization, as an example of an entity often given a “clean bill of health” despite its history of violence and its foundational ideology of establishing Sharia globally. McCarthy highlights the Brotherhood’s connections to terrorist groups like Hamas and Al Qaeda, urging a more critical and fact-based assessment, echoing Churchill’s dictum: “Facts are better than dreams.”
In conclusion, Andrew McCarthy, through his legal and analytical lens, compels a re-evaluation of conventional wisdom surrounding Islam and terrorism. He argues that confronting the “facts of Islamic supremacism” is essential to effectively combating jihadist threats. This requires moving beyond politically correct narratives, acknowledging the existence and influence of interpretations of Islam that justify violence, and engaging with the complexities of Islamic doctrine with honesty and intellectual rigor. Andrew McCarthy, the lawyer, provides a stark and necessary challenge, urging a more informed and courageous approach to understanding and addressing the realities of Islamic extremism in the 21st century.
