Reformist Iranian Internet Daily: A New Fatwa States That Religious Law Does Not Forbid Use of Nuclear Weapons
"The spiritual leaders of the ultra-conservatives [in Iran] have accepted the use of nuclear weapons as lawful in the eyes of shari'a. Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of [Ayatollah] Mesbah Yazdi [who is Iranian President Ahmadinejad's spiritual mentor], has spoken for the first time of using nuclear weapons as a counter-measure. He stated that 'in terms of shari'a, it all depends on the goal.' |
MEMRI has the lowdown.
Fear not...Sharia only permits their use as a counter-measure. So we have nothing to worry about...
Actually my major concern is not that they would actually use their nukes. Rather I believe they would use the nukes as a blackmailing device allowing them to escalate their funding, training, and directing of terrorism with increasing impunity.
It would be interesting to know what the Islamic religious scholar believe nuclear weapons can be used as a counter measure to. Can they only be used in a retaliatory strike once nukes have been fired at Iran? Or perhaps they can be used as a counter measure to Israel’s ‘occupation’ of the West Bank or America’s ‘occupation’ of Iraq. Perhaps they could even be used as a counter measure against Denmark’s defamation of the Prophet Mohammed. All very vague.
Posted by: mike | February 17, 2006 at 11:45
Keep it abstract and then all options remain open!
Posted by: Martin | February 17, 2006 at 13:22
for once, can finally say agree 100% percent with Mike. Hamas's Hudna gives us a perfect example of how religous islamic opinions can be interpreted so differently and vaguely depending on the time, audience and press presence.
Posted by: gersh | February 17, 2006 at 13:59
Gersh, thats a shock. We actually agree on something. Maybe I must consider changing my position. only joking. The world cannot allowing WMD to fall into the hands of a madman with or with out Fatwas
Posted by: mike | February 17, 2006 at 16:58
Well this isn't really surprising.
I hope no one takes the "not without provocation" bits into a false sense of security. Provocation could be any damn thing when you're dealing with two-faced liers and sociopaths.
Posted by: James Clark | February 17, 2006 at 18:47