Atheist novelist Salman Rushdie has lived under a religious death sentence since the 1989 publication of his controversial work, The Satanic Verses. The President Khatami of Iran is now suggesting that the Rushdie affair will be forgotten. But is this promise unrealistic? Will Muslims across the world abandon their bloodthirsty call for vengeance? The Rushdie matter raises serious questions about the ability of Islam to live peacefully and tolerantly in a secular world.

Web Posted: September 24, 1998

eeting on Tuesday with reporters in New York, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami called for improved relations with the West, and said that the affair surrounding novelist Salman Rushdie is "completely finished." Khatami added that the Iranian government would take no steps to enforce the 1989 death sentence or "fatwa" on the embattled writer pronounced by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini for Rushdie's controversial novel "The Satanic Verses."

    In London, representatives of the International Rushdie Defense Committee said they were "cautiously optimistic" about Khatami's statement, which nevertheless stopped short of actually condemning the late Ayatollah or the fatwa itself. The Iranian President, considered a relative moderate and reformer, told reporters that the Rushdie affair was a "manifestation of the war of civilizations which was begun by the West against Muslim countries." He added that, "From now on, instead of war we want a dialogue of civilizations."

    In more oblique language, Khatami described the 1989 decree by Iran's supreme religious and political leader, saying that "an Islamic jurist gave us his opinion about this matter and many other religious leaders have told us their opinion in this respect. The Iranian government has officially announced that in practice it has made no decision to act on this matter."

    Rushdie was condemned to death by Khomeini, who pronounced "The Satanic Verses" to be "blasphemous" and an insult to Muslims. Islamic groups throughout the world demonstrated their support for Khomeini's fatwa; as a result, Rushdie has been in hiding since the decree, making only sporadic, unannounced public appearances.

A MEANINGLESS GESTURE?

   There is considerable debate, though, whether Khatami's statement that the Rushdie affair is ended -- even if sincere -- really has any significance. Islamic jurists seem to agree that the fatwa can only be rescinded by the person who pronounced it, in this case Ayatollah Khomeini who died in 1991. The president's remarks contrasted sharply with the earlier position of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Khomeini's successor who declared, "The fatwa is irreversible. Rushdie should and will be executed. It is the duty for all Muslims who have access to the mercenary to carry out the sentence."

    Other unidentified Iranian government officials reportedly informed the BBC "that Mr. Khatami's statement did not indicate the lifting of the edict, which they said could only have been rescinded by the Ayatollah (Khomeini) himself..." And as recently as February of this year, Iran's chief prosecutor, Morteze Moqtadaie declared that the death sentence on Rushdie was still in force, and "The shedding of this man's blood is obligatory." Speaking to an afternoon prayer gathering at Tehran University, a stronghold for religious hard liners in Iran, Moqtadaie added, "Any Muslim who hears an insult to the prophet must kill the person who commits this insult. It is better that those closest to that person try to kill him first." The prosecutor's bloody tirade was greeted with cries from the worshipper of "Alah Akbar," or "God is Great!"

    Khatami's statement on the Rushdie death sentence, while warmly received in literary, human rights and even some government circles in Britain and the United States, did not generate universal approval from Muslim groups. A spokesman for the UK Action Committee for Islamic Affairs in London, which has lobbied for Muslim interests and organized public demonstrations calling for Rushdie's murder, told Reuters news service that its position regarding the novelist had changed "not one iota." Iqbal Sacranie declared, "the publisher, author and the international community need to look at the root problem in this crisis and that means the continuing publication of Rushdie's book." Reuters added that according to the Action Committee, "Moslem outrage at Rushdie's novel was not confined to Iran and therefore religious orders calling for Rushdie's death would continue to stand even if Iran rescinded its own fatwa."

KHATAMI'S DILEMMA: SPLITS AT HOME,
THREATS ABROAD

    Why is Tehran sending signals now of willingness to even discuss the Rushdie matter? There are several reasons:

   ¶   Khatami's election last year was a triumph for relative moderates inside the Tehran regime; indeed, the new president's electoral support came from technocrats, youth, the middle class and intellectuals, all of whom are reportedly weary at Iran's continued status in the world as an "outlaw" rogue nation and supporter of intolerance and terrorism, as well as the excesses of Muslim fundamentalists. Khatami still has problems in the Majilis or Parliament. As for the Rushdie matter, even if the Tehran government attempts to call off its hounds, private Islamic groups could still act to murder Mr. Rushdie. Quasi-official bodies like the Ansar-e Hizbollah ("Supporters of the Army of God") and the powerful, cleric-dominated Council of Guardians still wield considerable political power. Senior clerics like Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati continue to preach "revolutionary Islam," and even the Parliament Speaker, Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri declared that the fatwa against the embattled novelist "will be carried out by Moslems to teach a lesson to those who oppose God and God's prophets." In short, Khatami faces enormous political as well as cultural-religious opposition in trying to implement any reform program, let alone rescind the death sentence on Rushdie.

   ¶    Even creating the appearance of rescinding the death sentence on Rushdie (whether or not such an act is truly sincere, or can even be enforced in the Muslim world) is also not something Khatami is doing on moral principle; rather, it is part of a wider geopolitical strategy to rehabilitate Iran's role in the world community, and fend off possible military and political problems in its own region. The president's statement about Mr. Rushdie came in a series of positions enunciated by Khatami as part of his visit earlier this week to celebrate the 53rd United Nations General Assembly in New York.

   ¶    Khatami called for an end to the fixed veto power of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and the inclusion of an Islamic nation with a permanent seat. Under the current UN Charter, the Council is the only organ that can take direct enforcement action if a breach of international peace has been declared. Of the 15 members, the five permanent seats are held by the United States, Great Britain, Russia, Britain, France and China. "The Islamic countries, representing 1 billion and several million people, should acquire a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council with the same privileges," said Khatami. He also denounced "the fantasy of a unipolar world" under the hegemony of the United States.

    Unfortunately, much of Khatami's UN address was subsumed by coverage of his remarks about the Rushdie affair. Khatami spoke several times both at the United Nations and in his press conference with reporters using the term "civilization," a revealing word which gives insight into the Iranian leader's geopolitical sensibilities. While a reformist, Khatami is still very much a Muslim with a regional and religious rather than internationalist, secular and cosmopolitan awareness. His call for a "dialogue of civilizations" seemed to resonate with comparable remarks made at the US by President Clinton, who went to considerable lengths in his talk to deny that "there is an inevitable clash between Western civilizations and Western values and Islamic civilizations and values..."

   ¶    Khatami's version of "perestroika" comes at a crucial time in Iranian affairs. After nearly two decades of poor relationships with the West, Iran desperately needs foreign capital and interaction. Mr. Rushdie's fate could well be a bargaining chip in a crucial game of "pipeline politics," and an extension of "The Great Game" involving political and military developments in neighboring Afghanistan. Into this part of the equation, enter the Taliban...

THE AFGHAN PROBLEM

    Although Afghanistan is now under the boot of a ruthless Islamic regime, the clerics in Kabul are not on warm terms with their religious brethren in Tehran. Iran is the stronghold of the Shi'ite religious tendency, whereas the rulers in Afghanistan -- the Taliban militia -- are composed of militant Sunni Moslems who follow the teachings of the late Muhammad ibn Adb-al Wahhab, an 18th century Islamic reformer and zealot. The two group have crucial doctrinal differences, including the correct line of succession from the original prophet, Mohammed. But is more than esoteric arguments over theology which separates Kabul and Tehran. "Pipeline politics" has driven a wedge between these two Muslim nations.

    At stake is a $4.5 billion dollar project to transport oil and gas from the Caucuses -- the first major step in opening up the "next frontier" of oil exploration and development.

    As the Taliban consolidated its grip on Afghanistan as emerged as the leading power broker, corporations quickly fell into line. Despite the fact that it has established a nightmarish, fundamentalist regime, the Taliban was perceived as being the best guarantor of "stability" in this otherwise unstable part of the world. America's UNILOCAL conglomerate, along with financial interests from South Korea (Hyundai), Saudi Arabia (another Wahabbist society) and neighboring Pakistan announced that Afghanistan would be the route for this lucrative project.

    Coincident with the Taliban's rise to power, and the announcement of the pipeline deal, relations between Afghanistan and Iran chilled considerably. Relations were further strained earlier this month when the Taliban armies seized a number of Iranian diplomats and other personnel during a military offensive in the northern part of Afghanistan, annihilating the last of any meaningful resistance. Having consolidated power throughout most of the country, the Taliban government also began placing restrictions on the UN aid mission in Kabul.

   Another event has also occurred which has transformed the Taliban from a potential ally and business partner for Washington to a suspect, even rogue government. This was the possible involvement of Osama bin Laden, an extreme Wahhabist, in the bombings of two US embassies in Kenya and Dar-es-Salaam. Bin Laden's primary base of operations is in Afghanistan where he has enjoyed the nominal protection of the Taliban; relations were strained even more by US military attacks on bin Laden's strategic training camps. No sooner had dozens of cruise missiles hit their targets in Afghanistan than Radio Tehran began denouncing bin Laden's "terrorism," and even praised the resolute US action.

    Mr. Khatami's UN speech also denounced terrorism, saying that his government would "unequivocally oppose ... all forms and manifestation of terrorism, and we shall combat it vigorously and earnestly." He promised to "eradicate this menace" and joined President Clinton in a call for "international cooperation to combat terrorism." As if his own talk had been scripted by White House speech writers, Khatami also called for an end to "the nightmare of nuclear war and weapons of mass destruction." The reference here suggests international outrage at Pakistan's decision recently to enter the nuclear club; and "weapons of mass destruction" has become a code phrase to describe the activities of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, another potential problem for Iran.

    Another significant point involves Iran's effort to cast Afghanistan as a new rogue, outlaw nation -- one possibly linked to terrorism and even drug dealing. AANEWS has noted the fact that even under the ruthless Taliban (an Islamic purist regime ostensibly opposed to drug use), production of opium seems to be thriving and constitutes a ready, negotiable item in exchange for weapons, hard cash, and nearly anything else on the black market. Yesterday, amidst press coverage of President Khatami's remarks concerning Salman Rushdie and domestic reform, Iranian authorities also showcased the fact that government police had killed 17 Afghan drug smugglers in four separate armed clashes. Police reportedly seized 3,870 pounds of opium and morphine being transported from the northeastern province of Khorasan, located on the Afghanistan-Turkmenistan border. Reuters news service observed that "Iran is a major transit route for drugs smuggled from Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the"Golden Crescent" -- to Europe and oil-rich Gulf Arab states.

    The tension between these two Islamic states is further underscored by the presence of over 200,000 Iranian troops now massed on the Afghanistan border. Last week, that force consisted of only 60,000 soldiers, half of them in reserve positions. The Taliban has also built up its own forces in the region; Iran continues to demand that Afghanistan release the 50 or so Iranian diplomatic personnel it is said to be holding. And the foreign crisis for Tehran dovetails with Khatami's problems with his conservative opposition at home. Reuters noted that Khatami said he was working to prevent war with Afghanistan and continue expanding freedom of expression in Iran "despite setbacks at the hands of his conservative Islamist opponents..."

CAN ISLAM TOLERATE SECULARISM?

    Khatami also reached out to emigre groups during his visit to the UN and even suggested that Iran was ready to implement major reforms unheard of just a few years ago. When sworn in as president last August, Khatami had promised cautious changes, saying that he would "respond to people's needs" and even "restore civil liberties within the framework of the constitution and Islam," and even "oppose any violation of individual rights." On Sunday, Khatami took the unprecedented step of meeting with 800 Iranians currently living in the United States during an invitation-only reception. According to the New York Times, the president "said little about Islam" but instead appealed to his guests' "sense of Iranian nationalism." When queried about the recent closure of an Iranian newspaper by a revolutionary tribunal, Khatami admitted, "We have a long way to go toward freedom in our country, until the government respects other people's ideas and other people respect the government's ideas also."

    Whatever thaw might occur, though, between the West and Iran -- or, indeed, the larger block of diverse Islamic nations -- there are certain geopolitical realities that cannot be easily altered. Islamic civilization was largely bypassed by the European Enlightenment, a philosophical and political evolution that laid the basis for secular republicanism, tolerance, and a robust notion of human rights. No Islamic country today is noted for having a wide range of civil liberties, and it is important to note that nearly every Islamic state and organization either endorsed the Khomeini death sentence against Salman Rushdie, or agreed that Rushdie novel -- or, indeed, any other "blasphemous" writings -- should be censored by government. The Islamic concept of individual rights thus remains extremely problematic and conditional.

    Khatami's call for a greater role in the Security Council and the rest of the world stage by Islamic civilization is also noteworthy. Increasingly, Muslims have become defense and belligerent about the incursions of western culture; and being eager to cut deals over oil pipelines or other forms of international trade still masks a deep xenophobia about the "unrestrained freedom" and "extreme individualism" which Islamists fear. In this, they are often joined by their Christian counterparts who perceive materialism, individualism and cosmopolitanism -- the hallmarks of secular culture -- as corrosive and deleterious to the role historically played by religious belief and institutions. Can Islam adapt? Can Muslims live peacefully along with Christians, Buddhists, Hindus -- let alone secularists, atheists and other "infidels"? The question remains to be answered; but one hint may come from the cautious experiment now underway in Iran.

    In the meantime, the freedom -- and the very life -- of Salman Rushdie -- is far from guaranteed. The Iranian government may rescind the fatwa, but many Muslims will still feel compelled to act on their own. For this, the Iranian government must share at least part of the blame even in its public repentance; after all, it was the religious zeal echoing from Tehran which mobilized millions of Islamists throughout the world into the streets where in often violent demonstrations they unquestioningly demanded the death of Mr. Rushdie, or anyone else who would criticize, "insult" or question the Islamic superstition. Besides, Rushdie is a fitting symbol of everything which militant Islam despises; by their own attacks, Muslim fundamentalists denounce Rushdie and his supporters as decadent, Western (even "Jewish"), blasphemous, atheistic, cosmopolitan. In a sense, they are correct; and that difference is part of the deep cleft separating two, distinct civilizations -- the West, with its sketchy yet persistent tradition of secularism, and the Islamic world.

[text only]