Few understood or could better explain this winner-take-all battle between the Radicals and the Reformers than Mrs. Benazir Bhutto, who served as the first woman ever elected prime minister of Pakistan (1988–1990) and later served as the second woman premier of that largely fundamentalist country (1993–1996).
Raised by a Sunni father and a Shia mother of Iranian-Kurdish descent, Bhutto considered herself fortunate to have been taught moderate theology from the Qur’an from an early age. “My parents taught me that men and women are equal in the eyes of God,” she would later recall, “that the first convert to Islam was a woman, that the Prophet of Islam married a career woman, that the line of the Prophet was carried through his beloved daughter Fatima.”394
Later, encouraged by her parents to study Jeffersonian democracy in the United States, she began attending Harvard University in the fall of 1969. Pakistan at that time was suffering under a military dictatorship, but in America, Bhutto came to appreciate firsthand the remarkable and enduring power of the American Revolution as well as the enormous challenges of creating and sustaining a free society.395 “In America, I saw the power of the people to change and influence policies,” Bhutto once wrote. “The struggle in Pakistan and the reality of the ability of people in America to assert themselves, to stand up without fear for what they believed in, were important influences in my life. I was positioned between two worlds, the world of dictatorship and the world of democracy. I could see the power of the people in a democracy and contrast it to the lack of political power in my own country. I [also] saw people in America took their rights for granted: freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement. In my country people were killed or imprisoned fighting for these freedoms.”396
Years later, during her two terms in office as premier, she came under withering criticism and fierce resistance from both the extremists and the moderates. The Radicals hated her for her bedrock belief that Islam is the answer but jihad is not the way. The Reformers despised her for being at best an imperfect executor of her convictions and at worst an outright hypocrite, having permitted rampant corruption during her administration.
After her second term, Bhutto took her family and went into a self-imposed exile in Dubai, the commercial capital of the United Arab Emirates—itself an emerging model of moderation and economic innovation—where she took nearly a decade to read, think, meet with Reformers, and more fully develop her own views of how to attack corruption, bring more accountability to government, and create a blend of Islamic tradition and Jeffersonian democracy in a country such as Pakistan.
“Islam Was Sent as a Message of Liberation”
In exile, Bhutto wrote a remarkable book entitled Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West, which could very well become the manifesto of the Reformer movement. In it she wrote: “Within the Muslim world there has been and continues to be an internal rift, an often violent confrontation among sects, ideologies, and interpretations of the message of Islam. This destructive tension has set brother against brother, a deadly fratricide that has tortured intra-Islamic relations for 1,300 years. This sectarian conflict stifled the brilliance of the Muslim renaissance that took place during the Dark Ages of Europe, when the great universities, scientists, doctors, and artists were all Muslim. Today that intra-Muslim sectarian violence is most visibly manifest in a senseless, self-defeating sectarian civil war that is tearing modern Iraq apart at its fragile seams and exercising its brutality in other parts of the world, especially parts of Pakistan.”397
She argued that the Qur’an “does not simply preach the tolerance of other religions” but “also acknowledges that salvation can be achieved in all monotheistic religions.” Indeed, she insisted that “freedom of choice”—be it in what religion to follow or what spouse to marry or what school to attend or what leaders to elect—is “a cornerstone” of Islamic theology.
She noted further that “in contrast to other great religions’ attitudes towards non-adherents, Muslims accept Jews and Christians as ‘people of the Book.’ Thus, Muslim global terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, display a striking ignorance of Islam. They distort Islam while at the same time using the name of religion to attract people to a path to terrorism. Bin Laden claims, ‘The enmity between us and the Jews goes far back in time and is deep rooted. There is no question that war between the two of us is inevitable.’ This comment contradicts 1,300 years of peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Jews.”398
The bottom line, Bhutto concluded after years of studying the Qur’an, is that “Islam was sent as a message of liberation.” She blasted the Radicals for trying to “hijack Islam” for their own bloody purposes.399 She praised Turkey as “one of the true success stories of democratic governance in the Muslim world” and praised Qatar for “struggling to build a democracy,” noting that in 1999 the emir of the tiny Persian Gulf country “allowed local elections in which women could vote and run for office” and in 2005 created a new constitution that allowed for a unicameral legislature. She also noted that “in the pantheon of Muslim countries, Indonesia has also emerged as an example of one of the highest degrees of success in democratic governance,” imperfect, to be sure, but moving in the right direction.400
Sadly, on December 27, 2007, just weeks after returning to her native Pakistan, planning to run again on a reinvigorated platform of bold and sweeping democratic reforms, Bhutto was assassinated by Radicals determined to silence her and send a message to all other Reformers that their days were numbered.
The People of the Book
We have seen the verses in the Qur’an that the Radicals point to in their claims that they are justified in waging violent jihad against those whom they view as apostates and infidels.
What, then, are the verses that Reformers point to as proof that Islam is a religion of peace and that Muslims should work together with Christians and Jews, known in the Qur’an as the “People of the Book”?
There are quite a few verses, actually. Consider the following examples:
“Those who believe [Muslims], or those who declare Judaism, or the Christians . . . whoever truly believes in God and the Last Day and does good, righteous deeds, surely their reward is with their Lord, and they will have no fear, nor will they grieve.” —Sura 2:62
“Among the People of the Book there is an upright community, reciting God’s Revelations in the watches of the night and prostrating (themselves in worship). They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin and promote what is right and good and forbid and try to prevent the evil, and hasten to do good deeds as if competing with one another. Those are of the righteous ones. Whatever good they do, they will never be denied the reward of it; and God has full knowledge of the God-revering pious.” —Sura 3:113-115
“Surely We did send down the Torah, in which there was guidance and a light. Thereby did the prophets, who were fully submitted to God, judge for the Jews; and so did . . . the rabbis (teachers of law), as they had been entrusted to keep and observe . . . God’s Book.” —Sura 5:44
“In the footsteps of those (earlier prophets), We sent Jesus son of Mary, confirming (the truth of) the Torah revealed before him, and We granted to him the Gospel, in which there was guidance and light.” —Sura 5:46
“Do not argue with those who were given the Book. . . . Say, ‘We believe in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you, and your God and our God is one and the same.’” —Sura 29:46
“God does not forbid you, as regards those who do not make war against you on account of your Religion, to be kindly to them [Jews and Christians], and act towards them with equity. God surely loves the scrupulously equitable.” —Sura 60:8
Reformers further argue that several key verses often cited by Radicals are quoted out of context.
Sura 8:60, for example, does say, “Make ready against them whatever you can of force and horses assigned (for war), that thereby you may dismay the enemies of God and your enemies and others besides them, of whom
(and the nature of whose enmity) you may be unaware. God is aware of them (and of the nature of their enmity). Whatever you spend in God’s cause will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged.” Radicals say this gives them justification to use any and all force possible—including weapons of mass destruction—against the infidels. Yet the very next verse says, “And if they (the enemies) incline to peace, incline to it also, and put your trust in God. Surely, He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing” (Sura 8:61). The Reformers say this proves that the Qur’an actually puts the emphasis on making peace between Islamic nations and the West, not on waging a violent, apocalyptic jihad against Judeo-Christian civilization.
Similarly, Sura 9:5 begins by saying, “Kill them [the infidels] wherever you may come upon them, and seize them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place.” But the second half of that verse says, “Yet, if they repent and (mending their ways) establish the Prescribed Prayer and pay the Prescribed Purifying Alms, let them go their way. Surely God is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate.” The Radicals argue that this verse suggests giving the infidels one last chance to convert or die. The Reformers, on the other hand, argue that this verse puts the emphasis on peacemaking and reconciliation, not violent jihad.
Reformers also argue with great moral force that suicide bombings are absolutely forbidden by the Qur’an and various hadiths and that committing such an evil act will send a Muslim to hell, not to paradise. “In the Quran, preserving life is a central moral value,” Bhutto wrote. “It does not permit suicide but demands the preservation of life: ‘And spend in the way of Allah and cast not yourselves to perdition with your own hands, and do good (to others); surely Allah loves the doers of good’” (Sura 2:195).401 Other scholars of Islam cite hadiths such as this one to prove that suicide is forbidden in Islam: “The Prophet said: Whoever kills himself with a blade will be tormented with that blade in the fires of Hell. The Prophet also said: He who strangles himself will strangle himself in Hell. . . . He who throws himself off a mountain and kills himself will throw himself downward into the fires of Hell for ever and ever. . . . Whoever kills himself in any way will be tormented in that way in Hell.”402
The Debate Within
Remarkably, the battle for the soul of Islam—to define the religion for current and future generations—is not just between the Radicals and the Reformers. The battle is increasingly being waged among the Radicals themselves as some Islamic theologians who have either been sympathetic to jihadists or actively cooperated with them have begun reexamining their core beliefs and concluding that men like Osama bin Laden and the Ayatollah Khomeini were not just wrong but evil and should be held criminally liable for their actions.
Consider, for example, this headline from the Jerusalem Post, published on January 8, 2008:
REFORMED AL-ZAWAHIRI DISCIPLE IN ISRAEL
In the article that followed, reporter David Horovitz profiled a man named Tawfik Hamid, a forty-seven-year-old Muslim who grew up in Cairo dreaming of becoming a shaheed—a martyr—perhaps by suicide bombing. Why? Because he wanted to go to paradise where, he was told, he could “eat all the lollipops and chocolates I wanted, or play all day without anyone telling me to study.”
By the time he entered medical school at Cairo University, he was becoming a devout Radical. “I started to grow my beard. I stopped smiling and telling jokes. I adopted a serious look at all times and became very judgmental towards others. . . . My hatred toward non-Muslims increased dramatically, and Jihadi doctrine became second nature to me.”403
Soon, Hamid met Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, a fellow Egyptian, and was entranced by his message and delivery, describing al Qaeda’s chief strategist as “one of the fiercest speakers I had ever heard,” whose “rhetoric inspired us to engage in war against the infidels, the enemies of Allah.”
Hamid quickly became a follower of jihad. He was trained to blow up mosques and churches. He was involved in plans to kidnap a police officer and bury him alive. He was eventually invited to an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan.
But he was developing a deep sense of unease. “The brutality didn’t match my personality,” he explained. Hamid began studying Islam more carefully. He found himself gravitating toward the verses about peace and pluralism, turned down the invitation to join the Radicals, and dedicated his life to teaching the theology of the Reformers, even moving to the United States and making his peace with the Israelis.
“Practically speaking,” he explained on his first trip to the Jewish state, if young Muslims “don’t have an alternative interpretation of the Koran, it’s going to be impossible” to foster a moderate approach. And without it, he said, “we’re essentially asking them to leave their religion”—and “that won’t happen.” Islam, he said, “could be followed and interpreted in a peaceful way, but the current dominant way of interpretation has many violent areas that need addressing. To say Islam is peaceful? It is not. But it can be taught peacefully. The texts allow you to do this.”
One example: while the Qur’an does brand Jews as “monkeys,” Hamid said this applied only to “the Jews who were resisting Judaism”—that is, apostate Jews who resisted the teachings of Moses and were unholy and idolatrous. As for the rest, Hamid said Muslims ought to be “incredibly respectful of the Jews on the basis of the Koran” since the text calls Moses and the descendants of Abraham and Israel the “chosen” people.
Sura 19:51, for example, says that Moses—the one who led the nation of Israel out of slavery in Egypt—“was one chosen, endowed with perfect sincerity and purity of intention in faith and practicing the Religion, and was a Messenger, a Prophet.”
Sura 19:58, meanwhile, says, “God bestowed His blessings (of Scripture, Prophethood, authority with sound judgment, and wisdom)” on “the descendants of Adam” and “the descendants of Abraham and Israel (Jacob) . . . whom We guided and chose.”
Consider, too, this headline from the New York Sun, published on December 20, 2007:
SENIOR [AL] QAEDA THEOLOGIAN URGES HIS FOLLOWERS TO END THEIR JIHAD
In the article that followed, reporter Eli Lake noted a stunning development: “One of al Qaeda’s senior theologians is calling on his followers to end their military jihad and saying the attacks of September 11, 2001, were a ‘catastrophe for all Muslims.’ In a serialized manifesto written from prison in Egypt, Sayyed Imam al-Sharif is blasting Osama bin Laden” and “even calls for the formation of a special Islamic court to try Osama bin Laden and his old comrade Ayman al-Zawahiri.” Lake noticed that the theologian’s manifesto was “a renunciation of his earlier work, saying the military jihad or war against apostate states and America is futile” and read in certain parts “like a spicy Washington memoir by an embittered former official.”404
The following are excerpts from Sayyed Imam al-Sharif’s manifesto, as translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute:405
“I cut my ties with everyone [in al Qaeda] . . . when I saw that most of them were following their own desires. Allah said (Koran 28:50): ‘Who is farther astray than he who follows his own desires without guidance from Allah? Allah does not guide unjust people.’”
“The events of September [11], 2001, were . . . a catastrophe for the Muslims. . . . Whoever approves of their action shares their sin.”
“[Al-Qaeda] ignited strife that found its way into every home, and they were the cause of the imprisonment of thousands of Muslims in the prisons of various countries. They caused the death of tens of thousands of Muslims—Arabs, Afghans, Pakistanis, and others. The Taliban’s Islamic Emirate was destroyed, and Al-Qaeda was destroyed. They were the direct cause of the American occupation of Afghanistan and other heavy losses which there is not enough time to mention here. They bear the responsibility for all of this.”
“I think that a Shari’a court should be established, composed of reliable scholars, to hold these people [Osama bin Laden, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, etc.] accountable for their crimes.”
&n
bsp; There were some other intriguing points in the manifesto as well. Among them:
• The lives and property of Muslims must be preserved.
• Jihad against the leaders of Muslim countries is not acceptable.
• It is forbidden to harm foreigners and tourists in Muslim countries.
• It is treachery to kill people in a non-Muslim country after entering that country with its government’s permission (i.e., a legal visa).406
Though it was largely unnoticed by the mainstream media in the U.S. and Europe, the release of the manifesto made news in the Middle East and was a significant development in the raging battle between the Radicals and the Reformers. It represented a wholesale reassessment of the case for jihad by a senior al Qaeda theologian, one whose voice will certainly be widely listened to in the years ahead. And not just by the Rank-and-File processing the debate as if watching a championship tennis game at Wimbledon—turning their heads from one side to the other and back again—but among some Radicals as well, those whose consciences are burning and whose eyes reflect a growing horror as they see what they are doing in a new light and wonder if perhaps God is not in all this bloodshed and hatred after all.
Chapter Sixteen
The Defector
A Khomeini heir’s stunning call for democracy and reform
On September 26, 2003, the grandson of the Ayatollah Khomeini—a highly respected Shia cleric in his own right—calmly stood up before an audience in Washington, D.C. He looked out over the crowd, took a deep breath, and then, speaking through an interpreter, denounced the Islamic Revolution, said it was time to usher in a new era of freedom and democracy in his country, and urged the Bush administration to mobilize the American people to overthrow the Iranian regime much as Winston Churchill had mobilized the British to destroy Adolf Hitler.
“As you know, the history of Iran in the nineteenth century was the history of a country under dictatorship,” Hossein Khomeini, then forty-four, told the gathering at the American Enterprise Institute, just blocks from the White House. “But the Revolution and Mr. Khomeini promised to change the Iranian situation and bring democracy to Iran. But, unfortunately, as things turned out, Iran again became . . . [an] even worse dictatorship after the Revolution.”407
Inside the Revolution Page 26