Fatwa's and their discontents

[Pindar]

Interesting: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD109606

"He who forgiveth, and is reconciled unto his enemy, shall receive his reward from God; for He loveth not the unjust." -Koran, Sura 42

[Adrian II]

Interesting: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD109606

"He who forgiveth, and is reconciled unto his enemy, shall receive his reward from God; for He loveth not the unjust." -Koran, Sura 42

Interesting, but Memri has a questionable reputation because of its extreme partisanship, and some of its translations have been proven fakes, so I would like to see independent confirmation of anything they write. Let us see how this plays out.

[Crazed Rabbit]

If the Guardian equates not paying taxes with being subsidized, I'd be wary of their bias.

Its work is subsidised by US taxpayers because as an "independent, non-partisan, non-profit" organisation, it has tax-deductible status under American law.

Still, it wouldn't surprise me if MEMRI was partisan. Nonetheless, it seems that the Guardian isn't questioning their translations, but what they do or don't translate.

I can't say I'm surprised that the Iranian Ayatollahs are planning to justify nukes in Islamic law. Somewhat Oceania-esque, saying that the word of Allah now means something different than it did. If true, and I don't doubt it that much, it would seem that Iran is indeed seeking nukes.

Crazed Rabbit

[Adrian II]

Still, it wouldn't surprise me if MEMRI was partisan.

The Rabbit is joking. Research on Arab affairs conducted under the aegis of Israeli intelligence can hardly be called 'independent'.

Nonetheless, it seems that the Guardian isn't questioning their translations, but what they do or don't translate.

I am. I can't be bothered to dig up the stuff though. However, the intensely polemical tone of the article referenced by Pindar says enough. In the past I have seen Pindar base an expose on infanticide in The Netherlands on an article written by the sports editor on page eleven of the Santa Fe Toothorn, so I will wait for independent confirmation on this one.

EDIT
The Telegraph and some other papers carry the story today, but they all seem to refer to the same source, the Internet paper Rooz. This website, in turn, claims to have read a report on IRNA that was based on a report of Gharavian's words on the radio.

Whatever this circle of clerics may have decided, it is clearly at odds with Iran's declaration to the IAEA assembly on August 10, 2005, which said that 'The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who took office just recently, in his inaugural address reiterated that his government is against weapons of mass destruction and will only pursue nuclear activities in the peaceful domain. The leadership of Iran has pledged at the highest level that Iran will remain a non-nuclear-weapon state' (linky).

I guess the Supreme Leader's fatwa is as good as anyone else's, so this is puzzling.

Faith-based politics, eh?

[Pindar]

Interesting, but Memri has a questionable reputation because of its extreme partisanship, and some of its translations have been proven fakes, so I would like to see independent confirmation of anything they write.

The Guardian doesn't mention any fakes. It does say:

"Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output."

What fakes are you referring to?

In the past I have seen Pindar base an expose on infanticide in The Netherlands on an article written by the sports editor on page eleven of the Santa Fe Toothorn, so I will wait for independent confirmation on this one.

Raka! The Netherlands do practice infanticide. The Groningen Protocol is an example of the repugancy. Such is hardly cited by a single source.

"By 1993, as documented in PBS's Choosing Death, three out of eight neonatal intensive care unites in the Netherlands had specific policies, endorsed by the Dutch Pediatric Society, that permitted infanticide by lethal injection. Rita Marker's breakthrough book Deadly Compassion (Marker leads the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide), raised the warning flag about Dutch infanticide in 1993. In 1996, the Lancet published a study finding that 8 percent of all Dutch infant deaths each year — between 80 and 100 — result from lethal injections, many without parental consent."*

*

The above is noted in the work: "Force Exit" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081...46410?n=283155

[Adrian II]

I am not going to waste my time picking apart Memri or rehashing old nonsense about an infanticide that isn't and never was.

What would be the status of Khamenei's fatwa versus the (apparent) fatwa of the gentleman mentioned in Rooz. Could this new ruling be the Iranian equivalent of a strategic rethink, a sort of Quadrennial Fatwa Review?

Is there a doctor of Shi'ite Law in the house?

[Pindar]

I am not going to waste my time picking apart Memri or rehashing old nonsense about an infanticide that isn't and never was.

"There are none so blind as those, that will not see"

Best not to make claims you are not prepared to support it would appear.

[Adrian II]

Best not to make claims you are not prepared to support it would appear.

Indeed. Now, do we have any coffeenews on the fatwa?

EDIT
I made a couple of research notes. They are just that, the research notes of a layman.

1. Khamenei is the Supreme Leader of Iran, but he is not the supreme source of taqleed or 'imitation', which means he is not the highest theological authority of the land.
2. According to the Theology School of Qom, the first source of taqleed in the land is Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Fazel Lankarani, Khamenei is only the number three.
3. Shia has a tenet to the effect that 'the door to a new fatwa is open', meaning that today's fatwa can top yesterday's as long as it is issued by the proper authority.
4. Mohsen Gharavian, who is said to have issued the pro-nuclear fatwa, is a Theology Professor in Qom but he is not the number two in rank behind Lankarani.
5. There seems to be on-going Iranian re-evaluation of Khomeini's teachings, including his views on democracy (bad) and holy war (good) that will help consolidate Ahmadinejad's power and position as President.

[Adrian II]

Raka!

Well, no raka! on the fatwa. It seems there are no takers.

Um..

We might as well discuss end-of-life decisions in The Netherlands, if you agree of course -- after all this is your thread. I daresay you will, because your use of 'repugnancy' reveals a strong emotional commitment. If you accept the premise that Dutchmen care about their children too, we can have a second round that might be more fruitful than the earlier one. In return I promise not to refer to New Mexican toothorns anymore.

Judging by publication sources and language, the recurrent American hullabaloo about Dutch 'infanticide' is an off-shoot of the anti-abortion movement. Terms like 'infanticide', 'eugenics' and 'slippery slope' are thrown about in apparent confirmation of a Dutch moral abyss that warrants stern condemnation, if not an all-out declaration of war. Evidence for claims is nowhere to be found; scientific articles are misinterpreted or misleadingly quoted, arguments are routinely based on spiteful assumptions.

According to the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide to which you refer, euthanasia 'by its very nature is an abuse and the ultimate abandonment of patients'. On this premise, every instance of euthanasia is by definition homocide, every instance of child euthanasia is infanticide, and no best practice discussion is acceptable. It is no use arguing against moral absolutes that are often grounded in religious belief, but the use of the word 'infanticide' implies absence of consent, and that is why it is objectionable.

If you accept (like the large majority of Dutchmen) that euthanasia is morally justified, best practice discussions are clearly relevant, particularly in the case of child euthanasia. This is where the Task Force and other sources play a particularly pernicious role in suggesting that child euthanasia procedures in The Netherlands do not involve parental consultation and consent. Propaganda and mistakes of interpretation abound.

The Groningen Protocol is an example of the repugancy.

This is a prime example of a mistake.

• The Groningen protocol has never been adopted
• The protocol was one of several attempts to formalise procedures that involve the express consultation and consent of parents

Now let us have a look at your other sources.

"By 1993, as documented in PBS's Choosing Death, three out of eight neonatal intensive care unites in the Netherlands had specific policies, endorsed by the Dutch Pediatric Society, that permitted infanticide by lethal injection.

Wrong. They permit child euthanasia on medical grounds with the express consultation and consent of parents. That is not infanticide.

Rita Marker's breakthrough book Deadly Compassion (Marker leads the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide) raised the warning flag about Dutch infanticide in 1993.

I never read it. But according to the Task Force's website, it is a layman's book about Ann Humphry's 1991 suicide and the activities of Dr Kavorkian, not about The Netherlands. I quote: 'She explains the ramifications of euthanasia in a country without adequate health insurance, like America, where people who really want to live might choose death rather than bankrupt their families.'

In 1996, the Lancet published a study finding that 8 percent of all Dutch infant deaths each year — between 80 and 100 — result from lethal injections, many without parental consent.

Yes, most blogs get the year wrong. It was 1997 and there was a lively debate in The Lancet in which several flaws of said study were pointed out.

Since then several similar studies have been done, most of which are never cited by the Task Force for obvious reasons. A recent example would be the 2005 Dutch study on end-of-life decisions (ELD) for children in the September issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine (Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005; 159:802-809).

The authors did a death certificate study of 129 cases, followed by an interview study of 76 cases. "The interview study examined 76 cases of end-of-life decision making. End-of-life decisions were discussed with all nine competent and three partly competent children, with the parents in all cases, with other physicians in 75 cases, and with nurses in 66 cases."

In an accompanying editorial Harold B. Siden, M.D., M.H.Sc., of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, says: "As one might expect, discontinuing a life-support intervention or giving drugs to alleviate pain that might have a life-shortening effect was far more common than active euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, which occurred in 2.7 percent of the cases. Consultation was a common theme in all of the interviews. End-of-life discussions were held with parents in all cases, and half of the time the discussion was requested by the parents. Physicians involved nurses in 66 of 76 cases and consulted a colleague in 100 percent of the cases. The decision to enter the end-of-life arena is not an easy one, regardless of the child's situation."

[Louis VI the Fat]

Back to nuclear mullahs.

It's been barely two years since those thrustworthy mullahs assured the European negotiators that nuclear weapons are against the will of Allah.

Led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation's "supreme leader," Iranian clerics have repeatedly declared that Islam forbids the development and use of all weapons of mass destruction.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction," Khamenei said recently. "In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form."

Asked whether the ayatollahs could simply rip up their fatwa one day and issue a new ruling blessing the development of nuclear weapons, Miboudi said any reversal of such a high-profile issue would require years of awkward theological maneuvering.

"There is room for maneuver in Islam. Things can be haram (forbidden) one day and halal (acceptable) later on. But this takes time," he said. Whether Iran's apparent restraint on nuclear weapons development will continue is an all-important question as the West monitors Iran's compliance with the agreement.

While the pact requires Iran to temporarily suspend the enrichment of uranium, which is needed both to run nuclear power plants and for nuclear weapons payloads, it is widely expected that Iran will resume its enrichment program after the IAEA inspections system has shown some progress. In the meantime, Iran also will be allowed to continue construction of the centrifuges needed for enrichment, as well as other equipment and research work.

Despite the religious pronouncements [the fatwa against nuclear weapons, LVI], analysts in Washington and elsewhere remain deeply concerned that once Iran has a major civilian nuclear program operating with international approval and with large, domestically produced stocks of nuclear fuel, its leaders could abandon the weapons ban, break out its enriched uranium and build bombs quickly.

"I doubt the fear of God will keep the mullahs from building the bomb if they really want to," said a diplomat. "But we're hoping it may slow them down a bit."

Again it appears that religion is the means, politics the end in Iran.
I would say that the credibility of Pindar's source is only of academic interest. Be it now, in six months time or next year, it is clear that at some point a fatwa has to be issued that revokes the previous fatwa that banned nuclear weapons. The mullahs do need their policy to be religiously legitimized, even if it seems they can get away with bending Islam to their will and at their will.

[Fragony]

Raka! The Netherlands do practice infanticide. The Groningen Protocol is an example of the repugancy. Such is hardly cited by a single source.

This again? Parents have to approve, there cannot be any hope of recovery and the child has to suffer in a way I hope I'll never understand. I find it a bit weird that people grant their dogs more mercy then their kids.

[Reenk Roink]

Interesting...

I did a quick search on for this for more clarification, and this is what I found:

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu...1779152014.htm

Hojatoleslam Mohsen Gharavian, a scholar at Qom Seminary, on Monday rejected rumors appearing on some websites quoting him as saying that the use of nuclear weapons is allowed according to the Islamic tenets.

[Dâriûsh]

Interesting...

I did a quick search on for this for more clarification, and this is what I found:

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu...1779152014.htm

I'd advice you to be wary of whatever is written by the official news agency of the IRI.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Come on, Dâriûsh. Give us your take on this matter. You are after all our resident expert on all things mullah.

[Dâriûsh]

Come on, Dâriûsh. Give us your take on this matter. You are after all our resident expert on all things mullah.

I don’t know. I am certain that, whatever they may claim, they indeed do want nuclear weapons.

And that could result in two things: 1) it could make them untouchable (at least from foreign interference) like North Korea... or 2) it could lead to a(nother) foreign invasion of Iran.

Either way, nothing can be gained from nuclear Mullahs.



As for these mentioned Fatwas, I have no idea.

[Adrian II]

Again it appears that religion is the means, politics the end in Iran.

I guess we are trying to establish what those ends and means are, and doctrinaire issues are indeed relevant because Iranian policies are cast in theological terms.

(..) at some point a fatwa has to be issued that revokes the previous fatwa that banned nuclear weapons.

They have worked on their nuclear program in secret for 18 years without a fatwa covering the process, so why would they need one now? Particularly if they are going to follow the Israeli example and remain ambiguous about their nuclear capacity.

[Adrian II]

I don’t know. I am certain that, whatever they may claim, they indeed do want nuclear weapons.

And that could result in two things: 1) it could make them untouchable (at least from foreign interference) like North Korea... or 2) it could lead to a(nother) foreign invasion of Iran.

Either way, nothing can be gained from nuclear Mullahs.

I have been looking into Mr Ahmadinejad's biography and I have to say the thought that this gentleman is running a country is quite disturbing. We have all taken notice of his weird and outrageous recent comments. What most sources fail to address is his personal past, which explains a lot. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a natural born killer. He used to be a feared interrogator as well as an executioner at Evin prison in the 1980's. He has been involved with all major internal and external secret activities of the mullah regime, including terrorist attacks and political murders outside Iran. If there is such a thing as a Shi'ite cosa nostra, Mahmoud would be its Godfather. Signs that this cosa nostra is now taking over large portions of the Iranian state apparatus are not very reassuring in the light of Ahmadinejad's recent visit to Damascus, where he discussed future plans with the leadership of Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad.

The continued development of a nuclear weapon by Tehran under these circumstances certainly justifies a very tough international approach and could eventually provide a casus belli. If I am not very much mistaken, Ahmedinejad is no 'Saddam', he is the real thing.