Tabsir reprinted an article from the Engage Minnesota which documented the efforts by Rep. Keith Ellison to shed some light on the estranged US-Iran relationship. The piece continued by presenting the various arguments countering the immense disinformation campaign being waged against Iran.
Its really a worthwhile read.
I just wanted to highlight one sentence, which really struck me as noteworthy:
"On August 9, 2005, it was announced that the highest authority in Iran (above President Ahmadinejad) the Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa (religious edict based on primary sources of Islam and scholarly thinking) which stated that The production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Republic of Iran shall never acquire such weapons."
Seeing that Iran is a theocracy, which means the final say goes to the Ulema (scholars); and
Seeing that Ahmedinajad is a devout Muslim, which means he considers it a sin to act in direct opposition to a fatwa (declared by one of the highest ranking scholars),
Isn't it safe to conclude that in both the political sphere as well as the religious one, his hands are tied??
The media as well as the blogosphere constantly decry and condemn questionable fatwas ranging from those calling for suicide bombings to making a woman a mahrem by drinking her breastmilk to the infamous Salman Rushdie fatwa, but how many have heard of this fatwa, which can arguably be considered the most politically relevant fatwa of our times?
My guess is not many.
Just don’t call it genocide
1 week ago
11 comments:
I heard about this fatwa when it was first issued, surprisingly in an internet forum (somethingawful). I think everyone was saying how convenient for Iran to just issue the fatwa and make themselves look good. Its easy for the west to disregard it. Iran wants nuclear weapons, and no matter what they do to prof otherwise, it wont work...a bit like Iraq's situation.
Very good argument.
That was worth reading.
I will look up into that.
Maybe post about it, spread the word.
-The Muslim Kid-
Salaam,
Certainly a very interesting read and you are right about Ahmadinejad ~ he is very humble and a very different to other world leaders. As Ali says though; doesn't matter how many fatawa there are like this or even proof the west would always disregard them for their own ends.
I have heard this fatwa and a few other messages from some Shi'i Imams.
I can't understand how it isn't blindingly obvious to anyone with a sense of morality that nuclear weapons are immoral. There is no way to use them without killing civilians. The 2 bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed 220,000 people by the end of 1945, the vast majority of whom were civilians. Israel thinks that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is a threat to Israel's existence, but why would Iran use them against Israel? To help the Palestinians? Excuse me, but we live here TOGETHER. One bomb would kill off the Israelis and the Palestinians. I realize that some countries and their leaders act irrationally and against their own ideological beliefs (case in point the American support for a blatantly racist and colonialist Israel) but it seriously makes no sense that Iran would attack Israel with a nuclear weapon. The idea that any Muslim country would try to obtain nuclear weapons disgusts me. We should be trying to convince the rest of the world to back away from such idiocy rather than trying to join the club.
AA-
@Ali and UmmIbrahim, good points that no matter what Iran says, the west will disregard it as political posturing.
@Alajnabiya, good logical argument. I guess the anti-Iran logic is that their hatred for Israel is greater than their love for the Palestinians, so they wouldn't hesitate on using the bomb. Sill, I know. But like Ali said, no matter what logic you throw out there, it will be 'debunked' as Iranian propaganda. Too bad.
there's a growing trend of those "political" muslim scholars that issue fatwas that are "politically" convenient!!!
don't get me wrong,I am no where near to being an atheiest...but it becomes very annoying when some scholar issues a fatwa that fighting Isreal is haram because his country signed a peace treaty with it..or those Saudi scholars who issued a fatwa it is haram to figh in Afganistan while they used to shout in juma'a prayers about jihad!
it's like the old days when every "sultan" used to have his own poet who does nothing but praise him,every agenda now ha it's own imam/scholar who issues fatwas to fool people!
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
I have always been puzzled by the obsession with the threat to Israel of Iranian nukes as well. As long as Israel does not expel the Palestinians, they have nothing to fear even if Iran does get nuclear weapons. Not only would they not drop a nuke in an area inhabited by Muslims, but they would also not want to contaminate the land, particularly that land.
AA- Ruba,
"but it becomes very annoying when some scholar issues a fatwa that fighting Isreal is haram because his country signed a peace treaty with it..or those Saudi scholars who issued a fatwa it is haram to figh in Afganistan while they used to shout in juma'a prayers about jihad!"
Great call-out on Muslim hypocrisy! Many ulema are in the backpockets of the state and politicians. Sickening.
But do you believe the Irani fatwa is another case of religio-political expediency?
AA- Yusuf,
"Not only would they not drop a nuke in an area inhabited by Muslims, but they would also not want to contaminate the land, particularly that land."
Very logical...but that's just the problem, isn't it? Logic isn't playing a decisive role in this build-up to war on Iran.
Based on your argument (as well such an action being political suicide for Ahmedinajad, as well as eschatological suicide), it makes absolutely no sense that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.
But when did logic ever play a role in international politics?
...it makes absolutely no sense that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.
No, there is some "sense" for why Iran might pursue nuclear weapons. As I just wrote a few minutes ago on another website:
"The thing about the Iranians getting nuclear weapons, if they ever do, insha'allah, is that I don't think their motivation is offensive (i.e., let's take out Israel). A comment in Kevin Phillips' book American Theocracy gave me an "a-ha" moment, that if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, it's for defensive purposes, to prevent other countries, like the US, from doing what the US has been proposing to do all along, to steal Iran's oil reserves by declaring war on them, just as the US has done with respect to Iraq. And Saudi Arabia may come to that conclusion in time as well, if they feel their national sovereignty is being threatened by foreign governments. So the US and the West need to act a little more discreetly (getting their troops out of Iraq would be a very positive signal to the countries in that region), and buy their oil in line like everyone else, instead of threatening the oil producers with the barrel of a gun." (Source)
Post a Comment