|
|
Follow the Middle East Forum
|
|
|
Trusting the
Ayatollahs: What's in a Fatwa?
|
|
|
Share:  
|
  Be the first of your
friends to like this.
Originally published under the title, "Trusting the
Ayatollahs: What's in a Fatwa?"
|
President
Obama apparently takes great comfort in the fact that Iranian Supreme
Leader Ali Khamenei once issued a religious decree against building
nuclear weapons.
|
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.'"
Islamic doctrine permits Muslims to
deceive non-Muslims.
|
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. An August 2007 report compiled by
the Congressional Research Service said: "Ahmadinejad [previous
president of Iran] believes his mission is to prepare for the return of the
12th 'Hidden' Imam, whose return from occultation [i.e.,
"hiding"] would, according to Twelver Shi'ite doctrine, be
accompanied by the establishment of Islam as the global religion."
Like other Iranians, Ahmadinejad cited the eschatological (and
canonical) hadith wherein Muhammad said: "The Hour [Judgment Day] will
not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and until the Jews hide behind
the trees and rocks and the trees and rocks will say, 'O Muslim, O Servant
of God! Here are the Jews! Come and kill them!"
Indeed, during a recent speech, supreme leader Khamenei—whose fatwa
Obama is now citing—boasted about Iran's uranium enrichment, even as his
military commanders shouted, "Allah Akbar. Khamenei is the leader.
Death to the enemies of the leadership. Death to America. Death to England.
Death to hypocrites. Death to Israel."
Yet despite all this—despite the fact that Islamic doctrine mandates
lying to infidels; despite the fact that the Shia—Iran's leadership—have
perfected taqiyya into an art; despite the fact that Islamic law
holds that Muslims should preach peace when weak, war when strong; despite
the fact that Iranian leadership openly boasts that its nuclear
negotiations are a "jihad" against the infidel; despite the fact
that Iran has previously been exposed developing uranium enrichments
suitable for nuclear warheads—here is Obama and his administration relying
on the "word" of the ayatollah of Iran.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman
Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a Judith Friedman Rosen
Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum. He is the author of Crucified
Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians (2013) and
The
Al Qaeda Reader (2007).
|
|
|
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment