In an April 15, 2012 column in the English edition of the London-based daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat titled "The Security Council for Fatwas," editor-in-chief Tariq Alhomayed harshly censured Iran, accusing it of cultivating terrorism and causing schisms, and of acting solely for its own sectarian interests. Alhomayed questioned the credibility of a purported fatwa by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei against the production and use of nuclear arms, a fatwa cited by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a positive sign from Tehran in its nuclear negotiations with the West. He noted Iran's long record of deceit, calling to judge the country by its actions rather than the statements of its leaders, and criticized Clinton for what he viewed as her naiveté, saying she was unaware of the Shi'ite principle of taqiyya, according to which a believer may conceal his true beliefs when facing a threat.
Following are excerpts from the article, as it appeared in the original English, which has been lightly edited for clarity:[1]
"Iran has Been Prepared to Utilize Religion, Sectarianism, and Even the Palestinian Cause as Playing Cards"
"This is not a joke or an example of sarcasm; rather, this is [meant] to commiserate with the recent statement issued by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that there are signals from Tehran that the Iranians are prepared to bring positive ideas to the table regarding their nuclear program, pointing to an Iranian fatwa prohibiting the country from possessing nuclear weapons. Therefore, so long as Iran is taking fatwas into account with regards to its policies, perhaps it would be better if we established a Security Council for fatwas!
"Over the past three decades, since the Khomeinist revolution, Iran has been prepared to utilize religion, sectarianism, and even the Palestinian cause as playing cards, in order to infiltrate our region, as well as to divide Arab states from within. Tehran is doing this today in Iraq and Yemen, whilst it previously did this in Lebanon via Hizbullah... not to mention the role it played in dividing the Palestinians. Therefore, if Tehran is prepared to do all this in the name of religion and sectarianism, how can we trust the statements made by the Iranian Supreme Guide [Ali Khamenei] that there is a fatwa against nuclear arms? If they want to convince us that religion should serve as a source of trust in Iran, why has Tehran created strife, conflict, and division in 'friendly and sisterly' Islamic states?
"If religion truly were the guarantor of Iran's behavior, why did Tehran sponsor the terrorist [Hizbullah security chief] Imad Mughniyah? Why did Iran sponsor and engage with the terrorist Al-Qaeda organization? Tehran has sponsored and engaged with Sunni and Shi'ite terrorists alike, over the past decades, and these are the same terrorists whose hands are stained with the blood of the innocent via terrorist suicide operations... After all this, how can we trust Tehran, simply on the basis of a religious fatwa? How can we invoke a fatwa issued from a regime that does not hesitate to deal with terrorists, whether Sunni or Shi'ite? This is truly absurd!"
"It is Absurd to Talk About an Iranian Fatwa when Negotiating"
"The problem with the Obama administration is that it wants to pursue policies that may be acceptable to the day-dreaming cultural elite, but not to regimes that are full of cunning and deceit, like the Iranian regime, whose primary objectives do not include development, openness, humanitarian values, the well-being of its citizens, or even religious tolerance; rather, all that the Iranian regime – and the ideology behind it – cares about is expansion and infiltrating other countries, [driven by] sectarian motives.
"Since the world is ruled by international laws and conventions, as well as interests, it is absurd to talk about an Iranian fatwa when negotiating with Tehran, for countries – like individuals – have reputations and histories that cannot be ignored. Therefore, the reputation of a bad country, like the reputation of a bad individual, is not based on statements or fatwas, but rather past deeds!
"Therefore, when U.S. Secretary of State Clinton talks about the Iranian fatwa, we can be certain that she has not heard about Iranian taqqiya [the practice of precautionary dissimulation emphasized in Shi'ite Islam, whereby adherents may conceal their religion when under threat]! Tehran has a history of failing to [stand] by its pledges and agreements, and the best example here is the visit paid by the Iranian President [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] to the Emirati Abu Musa Island that is under occupation by Iran. For despite all the Iranian-Emirati agreements regarding a truce to precede [with] negotiations and dialogue, Tehran failed to respect its pledge. Therefore, if the president of the country fails to abide by his word, how can we believe the country itself will abide by this fatwa?... If this fatwa is one of the merits of dialogue with Iran, then by God we are truly facing a disaster in the region!"
Endnote:
[1] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), April 15, 2012.
