Iran’s hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.
In yet another sign of Teheran’s stiffening resolve on the nuclear issue, influential Muslim clerics have for the first time questioned the theocracy’s traditional stance that Sharia law forbade the use of nuclear weapons.
One senior mullah has now said it is “only natural” to have nuclear bombs as a “countermeasure” against other nuclear powers, thought to be a reference to America and Israel.
The pronouncement is particularly worrying because it has come from Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as the cleric closest to Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
SK: Will you at least concede that Iran is, in fact, trying to get nuclear weapons, and not peacefully attempting to develop nuclear energy?
Why am I not surprised. And that after all the talk about how nuclear weapons should be banned from the whole middle east on their part and how they also said that it was against the quran. Self-serving religions are the best. I think this is particularly worrisome in light of how Iran actually does actively support terrorist groups.
To play devil’s advocate, this hasn’t come from the ayatollah or to my understanding, the Supreme Coucil or whatever its called, therefore it isn’t the officially declared policy of the country.
Which “they” are you referring to, exactly? Notice that the article says that “influential Muslim clerics have for the first time questioned the theocracy’s traditional stance that Sharia law forbade the use of nuclear weapons.” This implies that the statement was not issued by the government. Furthermore, it talks about how “leaders” have issued a fatwa (which is itself fairly vague, because lots of people can issue fatwas), but the only cleric it actually names is a “lecturer” in some city.
(EDIT: Sorry, I didn’t see your post when I was writing mine.)
I already said that SK. And “they” refers to the official government statements.
This statement could’ve be made for a few reasons. It can be a hint on part of the Iranian government that parts of the Iranian regime are pushing for it in order to put pressure on the west and gain leverage. The North Koreans are known for similar maneuvers, for example.
I think in this case the clerics and the government work together so much that for the clerics to announce they support the use of nukes, it means they do so with the understanding and cooperation of the government.
This is a theocracy we’re talking about and before the government does anything, it must have the support of the religious rulers. The religious rulers have just changed their religion’s stance on nuclear weapons - paving the way for government action.
That’s a possibility but that’s not an assurance. I don’t know who this guy is or what his position or influence means or what the weight of his statements carry. For all we know this could be a quack like the Pakistani dude that said he’d give a car to the dude who killed the artist(s).
Nevertheless, I think that your point does have some validity considering the nature of the regime. We just can’t tell what this will mean in the future and if it means they’re willing to get nukes, I don’t think it is surprising considering the circumstances. Now before SK says this doesn’t mean they’ll get nukes, to use SK’s argument, they may get them as a security assurance, seeing what happened with the Koreans and the Iraqis. This would be irregardless of what some dick with a funny hat says. They may get nukes for all kinds of reasons. But this is unrelated to the issue at hand, which is what does the article mean.
But what is the phrase “the clerics” or “the religious rulers” even supposed to mean? The article says something about “leaders,” but it only actually names one guy who is a “lecturer” somewhere. When it mentions “leaders,” it’s extremely vague. The fact that these unspecified “leaders” have apparently issued a fatwa is also fairly vague, because lots of different people are allowed to issue them, not just the heads of state. The article also refers to one particular group of clerics. There are many such religious political groups in the government.
Iran’s hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.
It was a group of mullahs. . The quote I chose to include in the main body of the first post was only from one of the mullahs, but he is not the only one who issued the fatwa.
The pronouncement is particularly worrying because it has come from Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as the cleric closest to Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The leader of the group who issued the fatwa has close ties to the president of Iran.
No, the article says that the “lecturer” who issued the fatwa is a “disciple” of somebody “widely regarded” (by whom?) to be close to the president of Iran. This could really mean anything. Kind of like how every time we catch a guy from al-Qaeda, he’s invariably described as a “senior-level” member or a “top lieutenant” or some other thing like that, which sounds important but doesn’t really mean anything.
The president hasn’t said it yet though. One could argue that because Pat Robertson is a fanatic evangelical that once was a GOP presidential candidate that said Hugo Chavez should be assassinated, that Bush will consider it seriously (well he may, or he may not , but whatever the choice is, I doubt Pat Robertson is a contributing to the decision).
Put the President has said that he believes Iran should annihilate Israel, and that Iran doesn’t have to obey the IAEA.
Pat Robertson said he thought the United States should assasinate Hugo Chavez. Nobody thought that Bush thought that. But what if Bush was always running around saying that the United States reserved the right to assasinate foreign leaders. Than, Pat Robertson’s ties to Bush and his assasinate Chavez comment would be seen in a new light.
What it says is so vague as to be meaningless. The opening line talks about “leaders” in the plural form, probably to make it sound more sensational, but in fact the whole article only names one guy, who is apparently a “disciple” (whatever that means) of some other guy who might be close to the president of Iran.
Actually, Bush does think of assassinating foreign leaders. I think that was an option with Hussein.
But anyway, the point of last post was that if the president of Iran wanted to wipe Israel off the map and nuke them and etc, I don’t think he’d ask his mullah’s permission. I think what the mullahs would merely act as a propaganda mouthpiece to have sympathetic ears in the middle east accept what he has to say.
Note that what I say has nothing to do with whether or not I think the Iranians are getting the bomb. I think they are and I think its naive to think otherwise. However, it has nothing to do with what a few mullah’s say, but what’s is a reasonable probability considering the circumstances.
But even if that is the case, Sin, there is still a correlation between what the Mullahs say and the policies of Iran’s government.
Also, Bush isn’t going around actually saying the U.S. reserves the right to assasinate world leaders. We did try to assasinate Hussein during the war, but we were at war, so it was different than killing the leader of a country we’re peaceful with.
I don’t think that Pat Robertson would be seen in a new light. Its not because people eat ice cream in the summer and people drown in the summer that people drowned because they ate ice cream.
And yeah, what the religious establishment believes and what controls the government is related. However, my question earlier was, what is the influence of the mullah and what does the mullah saying this mean? Is it his authorization to the president? His personal opinion? Is he just an indirect spokesperson? Etc.
But the whole point is that this generic phrase “the mullahs” doesn’t mean anything, and that it’s not really clear what “the mullahs” as a whole say. It’s certainly not clear what “the mullahs” say in the context of an article that, although it engages in scaremongering by talking about these vague “leaders,” actually only names one guy whose sole claim to fame appears to be that he is a “lecturer” and a “disciple” of some other more influential guy.
Actually, what I say has nothing to do with that either, as I have no information one way or the other. But I would like to note that a lot of the rhetoric being thrown about over this issue is a lot of bullshit scaremongering, in which all kinds of assertions are being made with more vague pronouncements and arm-waving than factual grounds.
Yeah, but isn’t it possible that if the article says the ‘more influential’ guy has close ties to Ahmedinajad, that means he really does have close ties to him, and that this went from Ahmedinajad through him to the less influential guy?
Sin: I have no idea how it works, other than I’m sure there is some kind of correlation.
Yes, that’s what the article wants to imply, but you know, something being “possible” is actually not the same as something being true. Especially when it’s couched in vague wording and inadequately explained.
