As Iran continues edging closer to developing nuclear weapons—a major threat to the entire Mideast region, especially longstanding U.S. ally Israel—U.S. President Obama has come to the aid of the Islamic Republic, by citing an Islamic fatwa no less. In a video recording posted on the White House’s website, Obama said, “Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.”
This is the same Rouhani who, after recently showcasing Iran’s newly developed missiles,described his nation’s diplomatic talks with the U.S. as an active “jihad”: “Our negotiations with the world powers are a source of national pride. Yesterday [during the Iran-Iraq War], your brave generals stood against the enemy on the battlefield and defended their country. Today, your diplomatic generals are defending [our nation] in the field of diplomacy–this, too, is jihad.”
Other administration officials—such as Secretary of State John Kerry and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes—have previously referred to the ayatollah’s reported fatwa in the context of the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.
The Obama administration’s citation of this fatwa is utterly wrongheaded on many levels.
First, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims. Islamic prophet Muhammad himself regularly lied to his infidel enemies, often resulting in their murder (such as the case of Ka‘b ibn Ashraf). He also proclaimed that lying was permissible in three contexts, one being war. Moreover, throughout the centuries and due to historic circumstances (discussed here), taqiyya became second nature to the Shia—the sect currently ruling Iran.
Then there is the fact that Islamic law takes circumstance into account. When Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in Mecca, he preached peace and tolerance (hence why Meccan Suras appear peaceful); when he became strong in Medina, he preached war and went on the offensive (hence why Medinan Suras are violent and intolerant). This dichotomy—preach peace when weak, wage war when strong—has been Islamic modus operandi for centuries.
Speaking of fatwas, Dr. Yusuf Burhami, a prominent Islamic cleric in Egypt, recently said that destroying churches in Egypt is permissible if not advisable—but not if doing so prompts Western infidels to intervene and occupy Egypt, which they could do “because the condition of Muslims in the current era is well known to the nations of the world—they are weak.” Burhami further added that circumstance is everything, “just as the prophet allowed the Jews to remain in Khaibar after he opened [conquered] it, once Muslims grew in strength and number, [second caliph] Omar al-Khattab drove them out according to the prophet’s command, ‘Drive out the Jews and Christians from the Peninsula.’”
And who can forget Yasser Arafat’s reference to Muhammad’s Hudaybiya pact? In 1994, soon after negotiating a peace treaty criticized as conceding too much to Israel, Arafat addressed an assembly of Muslims and said: “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the [infidel] Quraysh in Mecca.” In other words, like Muhammad, Arafat gave his word only to annul it once his ranks became strong enough to go on the offensive.
In short, it’s all very standard for Islamic leaders to say they are pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes while they are weaker than their infidel foes—as Iran is today—but once they acquire nukes the jihad can resume in earnest.
Then there is the fact that Shia theology is rife with apocalyptic aspirations. … Keep reading
Caveman says
Very frightening; It could literally become Armageddon very soon.
ayatollahowmany says
Obamageddon?
Bindon Blood says
It would appear from what is being done and said by the Obama administration that Obama has decided to bring the the Israel “problem” to an end by giving Israel to her enemies. Is this man so stupid that he really cannot see the long term implications of his actions? Any conflict between a nuclear Iran and a nuclear Israel will be just that,nuclear. Israel would have no choice as the consequences of an Islamic take over of Israel would mean a new holocaust ,possibly if not certainly, more devastating than the previous attempt to exterminate the Jews.
Anyone can see that such a conflict would not be confined to the Middle East but would engulf the West,which of course means the U.S. This man has about two more years in command of the U.S,how much more harm can he cause in that time? American citizens ,what have you done?
el-cid says
And, there is the fact that a “fatwa” is a religious pronouncement, coming from Islam and Sharia Law.
Where does Obama get the idea that quoting religion has relevance to foreign policy? Regardless of the nuances presented, any international agreement is not based on Sharia Law and the Mullah can change his mind as often as he pleases. He is entitled to his religious opinions and positions like everyone else. These positions do NOT govern international relations.
So why is Obama quoting it? To those who see it, this is not so subtle propaganda saying that we are now living under Sharia.
boakai ngombu says
the ayatollah must be so very gay, today, delighted that Valerie (who is POTUS’ R-brain) has worked this so well.
Vostro says
And what of the fatwa “Death to America?” Obama gets to pick and choose which one fits his agenda?
Georg says
Great point. The same phrase we were told not to worry about coming from the nutjobs in Yemen
Bob Smith says
This is all of Obama’s plan.
Thank a liberal for the change.
mariam rove says
Obviously Obama is oblivious to Taqqia. That Muslims lie in order to advance their cause. m
Don McKellar says
Oblivious or complicit? At this point nobody can be that oblivious except a complete idiot. Obama is an intelligent guy, like him or not. He is complicit.
Alexander says
i am sure Obama is aware of taqiyya. He was brought up in the Muslim faith in Indonesia.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Where can one find the text (in Farsi/Arabic/English) of this fatwa prohibiting the development of nuclear weapons?
gravenimage says
Good question, Mark. The issue of whether the Fatwa even exists is a complicated one.
Here’s some info from the Washington Post:
“Did Iran’s supreme leader issue a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons?”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/27/did-irans-supreme-leader-issue-a-fatwa-against-the-development-of-nuclear-weapons/
It contains a link, which covers all of Ayatollah Khamenei’s public comments on nuclear weapons over the years.
http://nuclearenergy.ir/legal-aspects/#Fatwa_against_Nuclear_Weapons
The section on the Fatwas themselves are a little more than half way down the article.
Whether any of these comments can be considered a formal Fatwa is debatable.
The most commonly cited comments are these:
“the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these Weapons.”
These words were aimed at the IAEA, though, and were intended specifically to deflect attention from oversight of Iran’s nuclear program—which rather casts doubt on the sincerity of such statements…
citycat says
“Allah Akbar………Death to America. Death to England. Death to hypocrites……..”
I’d say Islam is the biggest hypocrite.
Hypocrite- a person given to hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy- claiming to have higher standards or beliefs than is the case.
From Greek- huporkrisis,
“acting of a theatrical part”
Seems to fit
dlbrand says
dlbrand says
March 28, 2015 at 12:15 am
“Obama Cites Ayatollah’s Fatwa on Road to Nuclear War.”
Fool.
Vlad Tepes Blog says
I am unaware of any evidence of this fatwa. Does anyone have a link to it from an Iranian Gov website either in English or Farsi?