The Lebanese periodical International monthly , published an interview with Sayyed Muhammad Hussein (a.s.) Fadlullah in which he discussed various current issues that concern the Islamic nation . Following is the text of the interview:

Q: You are opposed to the American operation in Iraq, whereas the Americans say there is great support for it among the Iraqi people. How would you explain this contradiction?

A: The Iraqis suffered too much -like no other people in the area-under Saddam’s reign, especially in terms of murder. That’s why none of the tens of thousands of detainees were found alive. Saddam really took advantage of regional and international politics, launching wars that he called “nationalistic” at times and “patriotic” at other times, among the many other labels he used for his conflicts.

At an early stage in his presidency, Saddam launched an internal war against the Kurds and all others opposing him, even those within his own party. As a result, the Ba’ath party was left with only Saddam’s supporters and the rest were either killed or exiled. Then, when Saddam confronted Iran, he was supported by the United states, which wanted to bring about a new Arab or Islamic regime. In that war, the Americans supplied Saddam with chemical weapons, which he used on his own people in Halabja and other areas. Later, when the U.S. wanted to justify its military presence in the Gulf, he launched the war against Kuwait. The U.S. used Saddam-as it used Qusama bin Laden -as an Iraqi scarecrow to maintain a presence in the Gulf.

Therefore, the common Iraqi, not the politicized Iraqi, sees American as a savior. The real issue the Iraqis are grappling with is not the American occupation and whether they should support it, but rather, fear of Saddam’s return, compounded by fear of the absence of a comprehensive Iraqi leadership[ should the Americans evacuate.

Tarek Bin Ziad’s saying summarizes Iraq’s current situation: “The sea is behind you and the enemy in front of you, “which can best be described as a situation of confusion.

However, if we look at the political speeches of Iraq’s Sunni and Shiia leaders or political representatives, it is obvious that there is a refusal of the occupation, with some handling it peacefully and others violently.

Q: What do you think of the theory of “clash of civilizations” that emerged after the September 11 attacks? Do you see any possibility for harmony between the East and West?

A: I think the term “clash of civilizations” is a political tool that is manipulated every now and then. If we trace the events before and after September 11, we can notice that the world is living a “clash of interests” rather than a “clash of civilizations”.

The clash was once between the U.S., Europe and the Nazis: then it was between the USSR and the West (at the time, being part of the Western colonies or sphere of influence, the Islamic countries took a stand with the West). After the collapse of communism and the weakening of nationalism and patriotism in many countries, Islam began to create a problem for the West.

As Margaret Thatcher once declared, the West was looking for an enemy, and they saw this enemy in Islam; and this was prior to the September 11 attacks. The West did not fight Islam because of cultural differences, but because it includes, as Marxism did, terms that are political, revolutionary and spiritual in nature, which might complicate Western interests. Therefore, the whole issue revolves around interests.

This attack on Islam is intended to prevent it from becoming a prominent power that can make an impact on the West. The emigration of many Muslims, however, has enabled Westerners to understand Islam in one way or another, indicating that there is no cultural conflict between East and West.

Also, most Westerners, like many Muslims, do not really live according to the spirit of their culture, but according to the slogans and headlines representing it-which is why I can’t assume there is a clash of civilizations.

Finally, the American war on terrorism was met with many European reservations from the start; so I don’t believe this issue is one of a “clash of civilizations”.

Q: It is sometimes argued that Islam and secularism are incompatible and cannot meet. How do you respond to that?

A: We have to understand the issue rationally, free of fervor and negativity. The problem stems from a generally Western view of religion that originated from its struggle against the Church, from the idea that the Church is only responsible for the relationship between God and man. From that perspective, religion has no relation to politics, economics or other areas of life. As a result of this separation between state and religion, the dominating mentality in general was that “What is for God is for God and what is for Caesar is for Caesar”.

The problem is that Islam is also facing the issue of secularism, and there is a big debate going on between two schools of thought. One says that Islam is different from Christianity in the sense that Islam has an intellectual base, which it proved in building early civilizations, and was described by Jawaharlal Nehro as the “mother of modern civilizations.” Islam was able to transfer civilization to the West through Andalusia, and therefore it is clear that the religion of Islam stems from this intellectual civilized base, which believes in the human mind, education and man.

In addition, Islam has a “Shari’a”, a set of codes, that has been around longer than many of the more contemporary codes of human conduct, and the centerpiece of those codes is the religion of Islam. Islam did not leave a vacuum in the legislative issues that relate to peoples’ lives.

There is, moreover, the dynamism of Islam, which is based on “ijtihad” [or jurisprudence and intellectual diligence], whereby future generations of “A’alama’ (religious men of knowledge) are enabled to understand the contents of the Holy Book in a different way than previous generations. This means that the mind does not stand still; it is continuously moving. Thus, the issue is not the permanence of the text, but the dynamism of the content, which might be subject to many intellectual interpretations.

Therefore, when we compare secularism and Islam, we are comparing two different issues. Secularism says there is no relation between religion and life, yet religion is a call to life: “Oh believers, respond to God and His Prophet if he calls you, for it is for your own benefit.” The problem, therefore, lies in the confusion between the religious understanding in the West and the religious understanding of Muslims.

Q: Some historians argue that there was more freedom of thought and freedom to question at the outset of the Islamic religion than there is today. Do you agree with this, and if so, what are the reasons?

A: First of all, the contraction of freedom in the Islamic world is a result of the current backward thinking that has forced itself on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. A second reason is that the governments that came to power in Islamic countries, whether they were “Islamic” as such or occupiers, were dictatorships on the people and restricted freedom. It was a crime to talk about freedom. We are still living under emergency measures and laws, with security agencies interfering in everything under the pretext of the Israeli threat, while many have openly or secretly amended relations.

It is normal that both the loss of intellectual freedom since earlier times and the restrictions imposed on peoples’ lives, which have originated from political and security accumulations, have generated a state of stagnancy in Islamic leadership. Therefore, we must work on returning to open-mindedness and acceptance of other views.

Q: On the occasion of Eid al Fitr, what is the religious and intellectual basis of your theory of spotting the crescent moon to declare the start of the Eid, which has caused division and a great deal of controversy?

A: The concept originated on the basis of the system of the universe, because the lunar month is not a religious matter, but one of astronomy. The month ends with the disappearance of the moon and starts again with its reappearance. Once it starts to appear, you can see its light with the naked eye or with a telescope.

Many religious people have based the moon’s sighting on the Prophet’s saying: “Fast when you see it [when it reappears]. “While sighting the moon is one of many ways of science, the sentence in the Quran preceding that statement says that you should only proceed when you are certain. That is why I consider the issue of the moon as something that relates to astronomy, and we can refer to the people of science rather than that to the religious people.

If scientists and calculations are trustworthy, we can judge by that and determine the time of the Eid for the next 50 years.

*This interview took place before the capture of Saddam Hussein.