French journalist and philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, author of “Who Killed Daniel Pearl?” spoke at Kresge Auditorium Thursday night for the second annual Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture. Levy spoke of his personal investigation into Pearl’s Feb. 1, 2002 murder in Pakistan, as well as the changing role of politics and religion in the current global arena.

Dipping into controversy at times, Levy addressed the criticisms of his work, in particular those regarding Pakistan.

“With the recent events in Pakistan and in the global world, “ Levy said, “I think the issues have been more than confirmed by the actuality.”

A bestselling author in Europe, Levy’s main arguments for the evening rested on the belief that America’s attitudes toward Al Qaeda and Islamic radicalism were misaligned and that the Pakistani government was indirectly linked to the murder of Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter who was beheaded in Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city.

“I strongly feel that America is making a foolish mistake with the Iraq War,” he said. “It is based on a lie, and they went in without any future planning. The place where there are weapons of mass destruction and the ideology that goes with it — the fire to the weapons — is not Iraq, but Pakistan.

“Iraq is not the place where the war should have been launched,” Levy added. “All efforts should be concentrated on Pakistan.”

Levy gave numerous examples for his argument that the Pakistani government was inexplicably linked with Islamic terrorists.

“[Pakistani President Pervez] Musharraf is a sharp, intelligent individual who is playing with the naivety of France’s, Europe’s and America’s diplomacy,” he said.

Levy said Musharraf handed over Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking Al Qaeda official, to the United States in 2002 shortly before a series of vital negotiations between the U.S. and Pakistan.

“Musharraf is sitting on a stock of terrorists and we can compare him to the way traders handle the stock exchange,” he said. “He can put a terrorist in the channel — in the American, political, post 9/11 market — at his will.”

Levy also argued that the jihadist threat in Pakistan is not limited to tribal and remote areas — places where Musharraf does not have control.

“In my experience, unfortunately the red areas are not at the margins, but at the very center,” Levy said. “Terrorists and jihadists are like fish in water in Islamabad and in Karachi itself.”

Levy justified his statement by citing his experience in a Karachi madrasa, one which he said was visited by Pearl’s murderer, Omar Sheikh, and Osama bin Laden.

Levy also spoke on the philosophy of fundamentalism, fascism and colonialism. He argued that fundamentalism did not address the problem of terrorism.

“I hypothesize as a philosopher that we move from the concept of fundamentalism to the concept of fascism and fasc-Islamism,” Levy said.

“You can read the Qur’an as much as you want, but you will not find the nihilistic view of life, love of martyrdom and hatred for Western society that the terrorists preach,” he added. “However, the Qur’an is different from the other holy books in the sense that [it] is based on conquest and the religion of state. Yet that does not explain the jihadist philosophy.”

Levy also said he was in favor of spreading democracy to countries that lack it. In response to his critics who warn of the dangers of spreading Western ideals to other countries, Levy brought up colonialism and slavery.

“Colonialists supported the defeat of universality,” he said. “They supported the idea of many different kinds or species of people, with many different cultures and values. It was only the anti-colonialists that led the universality movement. Their argument was that all humans were on the same level and thus should be treated equally.”

Though his words were often controversial, Levy said in an interview with The Daily that he hoped his remarks and writings would not cause race-related crimes.

“The majority of Pakistanis and Arabs I have met in the U.S. do not have any problems with democracy and the idea of change,” Levy added. “It is only those who hold irrational views that I have a problem with. It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, and I strongly hope that it does not encourage race-related crimes.”

A number of attendees spoke appreciatively of the intellectual nature of Levy’s lecture, which offered a different perspective on terrorism.

“I think it was a great lecture,” said San Jose resident Aaron Khan. “Very eye-opening.”

Others, however, disagreed with Levy and his arguments.

“The talk was borderline racist,” said Jeff Anderson, a Palo Alto resident.

“The direct attacks on Musharraf and Pakistan were unnecessary,” agreed Thomas DuBois, also from Palo Alto. “It breeds hatred and negatively affects race relations. While I understand that this is a sensitive issue, perhaps Levy should have been more sensitive in his discussion.”

The event was sponsored by the Office of the President, Office for Religious Life, Hillel at Stanford, the Daniel Pearl Foundation, the ASSU Speakers Bureau, the Department of Communication and the Taube Center for Jewish Studies.