Watchman Warning: Nuclear Fatwa?

Guest

Watchman Warning: Nuclear Fatwa?

Nuclear Fatwa?
By Hal Lindsey

In September of 2013, President Barrack Obama said, “Iran’s Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons.”

He has repeated the claim several times since then, including at least twice in the last few months. He apparently believes the Ayatollah’s supposed fatwa against possessing nuclear weapons is something the public should weigh when considering the Iran deal. That means the fatwa is an important part of the President’s thinking.

It’s also important to other members of the Administration. Several have mentioned it. In March, Secretary of State John Kerry told a press conference in Egypt.  “As you all know, Iran says it doesn’t want a nuclear weapon, and that is a very welcome statement that the Supreme Leader has, in fact, incorporated into a fatwa. And we have great respect — great respect — for the religious importance of a fatwa.”

In 2002, Jerry Falwell made disparaging comments about Mohammed and Islam. He quickly apologized, but it didn’t matter. There were riots and violence in several places around the globe. Some people were killed. The Center for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) blamed the deaths on Falwell instead of on the Muslims who committed the crimes. An Iranian cleric named Mohsen Mojtahed Shabestari issued a fatwa calling for Falwell’s murder. He said,“The death of that man is a religious duty.”

In 1989, Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, shortly before his own death, issued a fatwa calling for the murder of novelist Salman Rushdie. Does John Kerry “have great respect — great respect — for the religious importance” these fatwas?

Shiite Muslims practice a thing they call taqiyyah. According to Al-Islam, a Shiite encyclopedia, “The word ‘al-taqiyyah’ literally means: ‘Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.’ A one-word translation would be ‘Dissimulation.’”

Saying that it is to be used “at a time of eminent danger,” is undermined by the phrase,“whether now or later in time.” That means a Shia official from Iran can lie to an American official any time he wants because Iran perceives America as dangerous to Iran’s future. Also, to be able to lie to save oneself from “mental injury” opens the door to lying whenever it suits you.

Dr. Walid Phares, Professor in the Department of Religion at Florida International University, said, “The uniqueness of today’s taqiyyah is its success within advanced and sophisticated societies.  Taqiyyah is winning massively because of the immense lack of knowledge among Western elites.”

Would the Ayatollah go so far as to issue a fatwa against nuclear weapons as a deception? Well, he might. But in this case the “dissimulation” is far simpler.

The fatwa does not exist.

The President and Secretary of State are not lying. The Ayatollah specifically says that such a fatwa does exist.  “The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,”Khamenei said recently.  “They know it’s not true. We had a fatwa declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden under Islamic law.”

The problem is, no one can find any record of such a fatwa.

The Administration concedes that point, but says it doesn’t matter.  Caitlin Hayden, speaking for the White House National Security Council, said, “Many Iranian officials have spoken of the fatwa publicly, and their comments are publicly available. There are various descriptions of it in the public domain. And importantly, the Iranians have also referenced the fatwa in our negotiations.”

But that argument falls apart when you understand the concept of taqiyyah. Lying to a perceived enemy has the Shia Islam seal of approval. (Sunni Muslims embrace a similar concept, but use a different word.)

The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler in a “Fact Checker” column wrote, “The Iranian Web site appears to trace the roots of Khamenei’s fatwa, which it claims was first issued in 2003, to a fatwa uttered by his predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, concerning a ban on the production and use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. But there’s one problem: Iran admitted to chemical weapons production after it ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 1997, and U.S. intelligence agencies suspected Iran of maintaining a chemical weapons stockpile at least until 2003. So what does it say if the origin of the supposed fatwa is based on an apparently misleading statement?”

Okay. Let’s sort this out. There was once a fatwa in Iran against producing chemical weapons, but they ignored that fatwa and made chemical weapons anyway. Now the closest they can come to showing that there is a fatwa against nuclear weapons is to refer to the old one against chemicals weapons — a fatwa that history proves meant nothing.

An Iranian web site specifically created to push the nuclear deal, talks a great deal about the fatwa, but as is always the case, it never gives the text of the original fatwa. To support its existence, the Iranians cite western news reports!

Remember the concept of taqiyyah — a word that even Shiite Muslims define as “dissimulation.” Convincing the world that you will abide by a fatwa that never existed is a fantastic example of taqiyyah.