BRIAN LAMB, HOST: Ambassador Akbar Ahmed, what would you say the four or five principles of being a Muslim are?

AKBAR AHMED, AMBASSADOR, CHAIR ISLAMIC STUDIES, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Clearly defined, Brian, the principles of being a Muslim are being a good citizen, biased citizen, believing citizen, a person who has care and sympathy for the needy, for the dispossessed, who must look after the family, who must also always remember that ultimately God will be judging a Muslim’s actions, so in the sense of a ledger in terms of what we are doing here on earth, very much reflecting the Judeo-Christian tradition in the Abrahamic faiths. Muslims are very conscious that they’ve inherited the ideological traditions, if you like, of that great Abrahamic tradition.

LAMB: When did you first know that you were a Muslim?

AHMED: Very early on, Brian. I had a very strange background, like millions of people in South Asia in 1947. I was a young boy, only a few years old, when I was put on a train from Delhi. The train went through the north of India through the Punjab, where Muslims were being slaughtered in the trains by Sikhs and Hindus, and Muslims in turn were slaughtering Sikhs and Hindus. So, you had these trains turning up at their destination full of dead people.

Now, this was me as a young boy. So, I grew up in Pakistan in the early ’50s under the impression that it was an eternal battle between Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs. And it was long after when as a young man I began to meet Hindus and Sikhs in the United Kingdom at university and became friends with them that I realized that they in turn looked on us Muslims in exactly the same way.

So, I grew up very conscious of being a Muslim because for me as a young man in Pakistan it was really us versus the world because the world had tried to prevent the creation of Pakistan. There were about two million people who died in the creation of Pakistan. So, there was a lot of harsh sense of identity around being a Muslim and what being Muslim meant.

LAMB: I want to go back to this, but I want to jump far ahead. How did you get to the United States?

AHMED: The United States I was invited. Again, very interested. I was in charge of Waziristan, the area where Osama bin Laden is supposed to be hiding. And out of the blue in this totally isolated part of the world I get a letter from Clifford Gates, one of the greatest anthropologists in the world from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. And Gates, still alive, an extraordinary figure in the science – social sciences. He invited me to the Institute for Advanced Study and I was delighted to accept the invitation. I turned up here in the United States about a quarter of a century ago and had an incredibly wonderful academic year there.

And then I was invited to Harvard as a visiting professor at the Department of Anthropology. So, this was my first visit to the United States. It was a wonderful eye-opening experience. And, to me, really that was the United States, the American people warm, welcoming, generous. I had a very, very good two years here, at the end of which I wrote a book based on my experiences in Waziristan, the tribes, the customs, the cultures.

LAMB: And when you were in Waziristan who – which head of state made you the head of …

AHMED: I was in charge of the area. At that time – remember, I belonged to the permanent civil service. So, our structures are permanent. They’re not attached to any particular head of state. We are called the permanent civil service structure. This is weakening because with each new regime this permanent structure gets a hit because governments don’t like to have independent kind of civil servants.

This structure goes back to the old ICS, the Indian Civil Service, that the British had instituted, based purely on merit and examination system. In 1966 when I joined I was one of about 5,000 kids who applied, sat through an exam, which meant over two years, and the best of us, about 10 or 15, were selected for the top service, which were the civil service and then the Foreign Service, and there’s a hierarchy of services after that.

LAMB: You were ambassador to what country?

AHMED: I was the Pakistan ambassador to the United Kingdom, the Court of St. James’s in London.

LAMB: And you are doing what now full-time?

AHMED: Presently I’m chair of Islamic Study at American University on campus here in Washington D.C. And I’ve been here since August 2001, literally a few weeks before September – 9-11.

LAMB: I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but on the day we’re taping this, Thursday, the British terror threat was revealed. And as we’re talking the early reports allege that 21 of these people that they arrested are Pakistani and some either born in Great Britain and of Pakistani parents or whatever. When you heard that what was your reaction?

AHMED: My reaction, Brian, was not of complete surprise. And I’ll tell you why. This is a very important point I’m making for you and for the American audience seeing this.

I’m on the emergency committee of the Homeland Security here in the United States. I’m one of a few group of Muslims and Americans. Right now I’ve come to you from an emergency call with the Homeland Security, including people from the British Embassy. So, I’m very much plugged into what’s going on.

Coming from Pakistan and as an anthropologist studying that society and knowing that society as I do, Americans must understand what Pakistan is. It’s not an ordinary nation to start with, 165 million. So, it’s a huge country. It’s geopolitically at one of the most critical areas of the world, the Arab world on one side, South Asia one side, Central Asia on the other side, China on the other side. It is right now a key ally of the United States, absolutely a key ally. If the United States, God forbid, loses Pakistan the map of that part of the world will change and the war on terror on the eastern front here in Afghanistan will just collapse. That is how crucial Pakistan is. And it’s the only nuclear power.

Now, why do I say I wasn’t entirely surprised? Pakistan is the one Muslim country in the world which was created on the basis of a struggle. And I hinted to you the struggle. I was a young boy when I was caught up in this struggle. So, since then my life has been spent in trying to define what Pakistan means, what a modern Muslim state means, what modern Muslim communities need to look like. How do we treat non-Muslims? How do we treat women? How do we treat human rights issues? I’ve been struggling with this all my life.

Now, Pakistanis think about these issues. Therefore, if Pakistanis are guided or misguided or encouraged to think along one line they will go along that line because they are thinking people.

Now, the results of that is that if a lot of Pakistanis are being encouraged to think in terms of violence, confrontation, taking on the world – for example, many youngsters have been taught like this. We know about the moderasals (ph) that – the syllabi of some of them do encourage them to think along these lines, then they will think along these lines. And, therefore, I say – and I’m making a sociological comment here – that whenever there’s a crisis dealing with the Muslims Pakistanis feel very strongly for the Muslim cause. You will find Pakistanis there, whether the Balkans, whether Chechnya, whether the Middle East.

So, I’m not entirely surprised. And, therefore, my argument is that we need to go back to the roots of Pakistan, the vision of that Pakistan that Mr. Genal, the founder of Nade (ph), for Pakistan, the vision of a modern humanist inclusive state, a state that gave rights to the minorities, to women, to everyone according to the constitution, a very clear vision. This was to be a modern Muslim state. And that’s the vision that we need to be constantly reiterating for Pakistanis. If we don’t, Brian, we are sitting on a volcano. And if you think the situation in Iraq is bad and Lebanon is bad, just take a look at the map and look at Pakistan.

LAMB: So, go – let’s – we don’t know much at this stage, but let’s say they’re a relatively young British citizens born in Britain of Pakistani decent. What goes on in their minds? And is it related to the Koran?

AHMED: It is. You see, remember, religion is being used today, Brian. You mentioned the Koran, the holy text of the Muslims. Religion is being used today in all kinds of ways. Remember, we are living in very difficult times, the times of transformation, this globalization, tremendous change taking place, you and the media making an impact all over the world, challenging traditional ways of thinking.

So, the Koran becomes a text that people fall back to. Now, some people interpret it like they would with the bible, with the Judaism text in a very literal way. So, they would say you cannot talk to Jews, you cannot talk to Christians, they are the enemy, and so on. Some will say, no, ultimately God has a vision of all humanity, as I would. When I read the Koran I read something entirely different. I would want an inclusivist interpretation of the Koran, going back the great Muslim scholars and saints and to the prophet himself. It’s a very strong Islamic tradition of interpretation along these lines. But a lot of youngsters are getting different interpretations.

So, your question about the British Muslims is this. My answer – I’ve been in Britain. I was at Cambridge for a long time apart from being the high commissioner there. So, I know the community. There’s a crisis in the community. By and large, it is alienated. To get a young generation growing up as British citizens – they’ve got the passport, they speak with the local accent. So, you get a youngster from Scotland or Birmingham he’ll speak with that Birmy accent. But he’s not quite part of society because there is a racial tension. There is an ethnic tension. He’s there and he’s not quite there. And that leaves him with a chip on his shoulder. And he becomes very susceptible to people then interpreting, for example, the Koran or his religious identity or his national identity. That is where the clash comes.

When I was there, Brian, I used to be very often at the other end of this duel almost with people who would be advocating a much more violent interpretation of the Koran. And I would be talking about inclusivity. So, very often we’d be at – this is long before 9-11. And I would – I will see even then – this is the 1990s – that a storm is coming.

I wrote a book called, ”Postmodernism and Islam” published in ’92, in which I predicted that there will be a great crisis coming because young Muslim scholars and students were being guided or misguided in a certain way. Now, when this begins to happen on campus at major universities – London School of Economics, Oxford, Cambridge – you’re in trouble because these youngsters a couple of years down the road will become the thinkers, the leaders of that society.

So, there is a crisis taking place and we have to be involved with sympathy at looking at it and saying how do we solve it, because getting hold of people who want to blow us up is just the first step. You need to prevent any terrorist strike and prevent any issues of death and murder and mayhem. But then you’ve got to look beyond this and say how do we deal with this in society.

LAMB: Are you still a Pakistani citizen?

AHMED: I’m a British citizen.

LAMB: A British citizen?

AHMED: Yes.

LAMB: What year, by the way, did Pakistan become a country?

AHMED: Nineteen forty-seven.

LAMB: And before that it was a part of what country?

AHMED: It was India. Before 1947 it was British India. So, 1947 countries two countries were carved out, India and Pakistan.

LAMB: And …

AHMED: And then later on Bangladesh, ’71.

LAMB: And how big is Bangladesh?

AHMED: Bangladesh, again, was created from the eastern wing of Pakistan, which was called East Pakistan, and to date has a huge population, again, about, I would say, something like 150 million. So, when you combine these populations, Brian, 165 million Bangladesh, 150 million India, Muslims another 150 million, you’re talking of half a billion Muslims on this planet. It’s a huge population. We cannot ignore it.

LAMB: Why back in the early years of your life in the ’50s when you were riding those trains were the Muslims and the Hindus and – who am I missing? The other …

AHMED: Sikhs.

LAMB: Sikhs. I’m sorry. Why did they hate each other?

AHMED: Well, you know, Brian, South Asia has a very strange history. These religious communities have been fighting with each other, but also interacting with each other. Don’t get the impression that they’re just fighting each other. There’s great cultural synthesis. They’ve been living with each other. They’ve been marrying with each other. They’ve had customs that they share. Even today you see great harmony between them. So, you’ll have periods of conflict and periods of friendship.

This, I would say, is in sharp contrast to what you see in the Middle East, where the Arabs and the Israelis have nothing but a kind of confrontationist relationship between them. In South Asia you have both. You have a love-hate relationship. In the Middle East it’s more hate-hate. And, therefore, in South Asia it becomes more complicated. There can be periods of intense affection between the communities and then intense rivalry.

LAMB: So, what was your family like? What did your father and mother do?

AHMED: My father was in the United Nations. He was a senior figure in the United Nations. In ’47 he was appointed as the key person in charge of all the railways in the capital of Pakistan. So, he was in – that’s how we got a compartment in the train. Otherwise, the trains were just being wiped out.

The previous train on which we should have been, except for my mother, who said, ”No, no, I’m going to catch the next train. I need some” – I don’t know – ”food or lentils or something.” So, we took the next train. That previous train had been completely wiped out. It was that close.

So, I grew up as a young boy of four or five aware of the uncertainties of this life and the viciousness of religious hatred and what it can do not only to individuals but to communities and to nations. And that is when I became aware that we need to be doing something about it, because we make pretexts to ourselves all the time to hate each other because of religion or race or color. And as I grew older and older I began to realize how close we are to each other.

Sitting in Washington, for example, I have dialogue with Rabbi Lustig of the Washington Hebrew Congregation or Bishop John Chane of the National Cathedral, and we are like brothers. They reached out to me after 9-11 when they saw lonely Muslim in their midst after 9-11 – straight after 9-11. They invited me home. They invited my wife and my kids home. And since then we’ve all become great friends. And suddenly I realized that, my God, these people are so much like us. And all my life I had grown up with these barriers in my mind because of my personal experience.

Now think of the millions and millions of people who are going through this experience all over the world, who have not had the privilege or the advantage or the fortune to be able to interact with people like this sitting here in Washington that I have had.

LAMB: Now, you did some joint appearances with the father of Daniel Pearl, who was beheaded in Iraq.

AHMED: In Karachi.

LAMB: Thank you, in – of course, in Karachi in Pakistan – who was with the ”Wall Street Journal” and was a reporter. When was the last time you appeared with him? And why were you doing that?

AHMED: Brian, he and I are appearing regularly. In fact, we were just together in Canada. We have been – we’re just going to be appearing again in a couple of weeks. We’ve done these, I think, about 12 appearances all over the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom. We were at the House of Lords together, received by a Jewish, Muslim and Christian lord, the first time in history this happened.

Again, this was his initiative. It is his. The credit goes entirely to him. He’s the man who reached out, extraordinary figure. His son has been brutally killed in Karachi, the city where I grew up. He rang me up. He said he wanted to meet me, talk to me, become friends. And we became great friends. And from that grew the idea of just the two of us, like you and I are talking, talking on stage and talking very frankly and freely without script. So, we really don’t know where the conversation’s going to go. And from that people began to join us and hear us and be with us.

And sometimes, like at Duke University, we were specifically invited because there was some tension between Christians – sorry, between Jews and Muslim students. So, we were specifically invited to come in and talk and try to get the students involved in the dialogue, to diffuse the tension, and it worked. When we were there we got the students in. We had dinner with them, lunch with them, and at the end of it we saw them chatting with each other amiably, becoming friends.

So, we had been very committed to the idea. The two of us joke about this that we are grandfathers and we should be sitting by the fireside leading a model lifestyle. But my crack is that the world must be in far worst shape than I thought because if people think there’s hope in two grandfathers sitting and chatting, then things are really in a bad shape.

But it does seem to help people just simply to let off steam, if nothing else. And in the process, Brian, I’ve learned a great deal. I’ve learned a lot about Israel, about Judaism. I’ve understood how the Israelis feel the sense of being under siege, surrounded by the Arabs. Judea, in turn, has learned from me how the Muslims feel. And as he tells me, he says, ”Akbar, I’m surprised when you say Muslims feel under siege because they’re a tiny population. You can understand why we feel under siege, but think of you. You people are hundreds of millions of people.” And I tell him, ”But, Judea, think of it, Muslims in Palestine and Kashmir and Chechnya and the United States after 9-11 Muslims certainly feel under threat and they feel they’re not getting the justice they deserve. They’re angry at their own rulers. They’re angry at the world in which they’re living. And, therefore, they lash out. I’m not justifying violence at all for a moment, but this is what is driving them. So, we need to calm them down. We need to return them to the solid base of their own vision of the world, and that is the vision rooted in the notion of compassion, kindness and mercy, which is at the heart of the Abrahamic vision.”

LAMB: We go back to this terror threat in Great Britain. And, again, we don’t – as we’re recording this, we don’t know for sure anything. But let’s just say hypothetically why would somebody want to blow themselves up in the middle of the Atlantic? What’s the motivation? What do you think there – when they walk on those planes if they had this ability to blow up an airplane, what’s the motive? They’re going to die at a young age. Where do they think they’re going to go?

AHMED: Brian, I think this is a failure. What you are seeing is, frankly speaking, to me – and I’m talking as a Muslim and as a Muslim anthropologist. I’m seeing a failure. A young man who commits suicide in Islam – and I know I’m making a very contribution (ph), not so much to you but to some of my Muslim brethren, and so I may get a lot of criticism for this. But this Muslim is defying the laws of God within Islam because in Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, only God gives life and therefore can take life. A Muslim does not have the luxury of committing suicide and opting out.

So, first of all, by committing suicide the Muslim is saying I take my own life in my own hands. Secondly, by blowing himself up and a plane full of innocent passengers – women, children and so on – he’s taking the life of hundreds of people with him, which the Koran specifically prohibits, forbids. There is no clause here saying yes, but in a plane flying to the United States you can do this. The Koran says anyone taking a single human life is the equivalent of taking the lives of the entire universe. That is how serious a Muslim must take the model basis of the universe as far as Islam is concerned.

So, this young man is defying two or three basic tenets of Islam. So, for me, it is a major failure. It is a failure not only of that young man, because that young man is obviously emotional, angry, whatever his irrational impulses that are driving him to this wild act, someone has been teaching him these things. This is where I say Muslim scholars at this moment in time need to come out, interact with their community, with their leaders, with their political leaders, with their educationists, and begin the process, the renaissance of Islamic education. Because if it doesn’t happen, Brian, we’ll have millions – I’m not talking of thousands – millions of young men thinking exactly like the person we are discussing, the person who let’s this get into his mind.

So, I am not happy about the prospect of a future where we have this unending cycle of violence taking place all around us. We need to be able to pull back and stop it. And we can only do it if you get back to the roots of Islam itself and begin the process of education in schools and re-educating these young people.

LAMB: Sunni or Shiite?

AHMED: I’m a Sunni.

LAMB: Why?

AHMED: Birth. It’s pure accident. My family may say it’s the wonders of God and the only good and true Muslims are Sunni and so on, but it’s just an accident of birth. I could have been born anything. I could have been a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Christian. Being a Sunni Muslim gives me certain advantages in Islam because that’s 90 percent of Islam. I also have descent from the prophets, so again that gives some advantage in our culture in terms of respect for that particular lineage. It’s a sacred lineage. I also have Butan (ph) blood, which also gives a certain cache within our culture in South Asia.

All these things really ultimately mean nothing, Brian. It’s up to us how we interact with the world, how we interact with people, and how we’re able to communicate with people, because we’re living in a world where all these barriers of sect, ethnicity, tribe and nation are really crumbling around us. This is the definition of globalization.

LAMB: If you were a Shiite what would be different about you?

AHMED: Very different. The Shiite – now I’m talking as a scholar of Islam. Shiite social structure, Sunni social structure very different, not understood in the West to their great cost. Very different. Shiite hierarchical. The notion of the imam, the belief in the hidden imam. The imams descended directly from the prophet. They have immense respect in Shiite culture. The ayatollahs have immense respect in Shiite culture and they would follow the ayatollah, as they did with Khomeini, in a revolution. You will not get this in the Sunni world. You may have a charismatic religious leader emerging for a short while, but then being immediately challenged by traditional leaders.

The greatest political movement in the Sunni world in the twentieth century is the movement led by Mr. Jenal (ph), the movement for the creation of Pakistan, which resulted in the creation of Pakistan. He was not a Shiite cleric. He was an ordinary, very sick, liberal, humanist kind of political figure who was worshiped almost – worshiped by ordinary Muslims. They really saw him as someone almost superhuman – Muslims.

And why was this happening, Brian? Because ultimately Sunnis are able to respond to the individual. To Shiites, the religious mantle is very important. And what you are seeing with this new emerging situation after Lebanon is Nasrullah Shiite (ph) Sheikh, descender of the prophet, Amman Dijad (ph), Shiite presence (ph) of Iran, Moktivir (ph) in Iraq.

So, what you are seeing is a very interesting revival of Shiite ideology and this seeping into the Sunni world. So, a lot of Muslims for the first time are saying these guys are standing up to the West, therefore we must admire them. We must follow them and we must back them in this confrontation. So, you’re seeing again the borders between Shiite and Sunni blurring in this confrontation.

LAMB: Pakistan is what percentage Sunni?

AHMED: Good question because I keep pointing out to my friends that if you’re thinking of a strike in Iran you need to ask this question. Pakistan, 165 million people, is largely Sunni, but 30 million Shiite living in Pakistan. Very important in the army. Very important in Sunni (ph) posts (ph). And if there’s any adventure in Iran I can assure that there’ll be a violent backlash in Pakistan, Pakistan alone. And if Pakistan tilts over and you lose Pakistan, as I said earlier, it’s the only nuclear country in the world and we are in deep trouble.

LAMB: Now, do you follow Muslim law now yourself? I mean, do you pray five times a day and all the things that we see in the daily press?

AHMED: Well, Brian, I certainly try to be as Muslim as possible. I don’t smoke. I don’t drink. Prayers, because of the different schedules, is much more difficult. So, we are – Muslims are always much more relaxed and much more flexible than it would seem from outside. I don’t have a beard, for example. I don’t wear traditional clothes. At the same time, I am believing. I have a very strong faith in my faith. And at the same time I’m also aware of the Abrahamic nature of my faith so that when I talk to my friend, Rabbi Lustig, I’m aware how close he is to my own faith, or John Chane, the bishop. I sometimes feel that they reflect some of the true values of Islam because of this belief in their goodness and their piety and their understanding of other human beings around them.

So, for me, the understanding of Islam is very – I won’t say that it’s literalist orthodox. I would say it’s much more mystic humanist from the great traditions of the Sufis (ph) of Islam who really reached out to people, who believed in the motto ”peace with all”. And it really meant something to them.

LAMB: Are you married?

AHMED: I am married. I’m married. I have four children and I have two grandchildren. And my daughter – my eldest daughter is at Cambridge University, very involved with interfaith dialogue. She just launched a major society there. The queen of England wrote to her encouraging her. The chief rabbi is supporting her. The archbishop is supporting her. So, she’s getting young Muslim women in Britain and young men involved in this dialogue. That is where change will come, Brian. It’ll only come if you get the community involved in this so that they feel a sense of worth and welcome and pride.

LAMB: Do the women in your family wear – are they covered?

AHMED: No, they’re not covered. They are – they look like any modern young women in – here in Washington. And yet they’re very traditional. My wife is from Swat, which is a state in North Pakistan. She’s the granddaughter of the wali of Swat, who was the ruler of the state of Swat. So, she’s a princess. And being from a very traditional society, she still is completely comfortable in her own normal clothes or in western clothes, but they’re always dressed modestly and normally. So, you wouldn’t be able to say she’s from outside or not from outside.

LAMB: One small thing in your book – one of your books. You write about being educated in a Catholic school and you also point that Benazir Bhutto was also educated in a Catholic school. How did that happen?

AHMED: Yes, Benazir Bhutto was educated at the same convent that my wife was educated in and my sisters up in Murree, north of Islamabad. It’s the most popular girls school in Pakistan. And you literally cannot get admission. You’ve got to book years in advance. It’s that popular.

The counter part of this school for boys was my school called Burn Hall, which is north of Islamabad, run by Catholic priests, the Mill Hill fathers. And I know that sometimes the Catholic priests get a very bad press here in the United States, but to me, Brian, they’re really extraordinary figures. They were really father figures. And from them I learned piety. I learned sincerity. I learned compassion. And they were extraordinary figures.

When I was growing up I used to think about them – English, Irish, Dutch – living for eight years at a time in a foreign country just because of their dedication to Jesus, because they thought they were doing good in the name of Jesus. I mean, look at the sacrifice. Then they’d come to Europe after eight years and very often come back to Pakistan. After two or three months they had an eight month holiday period. And they’d say, ”You know, we can’t adjust in Europe anymore. There’s so many changes taking place.” This is in the 1950s and 1960s. And they’d say, ”There’s something called” – ”something terrible happening there. There’s some music called rock and roll, this terrible music and this terrible young American singer called Elvis Presley. And he’s got these long sideburns.” This was a revolution in their lives.

And I could see the conflicts that they were going through in terms of culture. So, they were more comfortable being in Pakistan in a Muslim environment than in their own homes. And I found that very interesting.

LAMB: Originally when we invited you, you were going to follow a program that’s already been recorded that is pegged off of a documentary called Islam, What the West Needs to Know. And we wanted you to shed some light on what this particular documentary has to say. I’m going to run a couple of clips and get you to respond to it. The gentleman that was on the show is a fellow named Robert Spencer, and he runs a Web site called Jihad Watch. Are you aware of him?

AHMED: Yes, I certainly am aware. Yes. He writes about Islam, yes?

LAMB: He is a Melchite Catholic, so he’s not a Muslim. Let’s run the first clip and just get your reaction to what they say.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROBERT SPENCER, FOUNDER, JIHAD WATCH: Islam is the only religion in the world that has a developed doctrine theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers and mandates that Muslims must wage war in order to establish the homogeneity of the Islamic social order over the world. Now, these things are objectively verifiable facts. Anyone can look at the Koran. Anyone can look at the Muslim sources, the Muslim history, Muslim legal texts and so on and find that to be true.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LAMB: Reaction.

AHMED: My reaction of Robert is that he’s right. Islam does have a very aggressive almost attitude to spreading the word.

At the same time, where does Islam get this from? I pointed out that Islam is very conscious of its Judeo-Christian legacy. This is part of the Judeo-Christian legacy. So, the moment you make this statement about Islam you can make exactly the same statement about Judaism and Christianity. If you read the bible and read versus about smiting and smite so and so and smite so and so, you realize how in fact aggressive the bible can be. That is precisely why we need to go to the spirit of the bible. When we talk of Jesus as the embodiment, as we do as Muslims who revere and love Jesus, as the embodiment of love and compassion and piety and humility, it is the spirit we take of the book, not the literal translation.

So, Robert in that sense is pointing out something which on one level is literally true but on another level it contains a deeper truth, which is what we need to be looking at, that you need to see it in the context of the Abrahamic tradition.

LAMB: Have you seen this documentary?

AHMED: I haven’t seen this documentary, but I know the work of Dr. Spencer and I know a lot of these arguments because I’ve been a scholar of Islam for the last several decades. So, I’m very aware with all my friends and colleagues. And we interact with them. We debate. We discuss. I have my own documentary called Living Islam made by the BBC. It’s a six-part series. So, in a sense it’s looking at Muslim history, culture, and critically, but as a sociologist trying to explain the rise and falls of societies more as a sociologist than in terms of theology.

LAMB: Here’s more from Robert Spencer.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SPENCER: The Jewish and Christian traditions have developed interpretative methods whereby they blunt the force of some of the more uncomfortable passages of the bible so that nobody reads in the psalms where it says, ”Blessed is the one who takes your babies and strikes them against the rock,” and thinks we should go out and bash babies’ heads in. This has never been something that Jews – even the most extreme Jewish and Christian groups have ever relied on that kind of biblical literalism in regard to those kinds of passage.

In Islam, on the other hand, the literalist tradition is paramount. And the understanding that these things are indeed marching orders for all believers is paramount so that also there’s a fundamental difference in the fact that there is an open ended and universal mandate to commit to – to commit violence, to wage war against nonbelievers for believers in the Koran. There is no such universal and open ended mandate to commit violence in the scriptures – in the Christian or Jewish scriptures.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LAMB: Is he right?

AHMED: He’s not right again, Brian. Let me urge all your viewers to read the work of Rumi. He says all Muslims are mandated to go out and kill and be violent and so on. We’ve established that’s part of the Abrahamic tradition. Each tradition has a counterpoint. The counterpoint in Islam is the mystic Sufi tradition. Rumi is an example. Rumi is today in the United States the number one best selling poet in the United States of America. You’ll be surprised at this, but he is. Go to any book shop and they’ll confirm this.

Who is Rumi? Thirteenth century mystic Muslim poet talking of love and compassion. I go to the synagogue. I go to the church. I go to the mosque. I see the same spirit and the same altar. This is Islam. Rumi’s inspiration, Brian, to Koran. So, rich Koran is Rumi reading. Rich Koran is Dr. Spencer reading.

So, there is a debate within Islam itself and it has been debated for centuries. I pointed out earlier that what we are seeing is because of globalization, because of the forces around us that the debate’s shifting away from Rumi’s interpretation or my interpretation of inclusivity to a more exclusivist tendency. That is what we need to be concerned with, because if we don’t we’re in danger of producing a monolith of Islam because a monolith does not exist.

Even the example of Jinnah – let Mr. Spencer read the speeches of Jinnah or the actions – interpret the actions of Jinnah in the ’30s and ’40s. This is a liberal humanist interpretation of modern Islam. Read the works of Allama Iqbal, who inspired Jinnah, the greatest poet of South Asia, the great poet philosopher. He wrote a poem for Ramma, the Hindu god. That is how liberal and how open and inclusivist Iqbal is. Iqbal is the inspiration for the creation of Pakistan.

So, you have a debate within Islam itself. What you are seeing is that debate reaching a climax.

LAMB: Is it possible – again, go back to some of the terrorists who follow Islam and are Muslims – that they’re going into a mosque and they’re hearing from an imam that is a literalist and pumps them full of the idea that they’re going to go to heaven, be with God, be with Muhammad if they carry out these suicide bombs.

AHMED: Exactly. You put your finger on it. The young man goes to the mosque and he gets that version of Islam. I would like that same young man to go to the mosque, as I’ve done very often – I’m asked to talk in mosques. And I talk about Rumi. I talk about Jinnah, these also great Muslim figures. That for a young man is going to get a broader interpretation and picture of Islamic itself, one that’ll make him comfortable with people on this planet. We are living in a very claustrophobic overpopulated civilization at this part of the twenty-first century. Muslims and non-Muslims need to learn to get on with each other. That young man can get on with each other if he knows that these also Islamic sources, but he may not have access to that. He may be just getting what you’re seeing, this very narrow vision. If he has that narrow vision, Brian, we’re in trouble.

LAMB: There’s also a theory that countries like Saudi Arabia are pumping money across the world into these mosques, into these imams’ hands. And they’re – as you know, they’re proselytizing – well, the …

AHMED: The Wahhabis.

LAMB: Wahhabi. Excuse me, I almost said Wasabi – Wahhabi theology. What do you say to that.

AHMED: Yes, you’re partly right because the Saudis have – in fact, their textbooks – I was on a program – on a television program discussing this. Some of the Saudi texts have a very narrow literalist interpretation, in fact referring to verses from the Koran. And that again has to be changed and altered within Saudi Arabia. And I believe there is a process where that is taking place.

Again, remember, Brian, that Saudi Arabia is one country out of 57 Muslim nations. So, each country is going through a different process of change and discussion and alteration. I believe – and I go back to my point I made earlier – that we in the Muslim world, the scholars. This is the time they have to speak up. They have to go around. They have to interact at all costs to themselves. But if they don’t, then the bigger battle will be lost. It isn’t so much the west versus Islam. It is the battle within Islam itself.

And then what you will see is that the great traditions of humanism and Sufism represented by Rumi, all the traditional genile (ph) representing democracy and human rights and so on will be marginalized and you will have the men of violence emerging. And then you have stories like these 21 young men wanting to blow up the United Airline because these young men have not been trained – not been trained – in the vision of Rumi. Rumi talks of love and compassion. That is the tradition we have to rediscover and help Muslims rediscover for themselves.

LAMB: Here’s more from Robert Spencer.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SPENCER: There’s a prevailing fog of political correctness over the land that has the power to cloud men’s minds and makes them not see what’s obvious. And this – these issues are – speaking honestly about these issues, the American Muslim advocacy groups have been very skillful in portraying anyone who speaks honestly about these issues as being some kind of a hate monger.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AHMED: You know, Brian, in America, the United States, the debate does get a bit caught up in these advocacy groups. And I try to avoid both Muslim and non-Muslim because, to me, the issue really is a bigger one. It isn’t just a question of Muslims surviving or non-Muslims surviving. We are living on a planet which is overpopulated. Poverty is rampant in parts of Africa, Asia. It’s a very serious situation, the starvation, thousands facing starvation. Global warming is a reality. Religious conflict, ethnic conflict is taking lives across the world. You see what’s happening in the Middle East, Israel feeling threatened, the Arabs feeling threatened, both locked up in a cycle of violence.

We really have to begin to look at each other not in terms of advocacy, not in terms of scoring points, not in terms of tit for tat. I would invite distinguished scholars like Dr. Spencer to begin this process, the scholars looking at Islam, rather than just creating a scare about Islam. Let them help Muslims and non-Muslims discover or rediscover the traditions of compassion, of dialogue, of inclusivity within Islam itself. It is a very, very rich legacy.

Remember, Islam gave you a civilization 1,000 years ago with scholars and writers and astrologers and poets, which was unique at that time of the world. It was right at the cutting edge, the most advanced civilizations of the world. Why can’t Muslims again participate on this? Why must Muslims be known as terrorists and extremists in the American mind? This is a great challenge for Muslims.

LAMB: I have a copy of the Koran in my hand. It’s translated from the Arabic by J.M. Rodwell. Are you familiar with this one? I don’t know this translation. I usually use Yusuf Ali’s translation.

LAMB: Is – there actually – isn’t there a correct way to even hold the Koran?

AHMED: Yes. Yes. Because, remember, Muslims believe that this is the word of God. They always hold it with great reverence, as you are doing, and I’m grateful for that.

LAMB: In one hand or the other?

AHMED: No, no, what you’re doing is fine. Both, yes.

LAMB: The – they call the – I don’t know – chapters …

AHMED: Yes.

LAMB: Sura.

AHMED: Sura, yes. Sura is the chapter.

LAMB: On all the chapters except one – it starts off with the name – ”In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful.” And chapter nine does not. It’s called ”In Unity.” But they – what’s that all about? Because that’s pointed out in this document.

AHMED: Yes. Yes. Again, Brian, the Koran is – as a great scholar of Islam who converted from Christianity to Islam wrote about it, it’s like an ocean. The deeper you go into it the deeper you learn its mysteries. It is really – like all the great religious texts, the bible or the Judaic texts, there is so much for us as human beings to become aware of to spiritually uplift ourselves. And the Koran is like that.

You pointed out that every chapter starts with, ”In the name of God, the compassionate, the beneficence and the merciful.” Now, this comes from the fact that God in Islam is known by 99 names or attributes. And of these 99 two, that is Rahman and Rahim, beneficence and mercy, compassion, mercy, are the two that are most repeated throughout the day by Muslims all over the world. So, even as we speak Muslims will be saying this one loud, Rahman and Rahim, in the name of God, the beneficence and the merciful.

So, Islam is emphasizing, encouraging us to emphasize compassion and mercy round the clock. I ask myself the question you asked a few minutes ago about these young men. If young men get on a plane to blow themselves up where is the mercy and compassion? They’re missing something. It is my job as a Muslim scholar to make sure that they’re aware what they’re missing and what’s going wrong in their thinking. If I can’t do it, Brian, I have failed. That is why, for me, this dialogue is like an obsession. It’s like something that I must do because at this critical time in the post 9-11 world we’re living in I believe every Muslim scholar must be out there interacting with both the non-Muslims like we are doing but with Muslims, because if we don’t do it we will have failed our community and eventually the world community.

LAMB: Robert Spencer talks about this chapter. Let’s watch.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SPENCER: It is generally understood by Islamic theologians as meaning that this is because this is not a chapter of compassion or mercy. This is a chapter of warfare. And it is the – generally understood to abrogate the – any treaty of peace or any accord that Muslims had with non-believers as dictated by any other part of the book that now with this at the last, the last – the Koran’s last word on Jihad – and, again, this is not my opinion. This is the opinion of traditional and mainstream Islamic theologians and Koranic commentators such as Ibn Kathir and others. They say that this is meaning that the posture of Muslims toward non-Muslims forever after throughout history is to be one of warfare in order to establish the hegemony of Islamic law of sharia and that that warfare is certainly carried out by various different means. And it doesn’t mean that every Muslim is going to be trying to kill every other non-Muslim at all times. But the overall responsibility of the umma, the Muslim community worldwide, is to continue to pursue this war insofar as it is possible in every age in order ultimately to Islamize the world.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AHMED: Chapters were written, Brian, over a period of time, very soon after the prophet but over a period of time. So, there was a debate should they be the Meccan chapters first, then the Medina chapters because, as revelations came they were divided according to were they being received in Mecca or Medina. Or should they be longer and shorter and so on.

So, it isn’t a question of this chapter abrogating an earlier chapter because, again, you have those whole logic and illogic and gods mind. You cannot have God constantly changing his mind.

At the same time we are told – and we’re all scholars, and Robert Spencer’s pointing out Muslim scholars – that these chapters are coming at a certain time of history. There’s a situation which is specific to immediate moment in time. There’s a battle. There’s a peace treaty being formed. There’s a situation of an event in the prophet’s life. And then there are other chapters which are talking of principles of society.

So, they’re two quite distinct things happening here. I interpret it like this. When there’s a specific chapter talking about Muslims who are not very good Muslims or making peace with the Jews or fighting with the Jews or other Christians are fighting with Muslims and making peace with them, those are specific to a certain situation taking place then at time – in that particular time.

And then there are chapters with general principles – how should we be treating humanity, how should we be treating Jews and Christians, the people of the book how should we be looking at Jesus. There’s an entire chapter, for example, on Mary, the mother of Jesus. She’s treated with such reverence in the Koran. There are mentions of Jesus more than the prophet himself in the Koran. And the prophet is on record. The famous saying of his that there is no one closer to Jesus than I am in reverence and love.

So, all that is the spirit, the philosophy of the Koran that I would get in reading it. If I read it critically and scholarly in a scholarly fashion that this chapter relates more to what’s happening on the ground and maybe or maybe not. It doesn’t make much sense to me. There’s a tribal war going on. There’s some kind of treaty. There’s some kind of abrogation or fight between groups. And then there’s a chapter which relates to me in the twenty-first century. It gives me certain principles on how I am to live my life now in the twenty-first century. This is where Muslims need to be using their critical faculties at looking at the Koran.

LAMB: Again, you’re saying that you tend to look at the positive side of this and you have the imams and the mosques in London that undoubtedly if that’s true pumped up all these kids to go out and kill themselves.

AHMED: Brian, again, it’s a debate. It’s a discussion. And all the imams are not like this. I can give you many examples here in the United States. My friend Imam Magid who heads the Dulles Muslim Center, the most important center here in Washington D.C. – in fact, the ”Time Magazine” had a story on him calling him the American Imam or something very popular, very obane (ph), very relaxed, very – reaching out to Jews and Christians involved with me in this Abrahamic dialogue.

His interpretation would be exactly like mine, which is the broader, the more philosophic, the reaching out to people. So, again, it is a debate within the faiths. Dr. Spencer may be saying one thing. Other Christian scholars of Islam may be saying completely the opposite. These are all parts of our own opinions being given on the basis of our study, on the basis of our own research, and is part of the debate.

LAMB: In this chapter – I’ll just read you a couple sentences and then have you explain it.

”And when the sacred months are past, kill those who join other gods” – small G with gods – large G – ”wherever ye shall find them and seize them. Besiege them and lay awake for them with every kind of ambush. But if they shall convert and observe prayer and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is gracious and merciful.”

AHMED: Now, I interpret this – I’ve read that verse and I was very interested in that. So, I’m glad you picked that one out.

What is God saying? Again, let’s step back a little bit. This is the Abrahamic God, first point, very possessive, very jealous about only me and don’t look at idols, don’t look at – remember, Abraham actually smashes idols made by his own father. He sets the mold for us. And we are very Abrahamic in our view as Muslims.

So, the first is the possessiveness, the exclusivity. And for this, my Hindu friends, for example, or my Buddhist friends always tease me, joke at me and say, ”You Abrahamic people tend to be very possessive about your sense of God. Only we are right. The boundaries are very clear.” They tend to be much more flexible, much more fluid, much more relaxed about faith – other people’s faith.

The second is the clause (ph) where you invite them to your dialogue, invite them to your way of looking. And if there’s a possibility of making peace with them, coming to understanding, then that peace is better than war. There are many verses like this which strike me where God says in the Koran ”fight them” and fight them here and fight them – the Jews and the Christians in the middle of war there’s a verse which says, which is very often quoted by my colleagues like Dr. Spencer – fight the Jews, fight the Christians, fight the bad Muslims.

The next verse, Brian, goes on to say, ”But make peace with them because God prefers peace.” So, how would I read it? I would read it like this, that if there is a war situation even then peace has to be preferred. Even then dialogue and understanding trump war and violence.

LAMB: What do you believe happens to you when you die?

AHMED: Again, none of us know. Shakespeare and Hamlet, if you remember – no one’s been back from that other world, the netherworld. Generally, I believe that there is – again according to the Abrahamic tradition, there will be some kind of paradise. I hope I’ve done enough good in this world and I hope our interview and dialogue will be one of the little things which may just tilt the balance that I may find myself in a better place in the next life. But something like that, because I think that is based on the notion of a ledger afterlife, the good and the evil.

At the same time, I am from South Asia. And in South Asia there is no notion of a ledger and an afterlife. There’s just a cycle of continuity. It just keeps going round and round. For us Abrahamic peoples there is a trajectory, going up to a certain point, cut off with day, and then a day of judgment.

LAMB: What is this – and, you know, people – a lot of people in this country on the radio make fun of this. They say a lot of these young men are committing terrorist acts and dying, committing suicide so they can be with 72 virgins. Where does that all come?

AHMED: Yes, you’re right. I was sometimes amused. And sometimes I’m amused at the exact number because getting 72 women to be with you I’d think it’d be the ultimate nightmare for a lot of men because I don’t know how they’ll cope with all that.

But this comes from the embellishment, the commentary of people who try to define paradise, whether they’re Muslim, whether they’re Christians. Ideas of paradise – so, what are ideas of paradise if you’re sitting in a desert? Milk, water, green, trees, dates, lots of women who will be serving you, beautiful women, young women who’ll remain fresh and young all their lives. These are the ideas that have come into the literature, then folklore, then mythology to us.

Now, if you’re young, if you’re angry or violent, you want to blow yourself up, and you also throw this in, that here is a legitimate reward waiting for you in the afterlife, then it may – I don’t say this is the only motivation. But it may be something that has some effect on you. I don’t think this is the primary motivation. I think this is a bit of a caricature that we believe these young men are going off to get 72 virgins in the next life. I think there’s a greater failure.

There’s a greater failure of understanding, a greater failure of their own mental composure, which forces them into acts of violence and taking lives. The situation that they surround themselves, the despair, the hopelessness, the sense of Muslim injustice that they’re looking around them and saying, ”Where do we speak up? Where are the voices? How can we speak up? We’ve been let down by our own rulers. The United Nations can’t provide us justice. We are being killed.” And Muslims give these examples, Brian, all the time. They’ll give examples of the Palestinians or the Kashmirs, the Chechnyans – again and again they give – Iraqis, Arabs (ph). Great sense of anger and frustration.

From there to blowing themselves up is a small step. And, remember, please put this in context on this program. This is not a Muslim thing. Suicides come very late into the picture in Islam, just two decades old. The Tommy (ph) tiger is not Muslim. The Japanese kamikaze pilot is not Muslim. Suicide has been around. It’s just coming into Islam. And it’s worrying me because this is violating some basic tenets of Islam itself.

LAMB: Mr. Spencer talks about terrorism. I want you to hear this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SPENCER: The problem that the world faces and the problem that the Muslim communities of the West face as well as the Muslim communities in the Islamic world face is that the terrorists are taking the teachings of the Koran and the teachings of Islamic theology and law that mandate violence and are running with them. And it is very difficult to formulate a case on – solely on Muslim grounds to say that that’s illegitimate. And so, while there are moderate Muslims, the fact that Islam itself is not moderate makes it very difficult for those moderates to establish any kind of large scale anti-terror effort.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AHMED: I don’t agree here, Brian. I’ve just given you the example of Mr. Jinnah, the twentieth century, that when given a choice Muslims – and he said that there are no moderate Muslims and Muslims don’t go along the moderate camp as it were and rather prefer the extremist camp. When given a choice they rally behind a man like Jinnah.

Now, the key question for us is why in the twenty-first century can’t we have more Muslim leaders in that mold. The Muslim leaders saying, ”All right, we have a problem. Palestinians, we have a problem. Let’s sit down with the Israelis. Let’s sort it out. Negotiations, talking, peace processes. Let’s not blow ourselves up. Let’s not blow ourselves up on campuses or in pizzerias. Let’s not to take these violent acts because they’re getting us nowhere and it’s against the law and it’s immoral.” That’s what Jinnah did. He never went to jail once, never broke the law. He fought within the law and yet he achieved the largest Muslim nation on earth. That is our challenge.

We need – it is there, so I don’t agree with Dr. Spencer. It doesn’t exist, for Jinnah is not a political figure. He’s a real figure. I’m giving you a real life example. For Pakistanis he’s like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, all rolled into one, the founding father. He exists. Why can’t we create more Jinnahs in the Muslim world? That is our challenge.

Your challenge in the United States is to understand what’s happening in the Muslim world because if you don’t and you treat all Muslims as potential terrorists according to Dr. Spencer thesis that there are no moderates, then what you will do is you will push a lot of moderates, a lot of marginal and wavering and swinging people into the extremist camp. And that, Brian, I’m afraid even the sole superpower of the world cannot afford to do. You cannot take on 1.4 billion people where you have such interests as you do in the Middle East and South Asia and Central Asia.

LAMB: One last clip, because it goes to what you’ve been talking about.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SPENCER: Islam is not what you think. Most of the people – you know, I talk to officials all the time. I talk to media types all the time. And they are unanimous or virtually unanimous in their certainty that the terrorists are not true Muslims and that Islam is a religion of peace that they’re twisting.

Now, it’s not for me or anyone else to say that they are true Muslims, but there’s no doubt that they are working from broad traditions within Islam. And as long as Muslims like this reviewer refuse to face that instead of take concrete steps to combat it, that’s going to continue to go on. And this is why this question is so urgent.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LAMB: You know, a lot of people were critical of the Islam community in this country for not standing up and really criticizing the terrorists back in 9-11 and ever since then. Will – I know you’ve been active in that, but have they been reticent to stand up?

AHMED: Brian, there was a reticence. In fact, I regret to say this, that even when I started my dialogues with Judeo Pearl, when I went to bruslastic (ph) synagogue just two years after – one year after 9-11 – he invited me – there was a headline in Pakistan in a Pakistani paper which said, ”Akbar Ahmed sole Muslim voice wanting dialogue with the Jews.” I got a lot of very nasty e-mails.

So, I’m aware that we Muslims have to accept the challenge. I would also invite friends and colleagues like Dr. Spencer to also accept the challenge not to create further misunderstanding, not to fuel the fires, because this kind of black-and-white presentation of Islam will confirm in Americans’ minds that Islam is a dangerous terrorist evil religion, and purely on practical terms, not theological, not moral, not historical.

On practical terms the United States cannot bomb the whole planet and live by itself. It must engage. It must talk about winning hearts and minds, as President Bush is trying to scatter (ph), use his colleague in the State Department. He’s trying to genuinely reach out through public diplomacy, friendship, dialogue, to begin the process of getting in the majority of Muslims in the debate.

Even Bernard Lewis, the great historian at Princeton, a friend and colleague from my Princeton days, he wrote an article just two days ago in the ”Wall Street Journal” this week in which he argued about the 22nd of August being a very dangerous date and so on. But the last paragraph of the article says – that’s the conclusion – that the only solution is the long-term solution of involving and incorporating the majority of the Muslim world into this dialogue. And that is how you marginalize extremism and, therefore, violence.

You cannot do it any other way, Brian, because right now what I am seeing – and I am very worried about this – as a Muslim who’s been advocating dialogue and understanding, sometimes at great cost to myself and to my personal safety, what I am seeing is people like me being further and further marginalized and the men of extremism getting the opportunity to say, ”Here we are. Here’s another documentary like Dr. Spencer’s documentary. It’s anti-Islam. America hates Islam. America’s on the warpath against Islam. And you, Akbar Ahmed, by having dialogue with Brian, with Judeo Pearl and so on, are selling out. You are an Uncle Tom.” They’ve written this about me.

So, we have to be very sensitive about the debate within the Muslim world.

LAMB: Akbar Ahmed, thank you very much.