Can the West accept claims by the Iranian government that the death sentence against Salman Rushdie has been"forgotten"? Despite the promises from Tehran, militant Muslims continue to call for blood against those who question or "insult" their religious superstition. Can Islamists co-exist with secularism?

Web Posted: September 30, 1998

    Amidst reports last week that "the Rushdie Affair" had finally been settled, and that the Iranian government would no longer pursue the death sentence pronounced against the writer by the late Ayatollah Khomeini, there has been little critical analysis within the American press. Britain has already announced re-establishment of diplomatic ties with Tehran, Washington is "hopeful," some of Salman Rushdie's supporters are guardedly optimistic -- and there is now danger that either the matter will be swept under the rug, or that should he venture forth in public, Mr. Rushdie could be the target of assassination by a "private" or independent Islamic group.

    In just about any scenario, it is a public relations victory for the mullahs in Iran, and still sends the world a message that no criticism of Islam, its prophet, its belief and institutions shall be permitted under pain of execution.

    Among the points being ignored in the premature enthusiasm over Mr. Rushdie's case:

   ¶    In contrast to public statements, the government of Iran is not and cannot guarantee Mr. Rushdie's safety, nor does it seem to have much control over "independent" Muslim groups that still remain intent on executing the condemned writer. The clerical state may also have little or no interest in trying to safeguard Mr. Rushdie from attack.

   ¶    The announcement last week by Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, while perhaps sincere from his perspective, has little meaning and political weight even within some of the ruling circles of the Iranian government. Indeed, senior clerics continue to speak out on behalf of death for Mr. Rushdie, and distance themselves from President Khatami more moderate remarks.

   ¶    How serious is the "reform" agenda of Mr. Khatami? While Khatami won last year's Iranian elections, drawing much of his support from youth, intellectuals, technocrats and whatever progressive interests remain inside Iran following the 1979 religious counterrevolution, Khatami was selected to run for the nation's top political post by the Association of Combatant Clergy, "an umbrella alliance of right-wing to liberal religious figures" as a compromise candidate.

   ¶    AANEWS has learned that among Mr. Khatami's close associates is, incredibly, mullah Hassan Sanei, head of the private group which now leads the call for Rushdie's death, and offers $2.5 million reward for the successful execution. This leads us to question the sincerity of President Khatami, or certainly his ability to meaningfully rein in and control the various segments of his own government, as well as the numerous quasi- governmental agencies, which remain committed to enforcing the late Ayatollah Khomeini's "fatwa" or death sentence on Rushdie.

   ¶    Paradoxically, despite the media reports of thawing and a desire for reconciliation on the part of the Iranian regime, there has been an intensification in the government campaign in Iran to vilify Rushdie as well as a reaffirmation from some (including state and leading religious officials) of the "fatwa." Again, this calls into question either Mr. Khatami's sincerity, or his ability to speak for the Iranian State.

   ¶    The "Rushdie card" is emerging as a possible ploy masking Iranian plans for geopolitical expansion in the area.

A LESSON IN ISLAMIC INTOLERANCE

    Before 1989, at least in America, Salman Rushdie was known mostly in literary circles as one of the more outstanding writers of modern fiction. His reputation in the middle east and the Indian subcontinent was more widespread, though. When his novel The Satanic Verses was released, it quickly rose to literary acclaim and won the prestigious Whitbread Prize in Great Britain, and was runner-up for the esteemed Booker Prize as well. Throughout much of Asia and the East, The Satanic Verses was critically acclaimed. All of that began to change, though, when two Muslim legislators in India complained that Rushdie had blasphemed Mohammed and the Islamic religion. The book was banned in India on orders of Rajiv Ghandi.

   A series of Islamic groups throughout the middle east and Europe condemned the book as well; in Iran, Parliament Speaker Hashemi Rafsanjani pronounced the fictional work to be obscene in a sermon in Tehran on February 13, 1988, he was followed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who then issued his infamous death edict or "fatwa." That ignited further violence by Muslims who demanded that Rushdie be executed, or that the book at least be censored. Often, the Islamic extremists were joined by their Christian, Jewish and Hindu counterparts who shared the conviction that Mr. Rushdie had "insulted" the Moslem religion.

    Since then, Rushdie has been in virtual seclusion mostly in Great Britain, and has emerged only for impromptu public appearances at book signings or other events. The British government -- taking a hard line against Islamic extremists throughout that country -- has consistently linked any thawing of relations with Iran to a resolution in the Rushdie matter.

   After nearly a decade of stalemate over the Rushdie matter, however, Iranian President Khatami surprised the international media, and probably Mr. Rushdie and his close supporters, by announced that the affair was "completely finished." By this, Khatami said that the Iranian government would take no steps to enforce the Khomeini "fatwa," and coupled the "reprieve" on Salman Rushdie with pledges of domestic reform and calls for a "dialogue of civilizations" with the United States, Britain and other western nations.

    Is it too good to be true? Perhaps.

   Last week, AANEWS called for skepticism and caution, pointing out that even if Mr. Khatami is sincere, he may not be able to control factions within his own government, or the powerful clergy and allied religious movements not only in Iran but throughout the Islamic world. Since then, we have become even less optimistic about the Khatami declaration. There are a number of disturbing items which lead us to question both President Khatami, and his ability to "call off the hounds" -- and even whether the "resolution" of the Rushdie affair, so loudly proclaimed by naive western media, is not just so much misdirection. In the end, Mr. Rushdie may be killed by an Islamic hit squad, the government of Iran may escape blame thanks to a Teflon-coated public relations coup, and a victory will have been scored for religious authoritarianism.

NEW WINE IN OLD BOTTLES

    The promise enunciated by Mr. Khatami that the death sentence is now "forgotten," and that the government of Iran will not be sending agents into the field to assassinate Mr. Rushdie is not new. Khatami made his offer last week at a meeting with western journalists in New York, against the backdrop of his visit to speak at the United Nations General Assembly. His "moderate" pose seemed to dovetail with the speech by President Clinton, who has gone to considerable lengths to suggest that recent terrorist bombings linked to Islamic fanatic Osama bin Laden are "not really" an essential part of the Muslim faith. That claim does not adequately address the more overarching question, though, of whether or not Islamic movements and institutionalized Moslem states can coexist with secularism, or will tolerate robust secularism, dissent, rights for women and other civil liberties within (or even outside) their own borders.

    In fact, the promise that the Iranian government would not actively attempt to murder Salman Rushdie is a stale one dating back to at least April, 1995 when then Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani gave verbal assurances to that effect to 15 Foreign Ministers of the European Union. The crux here is that the talk was not followed by any sort of written promise. Belligerent statements continued to flow from political, military and religious figures in Iran.

THE 15 KHORDAD FOUNDATION

While Khatami and the Iranian State can maintain that government assets will not be used to "hit" Mr. Rushdie (or anyone else targeted for "blasphemy" and criticism of the Muslim cult), this is so much public bluster since it ignores the role of a group known as the 15 Khordad Foundation, ostensibly an Iranian "charitable" trust. The Foundation offered a reward for the execution of Salman Rushdie, and on February 12,1997 increased the amount of the bounty to $2.5 million. The head of 15 Khordad, Ayatollah Shaikh Hassan Sanei told the clerical paper Jomhuri-ye Islamic that anyone who murdered the "apostate" writer was eligible for the reward. Then President Hadshemi Rafsanjani, while not condemning the blood money, engaged in verbal acrobatics by declaring, "This is a non-governmental organization and its decisions have nothing to do with the government's policies..."

    The following day, however, Jomhuri-ye Islami carried an official statement by the government Revolutionary Guards, the 'shock troops' of the Khomeini revolution. The editorial declared, "Muslims of the world have always considered Salman Rushdie an apostate and shall not rest until Iman Khomeini's order is implemented." As noted in a subsequent report on human rights in Iran by Amnesty International, "The failure of the Government of the Islamic republic of Iran publicly to condemn and put an end to such threats indicates official acquiescence in a threat of extrajudicial execution..."

    It is noteworthy that in its edition today, the newspaper Jomhuri-ye Islam again endorsed the $2.5 million bounty on Rushdie and warned that the writer's death may not be far off. "Whatever he says, nothing will change for Rushdie. His optimism and that of his supporters may even pave the way for a speedier execution of the sentence against him."

    The result is an Alice-in-Wonderland geopolitical scenario. Rushdie can be murdered by "non-governmental" organs linked to the state, while the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran can safely claim that it is not responsible.

    Ayatollah Sanei is no political outsider. In March, 1997 he was appointed to the Supreme Legislative Body according to a dispatch from Agence France Presse, along with Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati (Islamic Propagation Organization) and Mohammad Mohammadi Reyshahri, former Minister of in Intelligence. At the time of the appointment, Sanei was the known head of 15 Khordad Foundation. A statement issued in Washington by the emigre National Council of Resistance of Iran observed, "Sanei's appointment reveals the absurd claims of Iranian officials (that) the bounty has been set by a non-governmental foundation and has nothing to do with state policies."

CLERICS DISCIPLINE KHATAMI

    Despite Khatami's conciliatory remarks about Mr. Rushdie's death sentence, a different position was enunciated back in Tehran in July by Ayatollah Jannati of the IPO. Jannati is also head of the all-powerful Guardian Council, which among other activities decides who shall be permitted to run in elections; he is also linked to the activities of the "Supporters of Hizbollah," the religious fanatics who have attacked mixed-sex bicycle riding, attacked and destroyed movie theaters for showing "un-Islamic" or provocative films, and carried out "home invasions" of private gatherings where the serving of liquor or the expressing of unpopular ideas was suspected. Jannati declared, "His eminence the Imam spoke on Rushdie. No one dares to violate the Imam's decree." But more revealing in the context of Mr. Khatami's remarks in New York was a call by Ayatollah Sanei made on September 10 of this year for Muslims across the world to "carry out the fatwa to murder Rushdie..." Sanei added that the Foundation "has made no decision to cancel the reward" for Rushdie's execution.

A SPLIT IN THE STATE?

    Even with President Khatami making his conciliatory gesture in respect to Rushdie, other Iranian officials continue taking a hard line. Incredibly, with Britain and Iran now establishing diplomatic ties, Tehran's new ambassador to the Court of St. James is also a religious fundamentalist who has declared that the death edict on Rushdie was, and is irrevocable. The irony here is inescapable -- diplomatic relations as part of a deal involving Mr. Rushdie seem to be resulting in the posting of an Iranian representative who is joining in the death call! Earlier today, BBC News quoted Mahmoud Mohammadi, slated as Tehran's ambassador, as declaring "The irrevocability of the late Imam's edict is a fact..." He added, "Rushdie's insulting remarks will certainly increase the hatred of the Muslims of the world toward him."

IS KHATAMI SINCERE?

    Again, we must note that while Khatami is considered a "moderate" and "reformer" inside the Tehran apparatus, the label is highly misleading by western standards. Note that Khatami was Minister of Propaganda for the late Ayatollah Khomeini, a role comparable to that played by Joseph Goebbels in respect to Adolph Hitler. On March 7, 1989, Khatami declared, "on the basis of His Eminence Imam Khomeini's religious fatwa, Rushdie must be executed." It is possible, of course, that Khatami has changed his opinion on this matter, but it is also quite possible that his declaration that the Rushdie matter is "forgotten" is window dressing and hollow rhetoric directed toward a fickle and uncritical media in the United States.

STRANGE COMPANIONS...

    We must note also that despite his public image as a "reformer," President Khatami was accompanied on his visit to New York last week by one of the key Revolutionary Guards operatives who led the hostage takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in November, 1979. We refer to Saeid Hajjarian, now a key Khatami adviser and the deputy director of Iran's Center for Strategic Research, a think-tank with ties to the Iranian intelligence service, VEVAK. Even after the embassy debacle, Hajjarian remained active in extremist circles as a member of the shadowy "Line of the Iman" group which was tied to terrorist operations and efforts to silence critics of the Iranian theocracy abroad.

MORE CALLS FOR BLOOD

    Whatever the mullah's and President Khatami's game in respect to the fatwa, Islamic groups throughout the world are not heeding the public Iranian call for restraint. Yesterday in Islamabad, Pakistan, leaders of Muslim groups denounced their fellow Islamists for softening the stance on Rushdie's life. Two of the groups have been feuding for years in a political/religious war, but now seem to be united in their determination to maintain a hard-line, purist version of Islamic militancy. It also suggests that within Pakistan, the key sponsor of the extremist Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan, there is an effort to see that country emerge as the caretaker for Islamic militancy.

   Sheikh Hakimof the "Guardians of the Friends of the Prophet" told reporters, "According to Islam, Rushdie is liable to death (sic) but Iran is changing its stance for worldly gains." Shah Faridul Haq of the right wing religious political party Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan agreed, saying "if Iran withdraws its decision, this means the country is contradicting its faith and fundamental principles of Islam." Similar belligerence was voiced by the Saleem Qadri of the Sunni Tehrik ("Sunni Movement") that "No one can change a fatwa because it is in line to the Holy book." A Shi'ite leader, Allama Hussain Turrabi echoed that claim, noting "No one has a right to scrap a fatwa. Whoever indulges in blasphemy or leaves Islam must be killed."

   There is added significance here. Some of the most combative claims are being made by representatives of the Sunni Moslem tendency, distinct from the Shi'ite persuasion which is the dominant religious view in Iran. The two factions argue over Islamic doctrinal minutia; but with the 1979 theocratic revolution in Iran, western media inaccurately claimed that the Shi'ite was the more "militant" expression of the Mohammedan faith. In fact, both Sunni and Shi'ite groups are capable of exhibiting extreme religious and political authoritarianism; and we have noted the link between terrorist Osama bin Laden and the extreme Wahhabist wing of Islam. Only about 10% of Moslems across the world are Shi'ite. Whereas Iran was only recently considered the vanguard of Islamic militance, it must be noted that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the Pakistan State are primarily Sunni.

RUSHDIE: FEW OPTIONS

    Interviewed in London following President Khatami's statement, Salman Rushdie declared "It's over." Rushdie had met with officials from the British Foreign Officers, and conferred with UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook who said he was "delighted" with the supposed change from Tehran.

    "Until I went into the meeting with the British government, I wasn't sure," Rushdie told Associated Press. "But they have told me emphatically that this is it. It's a breakthrough, and it's over. It's done. There is no longer any threat from the Iranian regime. The fatwa will be left to wither on the vine..."

    Even in Britain, however, Moslem groups refused to disassociate themselves from the Khomeini death sentence. Ghayasuddin Siddiqui of the Moslem Parliament of Great Britain was perhaps more realistic, even given his psychopathic style, when he said "Rushdie and his friends have read too much into the agreement between Robin Cook and (Iranian Foreign Minister) Kamal Kharrazi... Iran has not lifted the fatwa because it cannot do so." A Reuter's dispatch added that Siddiqui "accused Rushdie of inflaming Moslem anger by refusing to apologize for the blasphemy they say is contained in his novel 'The Satanic Verses' and calling for it to be put back on sale."

   And Sheikh Omar Bakri, a "judge" of Islamic law, the Shariah in Britain and head of the Islamic group Al-Muhajiroun declared that Rushdie must still be killed, even if he were to repent. Anyone guilty of insulting "the Messenger Mohammad is to be killed by an Islamic authority," declared Bakri.

KHATAMI: WINDOW DRESSING?

    Having played to a credulous public and media in the West, though, President Khatami may also be using the "all is forgiven" ruse to direct international attention away from another disturbing development -- Iran's missile program. While American media particular alternated between the voyeurism of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair and uncritical coverage of the Khatami-Rushdie story, Tehran was displaying its latest Shahab-3 missile in a military parade. Tested in July, it has a range of 800 miles. Development of a Shahab class 4 and class 5 version is believed to be under way, to improve the current missile capability of delivering a one-one warhead and cruising at an altitude of nearly 150 miles.

    The Shahab rattling could be a signal to its neighbors that Iran is ready to challenge Pakistan for membership in the Middle East nuclear club. It also raises the stakes in any confrontation with Israel, where even representatives of the Labor Party called for preemptive strikes, probably against the Iranian nuclear installation at Bushehr.

    Israel may not be the main target, though, at least for now. Afghanistan remains at the top of the list; Iran has amassed nearly 250,000 troops on the border in its dispute with the Taliban government which stands accused of holding Tehran diplomatic personnel. Efforts to repair diplomatic bridges with neighboring Iraq have yielded only tepid results.

    For now, Salman Rushdie's life and freedom are not guaranteed. The fate of the author remains undetermined, his life a bargaining chip in a complex game which stretches from the Middle East to Britain and the United States. Whatever the outcome, the West needs to hear the message from Islamic civilization; criticism of religion and "blasphemy" cannot be tolerated.

[text only]