On Monday 9 February in a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Barack Hussein Obama stated to the effect that Iran having nuclear weapons would be “contrary to” the Muslim faith.
“And if, in fact, what they claim in true — which is they have no aspiration to get a nuclear weapon, that, in fact, according to their Supreme Leader, it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon — if that is true, there should be the possibility of getting a deal. They should be able to get to yes. But we don’t know if that’s going to happen. They have their hardliners; they have their politics.”
It is difficult, from the video, to determine whether President Obama actually believes the statement “It would be contrary to their faith to obtain nuclear weapons” or if he is establishing a test of the Iranian assurance that it is so. Failure to come to an agreement would demonstrate that it is not so.
However, relying on a belief that it is so, as a guarantee of Iranian compliance with any agreement, even if one is reached, and even if it is so full of loopholes as to be without value (like the letter from Hitler that Chamberlain waved about) is breathtakingly foolhardy. Delusional. Craven. A rationale for a policy of appeasement, when moral clarity and a clear principled stand against tyranny is called for.
The assertion that “It would be contrary to their faith to obtain nuclear weapons” is the centerpiece of Iranian assurances that their nuclear program is solely for “peaceful purposes”. It relies on a supposed “fatwa” (a ‘responsa’; a religious ruling issued by a competent authority in response to a question) that ‘the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam.’
There are other issues as well.
Pakistan, (officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan) has nuclear weapons. Why has no one previously suggested that Pakistan has been violating Islam by having nuclear weapons?
“Taqiyya” is used to describe dishonesty to deceive unbelievers. The following is a brief excerpt from Warner MacKenzie’s commentary on Taqiyya,
“Falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur’an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court. A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart.”
See also here.
In this context it is also important to remember the Islamic attitude towards treaties and agreements with “infidels”.
By the reasoning of this universe of discourse, whereby the end of bringing the entire world under the “peace” of Islam justifies any means. “If a nuclear weapon is needed to advance Islam and destroy the kufar (infidel), then it is not haram (forbidden.)”
THEREFORE: I demand that my president, for whom I voted twice, because his domestic policies are in accord with the highest principles of my religious tradition (as well as the “highest” principles of Christianity and Islam – discounting the supersessionist tendencies of both), while his foreign policies give me the heeby-jeebies.
I DEMAND: that he answer this “subpoena duces tecum”
Show us, the American people, the evidence for your assertion. Show us that you are a principled leader of the Free World and not a rube, a dupe, a gull, a mark in an international flim-flam scam, that will see a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region on the planet, with a better than even money chance to set the whole world on fire. Or worse, a cynical abettor of this scheme. Should either of these prove true, your legacy will be judged by history to be even worse than that of Chamberlain and Daladier.