You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Iran: Nuclear Weapons Use Now Okay. Says So In The Koran Somewhere.
2006-02-17
On February 16, 2006, the reformist Internet daily Rooz (www.roozonline.com) reported for the first time that extremist clerics from Qom had issued what the daily called "a new fatwa," which states that "shari'a does not forbid the use of nuclear weapons."

The following are excerpts from the Rooz report by Shahram Rafizadeh:

"When the Entire World is Armed With Nuclear Weapons, it is Permissible to Use These Weapons as a Counter-[Measure]"

"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.'

"The religious leadership of the Islamic Republic [of Iran], which has until now regarded the use of nuclear weapons as opposed to shari'a, and has repeated this point again and again, has so far kept silent about this. In spite of the fact that, in the last few weeks, some of the senior [leaders] of the Islamic Republic have tried to reduce the pressure [exerted by] the radical [conservatives], the radicals nevertheless seem to have complete control over the [political] arena.

"[Iranian National Security Council Secretary] Ali Larijani, who is in charge of the nuclear dossier, has spoken to reporters only once since the [IAEA] Board of Governors approved its resolution - and his silence is significant.

"But yesterday, the IraNews news agency published recent remarks by Mohsen Gharavian regarding the nuclear issue. Gharavian is a lecturer at the religious schools of Qom, and is a disciple of [Ayatollah] Mesbah Yazdi. In his recent remarks, he said for the first time that the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem according to shari'a. He further said that 'when the entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is permissible to use these weapons as a counter-[measure]. According to shari'a, too, only the goal is important...'

"[Gharavian] said that he sees no problem with the military use of nuclear weapons [sic]: 'One must say that when the entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is only natural that, as a counter-measure, it is necessary to be able to use these weapons. However, what is important is what goal they may be used for."

"The Ultra-[Conservatives] in Iran Have Launched a New Effort to Prepare the Religious Grounds for Use of These Weapons"

"This cleric, who is close to the government, also referred to the nuclear talks and to the future phases of the negotiations. He called the 'reporting' - rather than 'referring' - of the Iranian nuclear dossier [to the Security Council] playing with semantics, and said: 'The main goal of the West has been to put pressure on the Islamic Republic regime of Iran in order to generate fear. However, we will wait [to see] the future behavior of Europe and America, and then make the best decision.'

"Gharavian's statement is the first public statement by the Mesbah Yazdi group on the nuclear issue. Until now, none of the top-ranking religious [leaders] have authorized, on religious grounds, the use of nuclear weapons. But now it seems that the ultra-[conservatives] in Iran have launched a new effort to prepare the religious grounds for use of these weapons..."
Once again proving that you can break a heck of a lot of eggs and still not make an omelet.
Posted by:Anonymoose

#24  #16 Dave, I cannot agree with that.

I know Muslims who are better citizens that most native-born DemocRats. AND they speak out in their community (and the community at large) against the islamonazis and their crap. (Notice I show them the respect of calling them "Muslim" - with a capital M - instead of my usual "moslem," which is done to show my deliberate disrespect for the islamonutz.)

You try to fuck with my friends, I'll shoot you myself.

The anti-American, anti-freedom ones, on the other hand....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-02-17 21:44  

#23  YMMV,

agreed, your work afterall,

you did a serious differentiated list, maybe personalities distract.

#2. APPEASEMENT: Maybe if we're nicer to the Muslims--ala George Galloway, or maybe if we just let them kill all the Jews in Israel-- they won't hate us so much and then they'll leave us alone.

I quit. ;)
Posted by: RD   2006-02-17 19:45  

#22  How so?

The reference to Coulter in Option #7 is there as a somewhat tongue-in-cheek reminder that that's more or less what she had advocated in a remark-- which caused quite an uproar at the time-- to the effect that "we should invade their countries, assassinate their leaders, and forcibly convert them to Christianity".

I'm not sure I understand how that "trivializes" what I wrote; but YMMV.

Posted by: Dave D.   2006-02-17 18:49  

#21  
IMO, Dave D, using Ann Coulter as a an example in #7 trivilizes an otherwise insightful list of options that begs deeper analysis.
Posted by: RD   2006-02-17 18:16  

#20  We respect the sovereignty of the elected government of Iran, and its right to defend against those who threaten its territoriality. We respect the right of the Islamic Republic to develop, plant and use nuclear weapons - even in pre-emption = against its adversaries. And we commit to making the changes in US domestic and foreign policies, that will eliminate the cause of the Iranian people's "Death to America" chants, for which Americans must accept sole blame. We respect the right of the elected government of Iran to embrace the Koran as the source of its legislation in general, and on the specific question of use of nuclear weaponry for Islamic jihad. Islam is a noble faith, and nothing but good can come out of it. Any contrarian statements by Americans are the product of heretics, who need to be put in concentration camps.
Posted by: State Department   2006-02-17 18:01  

#19  I give it zero chance something like this will be broadcast of the network evening news. And the population goes another day oblivious to anything but Brad/Angelina/Jen and Cheney/lawyer-target-practice.
Posted by: ed   2006-02-17 17:40  

#18  I read his "goal" statements to mean it's OK for muslims to nuke infidels. I's required to nuke jews (better goal) and bestest of all to nuke Israel off the map.

Not very bright. Not a whit.
Posted by: Hupomoger Clans9827   2006-02-17 17:37  

#17  B-A-R is right- intellectual wattage is no criteria to become a mullah or Shiite leader
Posted by: Frank G   2006-02-17 17:27  

#16  No, not Number Nine. I think we oughtta try Number Six first, and see if that does the trick.
Posted by: Dave D.   2006-02-17 17:17  

#15  Number 9. Number 9. Number 9.
Posted by: Sock Puppet O² Doom   2006-02-17 16:15  

#14  Oh but what about all the peace loving moderate Muzzies ?

Well, what about them? Where are they? Why aren't they protesting the malign image that Ahmadinejad gives them? When will they renounce his intentions to "wipe Israel off of the map"? When will they make a concerted effort to dry up all the "halawah" funding transactions that support violent jihad? When will they begin turning in imams that preach violent jihad? When will they finally shout out loud even a few paragraphs of protestation to fill the yawning void currently known as their thundering silence? Inquiring minds want to know!
Posted by: Zenster   2006-02-17 14:53  

#13  Another brain fart-wa just in time for the quasi-secretive nuke weapon program in Iran.

Is this a Islamofacsist version of M.A.D.

My money says Bombs away M.F.er
Posted by: Captain America   2006-02-17 14:46  

#12  Oh but what about all the peace loving moderate Muzzies ?
Posted by: wxjames   2006-02-17 14:10  

#11  Man, the Religion of Pieces is really on a toot, isn't it?

These ratbags need to be spanked. They need to be spanked HARD, and soon. The only way we're going to prevail against this primitive murder cult is to crush it. Faster, please...

Posted by: Dave D.   2006-02-17 12:37  

#10  ..why are Iranians searching for justification for using the nuclear weapons that they claim they don't have and are not interested in obtaining?

Something to remember: these clerics aren't the smartest people in the world.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2006-02-17 11:59  

#9   the kaffir may not use weaponry as powerful or as advanced, even if they were the ones who bloody well invented the things!

Boy howdy, are they in for a surprise! It's absolutely incredible to watch Iran claw and fight its way into first place for becoming the world's first fused glass parking lot. They should feel fortunate if we only bomb them with conventional weapons.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-02-17 11:12  

#8  Pescador, this goes back to the old rule, "The kaffir's head must be lower than the Muslim's head." Thus, only a Muslim may ride a horse, but the kaffir may ride only a mule... except if the Muslim is riding a mule, the kaffir must get down and walk. Likewise, the Muslims may use nuclear weapons (read that as Shia Muslim, of course!), but the kaffir may not use weaponry as powerful or as advanced, even if they were the ones who bloody well invented the things!
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-02-17 11:02  

#7  So nuking Mecca is Islamically approved?

How ironic.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-02-17 10:55  

#6  I'm a bit confused here. If Iran seeks only peaceful uses of nuclear power, why are Iranians searching for justification for using the nuclear weapons that they claim they don't have and are not interested in obtaining?

It's a pickle.
Posted by: Scott R   2006-02-17 10:49  

#5  Soon there will be a fatwa that says shari'a demands the use of nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Scott R   2006-02-17 10:44  

#4  Hey, lets just fuck around with them for another 4 years!
Posted by: Cleasing Ulolulet6603   2006-02-17 10:37  

#3  So according to the religious leadership of the Islamic Republic it is perfectly right to use nuclear weapons to achieve your purposes. So if Isreal decide to use them it is ok. Mr Bush don't be undecided about this matter. It is Ok . Just use the damn things. Remenber that "shari'a does not forbid the use of nuclear weapons." So go on and gift the religious leadership of the Islamic Republic with a couple of them .
Posted by: pescador   2006-02-17 09:53  

#2  Tell him, thanks for the OK.
Posted by: plainslow   2006-02-17 09:07  

#1  We knew it was coming.
Posted by: Darrell   2006-02-17 08:58  

00:00