01 Dec The Message Behind Ahmadinejad’s Letter
I read with great interest the letter from President Ahmadinejad to the American people. I was struck by two things in the letter: the beginning sentence which beckons Allah to bestow on humanity the “perfect human being”–an apparent reference to “Twelfth Imam” and the Islamic apocalyptic vision. This call echoes a similar call in September in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly.
Second, akin to an Old Testament prophet, the ending of the letter sounds unmistakably like a call to repent or face judgment. He expressly calls for repentance. But the veiled allusion to judgment comes when he says, “[a]s all prophets have taught us, injustice and transgression will eventually bring about decline and demise.” He then references the Narratives of the Koran (Chapter 28) which threaten destruction for the unjust.
I was curious if others read the letter the same way. Certainly news outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post did not read it that way. But interestingly, Middle East expert Ken Timmerman–whom I know personally as someone with tremendous knowledge about Islamic fundamentalism–read the letter precisely the same way. Here is how Timmerman puts it:
The letter released today follows a similar pattern. In it, Ahmadinejad lays out his case for America’s “injustice,” using the term no fewer than 12 times in the five pages.
The concept of Justice lies at the very center of the Islamic faith. Justice is considered the backbone of all creation, handed down by the Almighty. The faithful should strive to achieve justice, to “secure justice,” as Ahmadinejad puts it. Those who pursue injustice, on the contrary, are spitting in the face of Allah. Ahmadinejad claims that America, under Bush, is pursuing injustice. In making his case, he does not position himself as president of Iran, but attempts to set himself up as a spokesman for all Muslims….
Media commentators in the U.S. are likely to pick up on the “public relations” side of the letter. Ahmadinejad calls on the U.S. to bring the troops home from Iraq, to cut off support for Israel, and to stop “kidnapping presumed opponents from across the globe” and holding them in secret prisons…. But to focus on these parts of his letter, however silly and objectionable they may be, would be to miss the main point….
Citing from the Quran at the close of his letter, he says that if Americans “repent” of their “injustice,” they will be blessed with many gifts. “We should all heed the divine Word of the Holy Qur’an,” he says.
The context of this particular verse (28:67-68, Sura “Al-Qasas,” or The Narration), is very clear. It follows a graphic description of destruction and devastation that will befall those who fail to repent of their injustice.
It also sets out the terms of the traditional Muslim warning to the enemies of Allah. “And never will your Lord destroy the towns until He sends to their mother town a Messenger reciting to them Our Verses.” This is precisely what Ahmadinejad is doing in his letter.
Dump Bush, allow the Muslims to destroy Israel, and adopt Islam — or else you will be destroyed. This is Ahmadinejad’s message.
On Chapter 28 of the Qur’an: to say that it ‘threatens destruction for the unjust’ is a decidedly disingenious and deceptive characterization if only because it says too little and implies too much. The chapter narrates what happened (notice the past tense) to those like the Pharaoh and Qarun who were arrogant and spread corruption throughout their realms. The chapter at various points denounces polytheism. It also says to (the Seal of the Prophets) Muhammad: ‘You cannot guide everyone you love to the truth, it is God who guides whoever He will. He knows best who will follow guidance’ (28: 56). Again, the Qur’an says, ‘We have destroyed many a community that once revelled in its wanton wealth and easy living: since then their dwelling places have barely been inhabited–We are the only heir’ (28: 28: 58). The chapter ends by speaking to the Day of Judgment, when all will be held to account for their deeds: ‘We grant the Home in the Hereafter to those who do not seek superiority on earth or spread corruption: the happy ending is awarded to those who are mindful of God’ (28: 83).
If you have problems with the Hebrew Bible, then you’ll have problems with this chapter. On the other hand, I don’t think there’s anything here a devout Jew or Christian would or should find disturbing. There’s nothing whatsoever apocalyptic about the chapter (in the sense of Revelation or evangelical fundamentalist interpretations of the ‘end times’), the destruction it refers to is past tense, being used as an admonition to motivate proper behavior, while the final theme is the Day of Judgment, something one need not worry about if one has obeyed God’s revelations, e.g., not sought superiority on earth or spread corruption.
Re: Timmerman’s take… ‘In making his case, he does not position himself as president of Iran, but attempts to set himself up as a spokesman for all Muslims….’ I do not at all see how this inference is made. He may be articulating what many Muslims believe, but theres’s no evidence that the letter is being used as a vehicle ‘to set himself up as a spokesman for all Muslims,’ that’s simply a tendentious reading.
And to say that the message of the letter is to ‘allow the Muslims to destroy Israel, and adopt Islam — or else you will be destroyed,’ is to absolulety misread the contents of the letter: the references to destruction from the Qur’an were what God accomplished: it no where mentions or implies that Muslims as such are the agency whereby God metes out the consequences for failing to abide by revelations He has sent, and furthermore recall that ‘a Messenger reciting to them Our Verses’ can be, and no doubt was here, in reference to the Prophets who came before Muhammad (and thus before the advent of Islam) and warned the people of the consequences of refusing to abide by the imperatives of righteousness (or justice). Jews often believe that God punished them for failing to uphold their end of the Covenant.
Timmerman’s reading is clearly a mis-reading designed to inflame existing fears and prejudices and to foreclose in advance any possibility of a dialogue. It seems rather transparent that he has not read the letter with anything close to an ‘open mind.’ ‘Tis a shame….
Incidentally Roger, and with all due respect, I hardly think you are one to speak with any authority whatsoever about ‘someone with tremendous knowledge about Islamic fundamentalism,’ for your posts to this date have evidenced little sophistication when it comes to understanding Islam (incidentally, ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ is incoherent and misleading by way of describing Islamist extremists [self-described ‘jihadists’ or otherwise]; the fact that so many ‘talking heads’ in the media still use this appellation does not amount to a warrant for its use by academics). You might call upon a recognized scholar from the field of Islamic Studies next time….
Patrick,
Thank you for your comments. I am not at all surprised that you read the letter differently than I do, with you reading it in the best possible light and I reading the letter in the context of the threat Ahmadinejad poses. That has been a consistent difference between us on this blog about the looming theat of Iran.
I’m not sure how to take your claim that I have no authority to judge who is or isn’t an expert on the subject of Ahmadinejad and the threat he poses. I cut my teeth in international law working at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in The Hague working in the same building on the same cases with Islamic fundamentalists. I have followed Iran closely my entire professional career.
As for the suggestion that Ken Timmerman lacks the requisite expertise to opine authoritatively about Ahmadinejad, don’t take my word for it. Minimal research on his background should satisfy most objective observers. You of course will not agree with Timmerman, and may dismiss him as lacking requisite expertise, because he sees Ahmadinejad as a serious threat.
Roger Alford
‘I’m not sure how to take your claim that I have no authority to judge who is or isn’t an expert on the subject of Ahmadinejad and the threat he poses.’
Roger: I was referring specifically to your expertise on so-called Islamic fundamentalism, and basing my judgment on what I’ve evidenced in your posts plainly and simply: if you have experience that would suggest otherwise, I have not seen it in your posts related to anything about Islam. Your working alongside so-called Islamic fundamentalists seems to suggest you’ve succumbed to the availability heuristic, as there’s nothing I’ve read from you that would permit me to infer otherwise.
I still disagree with you about Mr. Timmerman: his animus against Islam is clear and it distorts what he has to say here about Ahmadinejad’s letter and any ‘threat’ he poses. I would think your expert knowledge of Iranian history should rather lead you to concern yourself with the threat the U.S. poses to the national intergrity and sovereignty of Iran. Again, there is a recognized field of expertise known as ‘Islamic Studies’ (which of course overlaps with Near East and Middle East Studies) and I am waiting for you and the likes of Timmerman to demonstrate in your analyses, assessments and judgments acquaintance with the works of scholars in this field when it has some bearing on topics you treat.
Patrick,
Fair enough. Although I have studied Islam, I do not claim to be an expert on Islam.
Given your apparent expert knowledge of Islamic studies, tell me why you think Islamic fundamentalists (or to use your phrase “Islamist extremists”) are not a threat to us. Tell us why we have nothing to fear with Ahmadinejad. I would be most curious why you think we should not be worried. I’ve never heard you spell it out.
Roger Alford
I have never said ‘jihadist Islamists’ pose no threat to us or others. This topic is worthy of at least book-length treatment and I do not have the time right now to discuss it with the depth it deserves. I do have strong opinions as to how to minimize that threat, how to view the threat in proper perspective, and so forth. However, I’ll say a few other things now and down the road, when I’m not as pressed for time (i.e., not grading papers or meeting writing deadlines, nor dealing with urgent condo. mgt. issues), provide a more thorough analysis should you still be interested. I have repeatedly made references to literature discussing al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbullah in my comments (the first being in fact very different from the other two), literature with anaylses I find plausible if not persuasive. At a later date I can put that list together for you again. Much of it presumes a knowledge of Islam, Middle Eastern history, etc. For a taste of the literature (in English) one should be familiar with, you might consult my bibliography for Islamic Studies, an earlier version of which is found here: http://www.parstimes.com/is_bibl.pdf I can send the most recent version to anyone upon request.
Ahmadinejad has made clear that Iran should not be construed as a military threat to Israel. Iranians are an extremely proud people and, given their history with imperialist powers, are very sensitive to any sort of ‘bullying,’ especially by the U.S., given its record of interference in domestic Iranian politics, dating back most dramatically to the 1950s and its role (along with the British) in the coup to depose Mossadegh and later in its support of the regime of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The current regime has repeatedly stressed its desire for nuclear energy and has stated it has no intention to possess nuclear weapons: I see no compelling reason not to take them at their word. Be that as it may, there’s nothing to be gained for Iran is threatening or attacking Israel, given the number of Arabs in Israel proper and in the Occupied Territories. Any blustering rhetoric by the Iranian regime is invariably in response to the same from the U.S., to wit, with the volume of rhetoric turned down, the regime makes gestures of reconciliation and dialogue, most of which are not met with any kind of respect or reciprocal response from the U.S. There’s no reason to assume Ahmadinejad is a threat to Israel, provided Israel recognizes the territorial boundaries of Lebanon and other states in the region. Will Iranians support those struggling for Palestinian self-determination? Probably. Will Iranians support fellow Muslims in the region? Probably. But this is typically intended to counter the inteference of the US in the region (its ongoing material, military and political support of virtually anything Israel does in the Occupied Territories and region more generally). Were the Palestinians to achieve viable statehood and self-governance, and the U.S. quit its foolish endeavor to force everyone in the region to conform to its will, the fears would lack an objective referent, and everyone in the region could focus on providing for the welfare and well-being of their citizens, in conjunction with developmental aid and truly free trade.
I defer to others with the requisite expertise: Juan Cole, Roy Mottahedeh, Ilan Pappe, Helena Cobban, Rashid Kahlidi, Augustus Richard Norton, Jerome Slater, Nikki Keddie, Michael M.J. Fischer, Ervand Abrahamian, Hamid Algar, Henry Siegman, Joel Beinin, Jillian Schwedler, Zachary Lockman, Asef Bayat, John Esposito, among those who come quickest to mind.
If one wants a sophisticated approach to Islamic topics as they relate to the Middle East and elsewhere I would recommend reading The ISIM Review that is published by the International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World: http://www.isim.nl/content/content_page.asp?n1=6&n2=0&n3=0
So you concede that Ahmadinejad will “support” Palestinian efforts at self-determination, and he will “support” fellow Muslims in the region, but this is just to counter Israeli aggression and occupation. You do not say what form this “support” will take. Sounds like you concede he is a threat until certain conditions occur, but in your view it is all fully justified as countermoves to Israeli and American action. You further suggest he will cease to be an objective threat once (1) Palestine achieves statehood and self-governance; and (2) the U.S. ceases to attempt to exert influence in the Middle East. That’s all very comforting.
Ceasing the ‘foolish endeavor to force everyone in the region to conform to its will,’ is not equivalent to the U.S. ending ‘its attempt to exert influence in the Middle East,’ although an interpretation of my statement along those lines perhaps says something about a lack of imagination or a tendency to understand the exertion of influence in the region as tantamount to naked coercion. The U.S. is free to act anywhere it wants in the world as a or the global superpower, but Iran should not be allowed to act in its self-interest in the comparatively small geo-political sphere of Middle East politics?: that’s very revealing. It reminds me of the double standard that permits the state of Israel to possess by most estimates a sizeable number of nuclear weapons, but denies this to other states in the region in the name of ‘de-stabilization,’ etc. (For those who want to point out the theocratic elements of the Iranian regime, I need only quote from Aharon Barak, President of the Supreme Court of Israel: ‘Israel was founded as the state of the Jewish people. The reason for the existence of the State of Israel is its existence as a Jewish state. That character is central to its existence, and it is “an ‘axiom’ of the state.” It is a “fundamental principle of our law and our system.”‘) It seems the Cold War logic of deterrence was a defense rationale suited only for the U.S. (and thus for the former Soviet Union), but not for others…. Once more the U.S. shows its proclivity for behaving like the irrational or hypocritical parent: ‘Do as I say, not as I do.’ Again, I don’t think Iran wants nuclear weapons…but were they to desire same, they’d have some compelling, precedential arguments on their side.
Ray Takeyh, a Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, has an interesting post distinguishing between Ahmadinejad’s incendiary rhetoric and his restrained conduct. He clearly appears to share much of Patrick’s perspective regarding the threat of Iran. Given Takeyh’s obvious expertise, it is worth sharing his views as a counterpoint to Timmerman. Here is an excerpt:
To address only a tangental point raised by Mr. O’Donnell, it should be noted the US did not approve of Israeli’s nuclear weapons, and in fact, the development of such was hidden from us.
How is it hypocritical to “allow” Israel to possess nuclear weapons? If one nation defies the NPT and similiar frameworks, are we simply to permit those nearby to have such weapons as well?