Iran's supreme leader calls use of nuclear weapons:'big sin'

[Justforfun000]

Interesting..I wonder if it is possible that they really are serious about not trying to develop weapons.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Irans ... story.html

Iran's supreme leader calls use of nuclear weapons a 'big sin'


By Nasser Karimi, The Associated Press August 30, 2012 10:00 AM



Story
Photos ( 2 )


In this photo released by the official website of the Iranian supreme leader's office, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, gives a speech, at the opening session of Nonaligned Movement, NAM, summit, in Tehran, Iran, on Thursday, Aug. 30, 2012. (AP Photo/Office of the Supreme Leader)

In this photo released by the official website of the Iranian supreme leader's office, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, gives a speech, at the opening session of Nonaligned Movement, NAM, summit, in Tehran, Iran, on Thursday, Aug. 30, 2012. (AP Photo/Office of the Supreme Leader)

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's supreme leader said Thursday that the pursuit of nuclear weapons is a "big and unforgiveable sin" but he insisted Tehran will not abandon its "peaceful" atomic program.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke at a summit of the 120-member Nonaligned Movement. Iran says the gathering of mainly developing nations in Tehran shows that Western sanctions imposed over the nuclear issue have not succeeded in diplomatically isolating Iran.

The United States and its allies suspect Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies.

Iran considers the use of nuclear weapons to be "a big and unforgiveable sin," said Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters in Iran.

"I declare that the Islamic Republic of Iran has never been after nuclear weapons and it will never abandon its right for peaceful use of nuclear energy," he added.

Iran insists its nuclear program is meant only for making reactor fuel, medical isotopes and peaceful research. But it refuses to give up uranium enrichment, which can produce both reactor fuel and the core of nuclear warheads, despite offers of fuel from abroad.

Khamenei accused the world powers of hypocrisy, saying they are stockpiling nuclear arms for deterrence and to boost their international dominance.

"Nuclear arms have neither provided security nor boosted political power," Khamenei said in a speech broadcast live on Iranian state TV.

He singled out the United States, calling the U.S. opposition to Tehran's nuclear program a "bitter satire" because of the size of the American nuclear arsenal and the use of atomic bombs in Japan during World War II.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Irans ... z253EdXbL9

[Jaepheth]

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' while reaching for a rock."

[Justforfun000]

I don't TRUST them per se...but it's also very difficult for the absolute religious leader of such a dictatorial state-enforced (more or less) faith like Islam in Iran to state categorically that it's an "unforgivable sin" and then try to explain that away later if it's just a ruse.

[K. A. Pital]

A promise given to a kaffir means nothing in islam. On the other hand, why say it at all?

[Eframepilot]

A popular theory is that Iran wants to have "breakout capability" so that they could choose to build nuclear weapons on a very short time scale if they so chose, much like Japan now has. Breakout capability would be a deterrent in itself, and would avoid the greater international attention and hypocritical violation of their own words that actually building weapons would bring.

Unfortunately, Israel views Iran having even breakout capability as an intolerable existential threat.

[Grumman]

A popular theory is that Iran wants to have "breakout capability" so that they could choose to build nuclear weapons on a very short time scale if they so chose, much like Japan now has. Breakout capability would be a deterrent in itself, and would avoid the greater international attention and hypocritical violation of their own words that actually building weapons would bring.

Unfortunately, Israel views Iran having even breakout capability as an intolerable existential threat.

Probably because having "breakout capability" for nuclear weapons is almost exactly the same as having nuclear weapons. That's the whole point, after all.

Basically, Israel does not trust Iran with a drawn gun, because they think they'd be a likely target. But Iran with a holstered gun isn't much better - it might not be deliberately, overtly threatening, but it's still an existential threat if Iran doesn't like you.

[LadyTevar]

Either way, I want to believe that what the Ayatollah is saying. While politicians do lie, when a religious figure of his stature calls something a sin, his followers are going to take that to heart.

[Phantasee]

Your link mentions nothing of this. It's about Morsi visiting Iran, and condemning Syria.

[Justforfun000]

Phantasee is correct. But it's not because I posted the wrong link. I just checked and the page that I originally got it from is still up on my computer. I copied the address and opened it in a new web page and it's a different story. Is that normal? I've never heard of that happening before.

[Lord Anubis]

I've wondered for a considerable period of time now that after all the international attention the whole Iran nuclear issue has garnered if the Iranians aren't just going to develop peaceful uses for atomic energy just to thumb their noses at the world at large. In effect just develop nuclear power plants and leave it at that. It'd be a way of showing up the West that has long demonized the whole notion that the Iranians would keep their word on such a matter.

[General Zod]

Either way, I want to believe that what the Ayatollah is saying. While politicians do lie, when a religious figure of his stature calls something a sin, his followers are going to take that to heart.

How many Catholics take everything the Pope says to heart?

[Justforfun000]

LadyTevar wrote:
Either way, I want to believe that what the Ayatollah is saying. While politicians do lie, when a religious figure of his stature calls something a sin, his followers are going to take that to heart.

General Zod Wrote:
How many Catholics take everything the Pope says to heart?

Point taken. But Christianity has so many denominations and splinter groups and even some fellow faith's consider Catholics to be agents of the Devil! Islam is a different kettle of fish or at least it seems to be..the masses seem to take any serious religious edict as well...'gospel'...but on the other hand, they don't have a truly recognized system of authority in a hierarchy sense either...very confusing at best.

Not to mention it can be very hard to distinguish how seriously they take some things and how quick they are to dismiss others. The zeal and religious devotion shown by a huge proportion suggests one thing, and then other isolated issues throw you off. I guess with anything involving humans there is no set in stone for ANY creed, club or government.

I posted this because I thought it was a little unusual and a very, very strong statement for a religious figure of supreme authority (in that country anyway) to make without a pressing reason. Maybe there are serious political undercurrents going on that only the faithful and the powerful really know about..

[General Zod]

Point taken. But Christianity has so many denominations and splinter groups and even some fellow faith's consider Catholics to be agents of the Devil! Islam is a different kettle of fish or at least it seems to be..the masses seem to take any serious religious edict as well...'gospel'...but on the other hand, they don't have a truly recognized system of authority in a hierarchy sense either...very confusing at best.

Which is why I only specified one particular branch of Christianity.

[Nephtys]

How hard would it be to also declare, at some future date with a perceived threat looming over the state and/or faith, to declare this a justifiable sin? Even with dramatic phrasing, words are still cheap.

Now, I don't doubt Iran has several peaceful uses of atomic technology. But it'd be blind and dumb to not also appreciate the benefits of breakout nuclear capability, even if it's primary means were peaceful. Especially with foreign offers for reactors and non weaponized fuel sales.

[Justforfun000]

How hard would it be to also declare, at some future date with a perceived threat looming over the state and/or faith, to declare this a justifiable sin? Even with dramatic phrasing, words are still cheap.

I don't know. I'm sure many of us honestly wonder if this is political posturing at it's finest or true doctrine of faith. As far as I'm concerned, I would hold Islam responsible up to it's eyeteeth as far as a religious leader of this magnitude can be ascribed legitimacy of pronouncements like this all the way! If they enrich uranium and build bombs for weapons? Fuck 'em.

I have zero 'respect' for religions for what they are..but I WILL give religious faith's with true track records of consistency their due! If they have professed a certain position of poitical or social importance like absolute non-violence, acceptance of secular/govermental law over faith based beliefs and tenets as far a society is concerned, etc... .then it's fair enough to offer benefit of the doubt. But in a heartbeat, that can be revoked.

[PeZook]

I've wondered for a considerable period of time now that after all the international attention the whole Iran nuclear issue has garnered if the Iranians aren't just going to develop peaceful uses for atomic energy just to thumb their noses at the world at large. In effect just develop nuclear power plants and leave it at that. It'd be a way of showing up the West that has long demonized the whole notion that the Iranians would keep their word on such a matter.

The problem is that they still won't let IAEA inspectors into one of their nuclear facilities ; This would seem consistent with them wanting to have breakout capability, although this does pretty clearly violate the NPT which Iran is a signatory of.

I seriously doubt Iran will want to just stop at peaceful uses for atomic energy, since agressive rhethoric (and real actions, like sanctions) from the West has only been increasing lately.

[Guardsman Bass]

They just have to look at North Korea to see the difference in US treatment between what the US considers a "rogue" country with nukes, and one without them. The North Koreans have them, and while the US turns up the rhetoric every once in a while, they also offer a whole ton of sweetening incentives to try and get them to wind down their nuclear weapons program . . . which the North Koreans usually renege on, because the US always comes back to the table anyways. Whereas with Iran, it's all sanctions and threats, and the US won't even begin negotiations until the Iranians effectively kill their program.

That's a strong incentive right there to have break-out capability (or actual nukes). If you're going to be a pariah state, might as well be a pariah state with nukes.

[Sarevok]

A promise given to a kaffir means nothing in islam. On the other hand, why say it at all?

I am not sure about this. Do you have a quote ? Just curious.

Edit :

Just a quick googling turned up this.

Breaking Agreements. Allah said: {And fulfill your agreements for verily agreements will be asked about} Al-Israa’: 34. And: {And fulfill Allah’s agreement when you have made an agreement and don’t violate your oaths after they have been established and you have made Allah your guardian (therein)} An-Nahl: 91. Also: Aal-Imraan: 77. This applies to Muslim and non-Muslim alike. The Prophet (sas) said: "Whoever kills an individual protected by treaty without right will not even smell the scent of paradise and its scent can be found at a distance of forty years march." The most serious oath to dishonor is the oath of allegiance to the khalifa of the Muslims.

http://www.java-man.com/pages/JamiAlUlo ... th_48.html

Everything I know indicates keeping promises made to non muslims is required just as much as promises made to muslims can not be broken.

[Col. Crackpot]

Either way, I want to believe that what the Ayatollah is saying. While politicians do lie, when a religious figure of his stature calls something a sin, his followers are going to take that to heart.

How many Catholics take everything the Pope says to heart?

Exactly. And more importantly how many times has the Pope said one thing and the church done another? *cough* sex abuse *cough*

[K. A. Pital]

A promise given to a kaffir means nothing in islam. On the other hand, why say it at all?

I am not sure about this. Do you have a quote ? Just curious.

If they [the heathens] break their vows after an agreement with you and start striking against your faith [cursing and vilifying Islam], then fight the leaders of the unbelievers, - for verily for them there are no vows [in this case the agreement with them shall not be kept], so that they would withdraw (stop their agressive acts against Islam)

Since Western leaders are unanimously perceived as enemies of Islam, it is quite obvious a word given to "such heathens" means little if anything. It is a bit different from a word given to a "brother" (a faithful one).

[Sarevok]

A promise given to a kaffir means nothing in islam. On the other hand, why say it at all?

I am not sure about this. Do you have a quote ? Just curious.

If they [the heathens] break their vows after an agreement with you and start striking against your faith [cursing and vilifying Islam], then fight the leaders of the unbelievers, - for verily for them there are no vows [in this case the agreement with them shall not be kept], so that they would withdraw (stop their agressive acts against Islam)

Since Western leaders are unanimously perceived as enemies of Islam, it is quite obvious a word given to "such heathens" means little if anything. It is a bit different from a word given to a "brother" (a faithful one).

It says that if the other side breaks their end of an agreement there is no agreement. I am not sure how you can interpret this as being promises made to non believers are not binding.

[K. A. Pital]

Going against Islam is breaching the agreement. Besides, if you find a "more pious way in the eyes of Allah" you can do it:

Sahih Muslim Hadith 4056 Narrated by Adi ibn Hatim

Tamim ibn Tarafah said: ‘A beggar came to Adi ibn Hatim and he begged him to give him the price of a slave, or some portion of the price of the slave. He (Adi) said: I have nothing to give you except my coat-of-mail and helmet. I will, however, write to my family to give that to you, but he did not agree to that. Thereupon Adi was enraged, and said: “By Allah, I will not give you anything.” The beggar (then) agreed to accept that, whereupon he said: “By Allah, had I not heard Allah's Messenger (saws) saying: "He who took an oath, but then found something more pious in the Sight of Allah, he should (break the oath) and do that which is more pious," I would not have broken my oath!”

It is quite certain that oaths to unbelievers mean less than those given to a faithful one. Whether or not this being a consequence of the jihad (the fact that the other party is perceived not just as unbelievers but also as enemies of the faith) I don't really know. Of course this is more a matter of practical experience than deep knowledge of the islamic lore, but the Muslims I knew from Central Asia affirmed the idea that agreements with "brothers" and agreements with "enemies of the faith" are different things. The ordinary unbelievers fall somewhere inbetween, so I guess I was not clear enough.

[KhorneFlakes]

Is it wrong that the Islamic word taquiyya came to my mind here, and it had the more negative meaning to it?

[Sarevok]

Going against Islam is breaching the agreement. Besides, if you find a "more pious way in the eyes of Allah" you can do it:

Sahih Muslim Hadith 4056 Narrated by Adi ibn Hatim

Tamim ibn Tarafah said: ‘A beggar came to Adi ibn Hatim and he begged him to give him the price of a slave, or some portion of the price of the slave. He (Adi) said: I have nothing to give you except my coat-of-mail and helmet. I will, however, write to my family to give that to you, but he did not agree to that. Thereupon Adi was enraged, and said: “By Allah, I will not give you anything.” The beggar (then) agreed to accept that, whereupon he said: “By Allah, had I not heard Allah's Messenger (saws) saying: "He who took an oath, but then found something more pious in the Sight of Allah, he should (break the oath) and do that which is more pious," I would not have broken my oath!”

It is quite certain that oaths to unbelievers mean less than those given to a faithful one. Whether or not this being a consequence of the jihad (the fact that the other party is perceived not just as unbelievers but also as enemies of the faith) I don't really know. Of course this is more a matter of practical experience than deep knowledge of the islamic lore, but the Muslims I knew from Central Asia affirmed the idea that agreements with "brothers" and agreements with "enemies of the faith" are different things. The ordinary unbelievers fall somewhere inbetween, so I guess I was not clear enough.

I am afraid you are misunderstanding again. The message of this hadith is quite simple Allah Subhan Wa Tala asks believers to keep their lawful promises. If they took a vow that goes against the word of Allah they must break it.

Here http://www.islamhelpline.com/node/8982
The scholarly discussion at this link explains it better than I could in my limited knowledge.

In any case Islam is about fear and obedience of Allah not cherry picking minutae. Whatever people did in this life they will answer for every actions. Twisiting the meaning of something stated by Allah to justify something benificial to oneself is explicitly warned against. The point I am making here is that if someone were to break a deal made to a christian or a hindu or an atheist even they would have to answer for that to Allah. Now you being a non muslim can come up with all sorts of reasons for why x or y is permitted or not permitted. But at end of day we muslims think differently when it comes to religon, we are not here to justify anything to any human panel or authority in this life but rather do the right thing and hope it passes in eye of Allah in the next.

In practice I have not heard of anyone suggesting that agreements made to non muslims can be broken. I doubt by and large muslim communities in Russia think differently. Some might but then they are wrong.

Is it wrong that the Islamic word taquiyya came to my mind here, and it had the more negative meaning to it?

In extreme circumstances when ones life is in danger lying is permitted. It has nothing to do with breaking words given to non muslims.

[K. A. Pital]

I am afraid you are misunderstanding again.

Perhaps. As I said, outside of a talk to some (rather non-radical) Muslims whose authority is rather doubtful, I don't have much of an experience here. Neither am I a specialist on the lore. I certainly do understand that oaths are not to be taken lightly in any religion.

However, it does seem to follow that if the other side with which an agreement has been made has somehow gone against Islam (e.g. vilified the Islamic faith for example), the agreement is void. So we're not talking about a generic non-Muslim here, but rather one who is also acting against the Islamic faith and/or the islamic community.

If that's also not the case, then I guess I was simply wrong here.