Depends on your definition of terrorism. If you mean overseas terrorism involving intricate conspiracies and careful planning, then yeah I could see some possibility in that. If you mean insurgency or other hate crimes of terrorism, then I'd definitely disagree. But in reality, that comes from two things.
The first is being that Islam is the second most practiced religion in the world. This figure is at the most about 700 million people under Christianity, which is predominant in developed regions such as North America and Europe, with the EU, Canada, US and Australia having over 800 million people in total. So, among people in developing nations that have more of a right to be angry and a need to be violent to be heard, Islam actually holds a majority.
Second and vastly more important is simply based on happenstances of chance. Combine the Arab world's colonial history with vast reserves of oil in the Middle East and you'll obviously have a problem.
The entire Central Asian region was the centre of the Great Game between the UK and Russia, which resulted in political instability that can be traced to this day.
Britain's occupation of Egypt did significant damage to development, and the Suez crisis exploded the already mounting tensions between the Middle East and the West. Additionally, the western backing of Israel, which basically allowed it to annex a huge amount of the holy land without any political negotiations and kick all the old inhabitants out, did a good number on the Middle Eastern states in the region. Imagine if China suddenly annexed a bunch of Florida or Southern Ontario and forced all the previous residents into the space it didn't annex. It'd be an outrage, and so it was. Then, the heavy western backing of Israel during the Arab-Israel wars turned Israel into a regional power with no real care for anything outside the region. They just put up a wall and decided to ignore everyone outside.
The US and UK destabilization of the Iranian democracy might have been the most important modern reason for instability. Deposing the democratically elected Prime Minister and replacing him with an autocratic government meant for an unstable regional power. That let Iraq take some chances in other parts of the region, which led to another US invasion. Do another two of these, and we're back to where we are now, with severely damaged politics in Western and Central Asia, and a pretty clear cause to blame. The exact same result would have occurred if that area was primarily Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist.
I'd also like to remind you that during the Middle Ages, the entire Arab world was the jewel of human civilization. Arab scholars protected knowledge from the Romans and before while making scientific, engineering, and philosophical advances of their own. And of course, the Europeans did go in there and destroy cities and towns, uprooting a stable society for their own gains, in the form of the crusades. And since they couldn't just hijack a plane and fly it into Mecca back then, I'd call that the equivalent of Western terrorism against the Middle East. I'm sure to many Arabs at that time, crusaders ready to kill anyone for Christ would have seemed just as crazy as the guys that go around lighting their underpants on fire for Islam. And the crusaders did that en masse in gigantic armies fighting wars of attrition... perhaps Christianity is actually crazier than Islam then, no?
EDIT: See the Afghanistan thread for a brief outline/rant on how I'd fight the so-called war against terror.