HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Iran: Khamenei's ban of n...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:04 AM

Iran: Khamenei's ban of nuclear weapons binding

Source: Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- A religious decree issued by Iran's supreme leader banning nuclear weapons is binding for the Iranian government, the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday, suggesting that the edict should end the debate over whether Tehran is pursuing atomic arms.

Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said the West must understand the significance of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's edict for Iran: "There is nothing higher than the exalted supreme leader's fatwa to define the framework for our activities in the nuclear field."

"When the highest jurisprudent and authority in the country's leadership issues a fatwa, this will be binding for all of us to follow," he added.

Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters in Iran, said last year that Tehran is not seeking atomic arms. He called possessing such weapons a "sin" as well as "useless, harmful and dangerous."

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-15-05-35-42

31 replies, 3192 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Iran: Khamenei's ban of nuclear weapons binding (Original post)
dipsydoodle Jan 2013 OP
oberliner Jan 2013 #1
djean111 Jan 2013 #2
oberliner Jan 2013 #4
djean111 Jan 2013 #5
leftynyc Jan 2013 #9
djean111 Jan 2013 #12
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #27
happyslug Jan 2013 #16
oberliner Jan 2013 #21
kooljerk666 Jan 2013 #3
oberliner Jan 2013 #6
polly7 Jan 2013 #7
oberliner Jan 2013 #8
happyslug Jan 2013 #17
oberliner Jan 2013 #20
iamthebandfanman Jan 2013 #10
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #28
Crowman1979 Jan 2013 #11
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #13
I love weed Jan 2013 #14
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #15
oberliner Jan 2013 #18
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #19
Mosby Jan 2013 #23
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #24
Mosby Jan 2013 #22
zellie Jan 2013 #25
kelliekat44 Jan 2013 #26
oberliner Jan 2013 #30
zellie Jan 2013 #29
oberliner Jan 2013 #31

Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:08 AM

1. Scary

Supreme Leader (unelected - and for life) deciding state policy by fiat based on religious beliefs?

"There is nothing higher than the exalted supreme leader's fatwa..."

Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:19 AM

2. Yes, we would never decide and legislate things here in the United States based on the religious

beliefs of a minority of people led by unelected supreme leaders........anyway, this will, of course, be belittled by those who are lusting to go to war with Iran.
Evidently countries can go to war because of religious beliefs, but cannot abstain from war due to religious beliefs.
As always, the term "trust but verify" applies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:33 AM

4. I should hope not

Checks and balances. Elections. Much better than the dictator model.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:50 AM

5. We are dictated to by special interests all day (and night) long.

Even elections are tempered by blackmail from the "other side".
States are legislating according to the religious beliefs of some people.
Dictator - corporations, banks, the 1%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:34 AM

9. Can you name one law

in any of the 50 states that are religious based that affect national security - or even state security? Be specific - which law, which religion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:13 AM

12. I never narrowed that down to just security. Or just religion.

I am thinking about abortion laws for now. And the creeping in of laws that say bullying is okay if homosexuality is against one's religion. Laws that forbid gay marriage. Churches with so much money. like the Mormons, that they can seek to affect legislation.
I am thinking of regulations flouted and loopholes purchased by banks and corporations.
Doesn't seem to matter who has been elected.

I don't see anything wrong with a fatwa that forbids atomic weapons.
Doesn't matter who issued it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:50 PM

27. When elections are rigged,

when the electorate is lied to and information withheld, there is little difference between governments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:52 PM

16. "Unelected"?? Not by popular vote, but like the US President indirectly

The Supreme Leader is elected (and can be dismissed) by the "Assembly of Experts". The "Assembly of Expert" are popularly elected, through like all Iranian elections, the candidates are vetted before they are put on the ballot (i.e. you must meet the approval of the existing members of the assembly to get on the ballot). Please note, while this sounds foreign to American eyes, it is consistent with Shiite practice on selecting Religious leaders for the last 1000 years.

More on the "Assembly of Exports":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_Experts

More on the position of "Supreme Leader":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:39 PM

21. Yes - unelected

And yes, consistent with the practice on selecting Religious leaders.

Incidentally there have been exactly 2 (two) Supreme Leaders of Iran since the revolution 33 years ago.

The first one held the position until his death.

The current one has held this position of absolute power for 23 years.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:30 AM

3. He sounds more rational than most elected Americans.............

 

and their nuke armed lapdog allies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:07 AM

6. Perhaps we should adopt Islamic law as the law of the land as well

Or maybe the New Testament?

Perhaps we should turn things over to the Pope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:08 AM

7. Wait ........... do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:13 AM

8. Uh, no

But when you have a country where one man's word determines national policy without debate or questions, whose to say that one man won't wake up one day and decide that The Deity has now said nukes are the way to go? It's a scary system which can be (and has been) abused.

Having complete power and authority in the hands of one unelected individual whose rulings are based allegedly on "holy books" and a Deity is pretty frightening.

Maybe the Deity says one should lie to non-believers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:33 AM

17. Shiites are NOT fundamentalists

Shiites, are "followers of Ali" that is they supported Ali and his descendent's in Ali's claim that as Mohammad's son in law (and married to the ONLY child of Mohammad to live to adulthood), Ali should have been the successor to Mohammad instead of the first three Caliphs. Ali was the Fourth Caliph, but he was overthrown by the Umayyad Dynasty. From that point forward, the Shiites and the Sunni broke into two different branches if Islam. The main difference was the Sunni religious leadership and political leadership were one and the same (occasionally different, but it that case the Religious leader is picked by the Political leader).

Shiites, being a minority, developed an independent religious hierarchy, they are almost as use to the concept of separation of Church and State as most "Christian" nations (I use the term "Christian" to mean those states whose religious tradition is Christian, and as such have always had a separate religious hierarchy from their political hierarchy). Most Sunni Moslem Nations tend to have one religious and political hierarchy, thus the concept that Church and State being two different things is foreign to those nations (and mostly imposed by Colonial powers in the 1800s, and rejected by many Sunni Nations ever since).

Now, unlike most "Western" Nations, the Shiites in Iran have tried to interconnect their religious and political hierarchies but at the same time keep them separate. It is NOT the combined hierarchy typical among the Sunnis, but it is also NOT the separation of Church and State typical of the West.

One side affect of this is that detail knowledge of the Koran is a mark of a Scholar of Islam, the Koran is subject to modification but only by religious leaders and then only after review by other scholars. You do NOT have one man saying, "This is what God told me". That is foreign to Shiite Islam (and Sunni Islam), they have to cite the Koran, but other factors can be cited.

Thus the tradition of Shiite islam is a check on what the Iranian Supreme Leader can do. Much like the Pope, it is hard for a successor to rule that a predecessor erred on a religious ruling, AND for that reason such decisions are NOT made until it has long been debated. Like the Pope, no Supreme Leader is going to make a ruling without it being reviewed by other scholars first (and this is where the Assembly of Exports come into play). They will debate it, refine it and then decide to issue it or NOT to issue it.

Yes, the debate is NOT open to the public except when one of the experts may bring up the concept to see how people view it (i.e. a trial balloon). On the other hand, while the debate is not open to the public, it is rare for the public NOT to know that the debate is going on. The experts will discuss the concept among themselves and seek out other people as to the issue. Much like how the Supreme Court of the US makes its decision, the justices debate it among themselves, listen to people who want to make comments (The parties to the litigation, the various Amicus briefs filed by other experts). While the topic is known the the public and some of the points on the subject is known to the public, the members of the Court debate it among themselves NOT in public.

Thus once a ruling is made, it would be difficult for a successor to reverse it. Not impossible (Even the US Supreme Court has reversed itself) but difficult like the US Supreme Court when it comes to reversing a prior decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:34 PM

20. I don't recall using the word fudamentalist

I object to the idea of one man, who was not elected and who has the position for life, having absolutely authority on his word alone - and claiming to utilize "holy texts" in his decision making process.

I cannot imagine how anyone who calls themselves a progressive could feel otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:42 AM

10. its called morality

you dont have to have a religion to have some

its morally right to ban nukes

you know darn well nobody is saying america should be a theocracy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:54 PM

28. We are in the process of doing so. (Turning things over to the pope)

Perhaps you are allowing Islamophobia to cloud your thinking here? This is good news...for everyone concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:55 AM

11. Well this puts a cog in the MIC machinery!

Now all the warhawks in DC can't use that "Iran wants a nuclear war" phrase without impunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crowman1979 (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:02 PM

13. Sure they will.

They will claim that release was a lie, if it gets legs and media attention, if it doesn't, down the memory hole it goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:09 PM

14. Ummm...

 

It was an obvious lie. Basically they are just trolling the world, believing themselves to be untouchable. I can't believe some here are seriously debating the merits of this d-bag's words. haha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to I love weed (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:56 PM

15. Personally I think they have every right to develop a nuclear weapon if they can afford it.

Might keep us up out of their shit for a while. Given that we kicked over their legitimate government in 1952, of all the countries out there, they certainly have just cause to want a deterrence against us.

But no, I tend to trust that statement, insofar as I understand how their government balances power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:14 PM

18. Wow - Pro-nuclear proliferation posts on DU.

Who woulda thunk it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:28 PM

19. If it wasn't for the behavior of our own country

I would never contemplate it.

Since we started it... possessed as a deterrence to keep US in awe could be beneficial, in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:25 PM

23. So according to your logic

if every country in the world had nukes there would be no more war?

And if Islam forbids nukes then how does the ayatollah explain Pakistan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:31 PM

24. Yes, that's exactly what I said.

No, I said it would keep the US out of Iran's backyard. We violate their airspace all the time, and keep two carrier groups within strike distance of them, at all times. Mysteriously, shit keeps blowing up inside their country, etc.

We are meddling in the destiny of the Iranian people, and producing the very outrage (in blowback) that keeps people like Ahmadinejad in scotch and scones. We should stop that. One way for that to happen, would be for Iran to successfully detonate a nuke in an underground test. We'd be the fuck outta there overnight. Hell, we've even drawn down our presence in South Korea, after N.K's successful or semi-successful test.

I don't care how the Ayatollah explains Pakistan. I know that Pakistan and India now have deterrence against one another, and the fighting has subsided, so MAD is a workable possibility, until cooler heads prevail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:22 PM

22. people here need to read up on Al taqiyya

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mosby (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:36 PM

25. You got it....spot on.

 

Some people call it by another name...

Unmitigated bald face lying bastard .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:49 PM

26. OMY!! What will the PNACers do now? What will Bibi do without a war on Iran? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:43 PM

30. Yes, let's all just take the Supreme Leader at his word

Who needs inspections?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:57 PM

29. What a lying punk.

 

Funny hoe he doesn't let the IAEA inspect the sites?

He couldn't be hiding anything ?

I suspect if an iranian nuclear weapon was pointed at the US , this thread would be a whole different.

But since its aimed at "those people" ,
no problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zellie (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:45 PM

31. Amazing how trusting some folks are of The Supreme Leader

So much distrust (rightfully) of so many RW politicians, yet this RW politician/dictator's BS is accepted uncritically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread