Is Khomeini a Barbarian? Would He Seem Less So in Light of Our Fanaticisms?

The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini has outraged the Western world once again. Claiming that the novel, “The Satanic Verses,” was “compiled, printed and published in opposition to Islam,” he sentenced author Salman Rushdie to death.

Press reaction in Europe and the United States has been uniformly hostile toward Khomeini, Iran and “Islamic fundamentalists” for these actions. But to simply condemn Khomeini as medieval is to miss the importance of what was surely a well-calculated political move.

First, Khomeini has successfully presented himself as a defender of the faith, a role of great importance in Islam. Second, his actions, far from being arbitrary, were forced on him by events. And they are not, to many Muslims, all that different in form from some U.S. actions taken in defense of Western values and interests.

To understand how Khomeini was able to speak for Islam, it is important to examine his role in the Islamic world today. It may surprise Americans to know that Khomeini has many supporters in Pakistan and India. Approximately 30% of Pakistan’s population of 83 million are Shiite Muslims, and an estimated 80% to 90% of them follow Khomeini’s spiritual line. India’s 20 million Shiites also largely follow Khomeini. Iran’s population, by contrast, is approximately 45 million, not all of whom agree with or follow Khomeini.

Khomeini is rarely an innovator in his pronouncements. He either ratifies what seems to be popular sentiment, provided that is not in opposition to Islamic law, or he resolves disputes among his followers. In the case of Salman Rushdie, protests and rioting had erupted in India, Pakistan and elsewhere for some time before Khomeini issued the death sentence. His declaration was an official ratification of the feelings of his most dedicated followers.

Moreover, from an Islamic perspective, he is on solid theological ground. Rushdie was born a Muslim Indian. His writings are interpreted as blasphemous not just because they attack the Prophet Mohammed but also because they attack the central miracle of Islam, the Koran as the direct word of God. Rushdie is seen not just as a denigrator of Islam, as some American Christian author might be, but as a person who knew God’s law and chose to attack the faith directly from within.

In orthodox Islam, this is a sinner of the worst kind for whom death is indeed the penalty, although the law can be applied only in an Islamic country.

Khomeini’s condemnation was also forced on him by the absence of any other equally authoritative voice condemning Rushdie. There has been no leader of Islam since 1926, when Turkey’s reformer Kemal Ataturk abolished the caliphate (a kind of Islamic papacy). Many Muslims, particularly Sunnis, have expressed continual desire for the return of a central leader for the faith.

Khomeini’s Islamic revolution in 1978-79 was a clear sign of his emergence as a major Islamic leader, though most non-Shiite Muslims do not agree with the specific form of government set up in Iran after the revolution. Although few would be willing to recognize Khomeini as a pan-Islamic leader, he is the one Muslim figure recognized throughout the world. In the face of a major challenge to Islam, he is expected to issue a pronouncement, just as the Pope would be expected to speak out in the face of a major challenge to Catholicism.

Khomeini’s real intent in calling for Rushdie’s execution is to put the world on notice that Islam is not to be attacked without consequence, and to show Muslims that someone is willing to stand up and defend the faith. This was underscored by President Ali Khamenei’s announcement that the death sentence would be rescinded if Rushdie would apologize for his anti-Islamic statements in the book.

Khomeini’s message is one that Americans should be able to understand well, for Americans are also defenders of the faith. Our government has been putting other nations on notice for years, not in defense of religion but in defense of ideological goals that Washington officials might classify as close to religion in importance.

We have also condemned blasphemers to death. In the early 1960s, the Central Intelligence Agency hatched a scheme to assassinate Fidel Castro. In the 1980s, U.S. planes bombed Moammar Kadafi’s residence, a move widely seen in the Muslim world as an attempt to assassinate the Libyan leader. The Reagan Administration made it clear that the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua had to go, for reasons beyond alleged threats to U.S. national security. And our own enforcers, the Contras, carried out numerous assassinations.

Of course, our crimes do not excuse Khomeini’s action, but they should give us pause before we simply dismiss him as a barbarian. Zealots, extremists and xenophobes of all kinds are dangerous people because of their willingness to do violence to the innocent. But determining who is a just defender of the good and who is a fanatic is a matter of perspective. Before we in the West condemn Khomeini for his defense of Islam, we need to ask ourselves whether we are not cousins under the same skin.