SPIEGEL:

You have demanded the speedy withdrawal of the "American occupiers." Won't this only worsen the already chaotic situation in Iraq?

Sadr: Any occupation is abominable. The longer occupiers remain in a country, the more severe are the consequences. The Americans must leave. Otherwise, the wave of violence will become overwhelming. Out with the Americans, and better today than tomorrow!

SPIEGEL: Isn't precisely the reverse the case? If the Americans were not in the country, a war would break out among rival gangs that would overshadow everything that has happened to date.

Sadr: The Americans are the ones who are driving things to a head. They appear to be neither capable nor willing to reestablish general security, as the attack on the UN headquarters building in Baghdad has shown. The assassinations of Shiite clerics here in Najaf also demonstrate what we can expect from George Bush' soldiers.

SPIEGEL: You cannot hold the Americans responsible for the attack on UN headquarters or the terrorist assassinations.

Sadr: If the occupiers had pursued a credible security policy, something like this would not have been possible. Both friends and enemies say this.

SPIEGEL: There are no Americans patrolling Najaf. The city is responsible for security. The assassination of the Ayatollah was obviously planned by rivals or by supporters of Saddam.

Sadr: I condemn this crime in the strongest possible terms!

SPIEGEL: There are many indications that Bin Laden's Al Qaeda has gained a foothold in Iraq.

Sadr: That would serve as additional evidence of the incapacity of the Americans and of the need to act quickly and not to waste any more time. However, we must not allow anything to deter us from our main objective, which is to end the occupation.

SPIEGEL: With force? After all, you have a highly well-armed militia at your disposal ...

Sadr: ... No, no. I don't issue any orders to shoot. The Americans should be driven from the country with peaceful means.

SPIEGEL: How will that work?

Sadr: Peaceful appeals, mass protests, political pressure - oh, there are many methods and means.

SPIEGEL: Many of your religious brethren believe it is more advisable to allow the Americans to remain in the country until a democratic political platform materializes.

Sadr: A "democratic platform" as a gift from the Americans? That's ridiculous. The soldiers of Mr. Bush have not set up camp here in order to honor us with their American democracy.

SPIEGEL: Why are they here?

Sadr: Washington planned the invasion of Iraq long ago. The Americans are interested in highly self-serving objectives, which is why they will not leave our country until the day they have achieved their goals.

SPIEGEL: Do you accuse the Americans of pursuing a colonial policy in Iraq?

Sadr: I do. And I am not the only one who believes this.

SPIEGEL: You fear a lengthy occupation period, and yet you are not in favor of violent resistance. Based on this reasoning, do you also condemn the attacks on the US army, which are increasing from one day to the next?

Sadr: The supporters of the deposed regime of terror are criminals, and every Iraqi should stand up to them. Anyone who takes up arms to allow the Saddam era to return is an enemy of the people.

SPIEGEL: The newly convened "Governing Council" is attempting to lay the groundwork for a democratic future ...

Sadr: ... What a sorry bunch! Those 25 people, who were arbitrarily appointed by US governor Paul Bremer, are by no means representative of Iraq.

SPIEGEL: Several well-known Muslims, including some of your fellow Shiites, are members of this new council.

Sadr: Which does not change the fact that they do not have the mandate of the people. In addition, they do not answer to the people. Instead, they report to Bremer and must obey him.

SPIEGEL: What would be the political alternative?

Sadr: The occupation force must hold elections within the immediate future. Allowing the people to decide on the political structure desired by the Iraqis could represent a start. But this must happen now and not at some point in the future. I think it is telling that the Americans express themselves vaguely in this regard and do not mention a specific date, so as not to allow themselves to be pinned down.

SPIEGEL: The governing council you so despise is preparing for elections.

Sadr: Yes, yes, yes. All empty talk. Don't you realize that the composition of the "Council" is already unacceptable to any reasonable Iraqi?

SPIEGEL: The Shiites are well-represented with 13 of the council's 25 members.

Sadr: That's not the point. I object to the appointment of the council's members by the chief of the occupying power and the lack of qualification of many members. Not a single cleric from Najaf is represented, which makes a mockery of human reason. No, the council is worthless. We will boycott it. In our minds, it does not exist.

SPIEGEL: In that case, who should hold the elections you demand?

Sadr: Politicians elected by the people.

SPIEGEL: What if the Americans were to have the council members ratified by the people?

Sadr: The people should not bestow its blessing on US dictates. It should nominate its own candidates and then vote. It would all be a farce and an abuse of the concept of democracy.

SPIEGEL: Even if things were to progress the way you would like, the new Iraq would run the risk of a conflict with the Kurds. This could destroy all the political negotiations in Baghdad.

Sadr: Blood has already been shed, unfortunately. I am aware of that. But if we have a true democracy, rather than a falsely democratic occupation regime, we and our Kurdish fellow citizens will arrive at a solution acceptable to both sides. After all, the Kurds are also Muslims.