Description: Nuclear weapons and religious fanaticism is a dangerous combination, Ali says.

Question:  When you read the newspaper and watch the news, what issues stand out for you?

Transcript: Nuclear weapons in the hands of fanatical religious people who think that the day of judgment is around the corner. I think for people to understand it, they should probably see pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that was pretty much a primitive bomb.  The bombs that they are trying to make now are far more advanced and can kill far more people, and with consequences for decades for the places that are . . . that will be affected.  Someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current President of Iran, has made it very clear that he is able . . . he is willing and he is able to acquire that bomb, and he is going to use it.  He has declared war on the state of Israel.  When the leader of one country tells the leader of another country, “I’m going to wipe you off the map,” that, according to international declarations, is a declaration of war.  Ever since he came to power, he made it very clear – pretty much like Hitler when he came to power – that he was going in that direction.  Now the first reaction was understandable, where you see, “We should negotiate this man.  Let’s understand what he has to say.  Let’s talk to him.  Let’s use sanctions,” and so on.  But you always have to have that military option – the option of force on the table.  And my criticism of the European Union leadership is that that is off the table. 

Question: Do you believe Ahmadinejad would use nuclear weapons if Iran acquires the capability?

Transcript: Yes. He has made it very clear that he is going to use it.  And not only that.  He is already financing and disrupting the U.S. policy and western policy in the Middle East.  And he is trying to become very dominant in that region.  And so he is someone who is very much . . .  He’s very self-assured because the usual mode of detriment, you know . . . deterring someone from doing something, which are always material and worldly, are things he doesn’t believe in.  He welcomes death.  And in that region, it’s not the . . .  I’m not saying that everyone there believes that; but part of the radical Islamic doctrine is to believe that things will be better in the hereafter.  So people welcome death.  Not all of them, but many of them and those engaged in that welcome death.  Which means the old forms of deterring people from doing things such as acquiring a bomb or using it – that the old methods – the sanctions and so on – that’s not something that’s going to make any impression on him.

Question: When did the West and the Islamic world diverge?

Transcript: I think if we go back to as far as the 10th and 11th centuries when, according to the history books, there was west was backward, and the Islamic world was far more progressive; that one thing that changed was Europeans . . . that was the west then and went off and traveled towards the Islamic world with China and Japan, and started to observe the way these people lived, and thought that by doing that they could learn something from them.  And they came back with those lessons and they innovated at the same time that they were challenging their own institutions such as the church.  Then later the printing press came and all these forces came together where there was the desire to learn from the outside, and the challenge of the futile institutions within that were closing the minds within the west.  It’s around that time that in the Arab-Islamic empire, that’s what it was. There was a conviction that they had nothing to learn from the past or from others; that all knowledge was sort of concentrated from the Koran; and that we were leading in everything.  So there was this lax . . . this attitude that all knowledge is something we have.  We can’t learn anything from the west.  And I think that that’s when the divergence started.  And those minds on the eastern side closed, and the western mind opened and innovated and progressed at a pace that was so breathtaking for the Arab-Islamic world.  But by the time they actually woke up to their backwardness, the west was so far ahead in military, political, religious, cultural and social progress that all we can do now is copy.  It’s very little left to invent.

Question: What is the state of the Islamic world today?

Transcript: I’m optimistic about the fact that there are several individuals – by far not the majority – who have been in touch with the west, with Asia, with other non-Islamic cultures, and who realize that there’s a lot that we have to learn.  My optimism is that that group will be influential enough to make the reforms and the changes necessary in that part of the world.  Second observation is you cannot change if you do not accept that there is something to change; that there’s something imperfect.  So that dogma, that everything in Islam, and the moral framework that the Prophet Mohammed left for us is perfect, and that there is nothing to change in that; that is being challenged.  And because of that challenge, a natural reaction is one of defending it with all the fanaticism in the group and the community.  That can lead to bloodshed.  We also live in circumstances where people like Ahmadinejad who is a fanatical Muslim, has nuclear powers – is at least aspiring towards getting one.  Pakistan has one.  Egypt wants one.  Turkey wants one.  Under those circumstances, if they succeed in acquiring these weapons of mass destruction, then we are facing . . . we’re facing terrible times.  Meaning if you look at the western evolution towards modernity and the progress that we have reached now, those weapons were not there.  There were mass murders.  There were genocides.  There were lots of, you know, all those things that human beings do to each other; but having nuclear weapons just makes things so much more dramatic.  It’s not easy times.  That’s the very pessimistic and most urgent thing that we need to look at now.   Another observation is if you look at all the conflicts in the world today, you will be surprised at the number of Muslims entangled in conflict among themselves, with China, with Russia, with the west.  We are only one-fifth of the world population.  Having so many enemies all at the same time is very self-destructive.  Now if the fanaticism within the Muslim world that is now being fed by the fact that if we die, the hereafter is going to be a better place, then it’s very difficult to stop that.  But if that is diluted – I always like to see the cup as half full – that there will be voices, and that they will be strong enough to say that it’s madness to commit . . . to kill and to be killed because of this belief in the hereafter, and make the belief in the hereafter relative when things could look better; but on the very short term it looks like things will look bad.

Question: What misperceptions of Islam prevail in the West?

Transcript: I think the major misperception in the western world on Islam is that it’s equal to peace, and that it can be reconciled with liberal democracy.  The fanaticism within Islam and its basic tenets is something that is underestimated in the west.  And I think that western leaders – political, intellectual, religious leaders – the sooner they recognize that that faith – the Islamic faith – needs to go through a process of reformation and enlightenment, and that it’s going to come at a very high price, the better.  The sooner they do that the better.  As long as these leaders go on as seeing Islam as peace, that is, I think, a major misconception.  It’s also, I think, a very self-destructive one.

Question: What has to change?

Transcript: I think we should make a distinction between Islam and Muslims. What I’m trying to do is to say all over the world, we can identify with each other as human beings.  That is the basic glue – the fact that you’re an individual human being and I’m an individual human being, that’s what’s . . . that’s where our commonality or common strength lies in, and common interests. Islam, if we view it as one of the philosophies of political theories or ideas produced by human beings through our history, or just one of them . . . and view it, scrutinize it, criticize it as we have done with all other doctrines – religious or secular – then we may be able from the west – now I’m using “we” as someone who is westernized – to convince Muslims to make a different choice and to reform their faith first by acknowledging that there are things wrong with their faith.  So our goal should not be to preserve Islam. Our goal should be the common human, you know . . .  We are humans. So Muslims are humans.  They are not first born just as a baby in Pakistan, or in Saudi Arabia, or in Yemen, or in a Muslim community here.  If we emphasize that, then I think we can make a change.  And that involves two things.  That involves learning to distinguish between who is an enemy and who is a friend.  But before you decide who is an enemy and who is a friend, you yourself have to decide what do you stand for.  What are your own set of ideas that you feel are superior to that of Islam?  And are you willing to defend and die for your own ideas of freedom, and humanity, and humanism as much as the fanatics are willing to die for their own?

Question: What should be the response to Islamic fundamentalism?

 Transcript:     I think that’s such a good question because it puts . . . it just shows how experimental it all was – a  process of trial and error, and it’s still the case.  For instance – and this is a point of criticism – there’s no consensus in the United States on who the enemy is, or whether to freely say it’s Islam, or it’s a perversion of a form of Islam. Is it Wahhabism?  Is it Salafism?   Or is it basic Islam?  Who should we ally with strategically?  In other words, the approach has been very much strategic.  There are people in the United States, including this administration, who are waking up to the fact that there is a battle of ideas going on, but they’re too shy to voice what the ideas are.  Another point of criticism – and that’s not only towards this administration – but I’ve seen it all over the place is just this desire to avoid Saudi Arabia as a culprit; the state that’s not only financing terrorism, but also financing the ideology behind the terror acts. I think it was a mistake to declare it a “war on terror.” Terror is just a tactic, and it shows how much . . . how strategic the whole approach is towards what’s going on.  Another mistake on both sides of the Atlantic is that if we just appease them – if we just understand what they want from us and we give it to them, they might not be so bad to us. Or they might _________. Or they might . . .  I think those are mistakes that were made.  But again I’ll come back to the distinction between Europe and America.  And it seems as if America is learning much faster than Europe.  And by learning, I mean waking up to the fact that it is Islam . . . not necessarily all Muslims, but Islam as a set of ideas; and that that can mean military . . . I mean very disastrous military action.  Which for every politician, it is a terrible decision to take to say, “We are going to war.” Or, “We are going to do something destructive.” Or, “We’re going to take an unpopular action.” And Americans seem to be much more courageous in making that decision.  They did this in the Second World War and later than the Europeans who have . . .  I think the Europeans leadership at this point is really self-restrained and I say this because of the approach to Iran.

Recorded on: 8/15/07