Profile image
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Obama Says Don’t Worry – Using Nuclear Weapons is Against Iran’s Religion

Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:13
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

John Ransom writes: “Obama says he is hopeful for a nuclear deal with Iran, because Tehran told him that obtaining nuclear weapons would run contrary to their religion. (Neville Chamberlin called. He wants his foreign policy back.)”  Article HERE:

Obama Explains that Nuclear Weapons are Against Iran’s Religion


Well that’s reassuring.  A politician I can’t trust explains a religion he usually won’t name (in regard to terrorism) or sometimes calls “a religion of peace” (Qu’ran Surah 9:5 “kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush… Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”  Keep in mind, Mohammad didn’t just mean pagans and Hindus when he said “polytheists” he meant those worshiping more than one God, like CHRISTIANS with their trinity – as Muslims do not share Christian views on Jesus…


So on what basis does Obama claim that a nuclear attack goes against the Islamic religion and that we can trust Iran not to use (except in defense/retaliation I guess – there must be some reason for having them) nuclear weapons?


He is probably basing the idea on the Iranian fatwa against nuclear weapons: “Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has reiterated a number of times that the use of nuclear weapons is prohibited under Islamic law. One declaration in particular has received a lot of attention and has become known as the fatwa (a fatwa is a religious edict, which, in Shiite jurisprudence, is traditionally issued by a mujtahid – a scholar who is competent to interpret sharia – to provide an answer to a religious question).” (




The same article continues: “According to the Iranian 2005 communication to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the wording of the fatwa was as follows: ‘the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam.’ Yet, in Ayatollah Ali Khamenei message, which was read at the opening of the International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament and Nonproliferation in 2010, the Supreme Leader’s explicit prohibition has merely encompassed the ‘use’ of these weapons…. This narrowing of the scope of this prohibition was later limited to the ‘use’ of such weapons, creating some confusion in the West, mainly due to inaccurate translations, which did not highlight what seems to be a shift in the leadership’s discourse.”


So it may be important to note that Iran has never put their fatwa on nuclear weapons into writing, and their verbal message has changed over time.  I’m worried (I can only imagine Israel’s level of concern) that once they possess nuclear weapons, the Iranians might feel justified in using them in response to an attack.  Which I would find reasonable in an all-out war like an invasion of Iran, but I would not find it justified in response to a minor event like the death of an Iranian general who was helping Hezbollah terrorists on the Israel/Syria border when Israel killed the Hezbollah men – and their Iranian guest.  But my opinions won’t determine whether or not Iran decides to use nuclear weapons.  What do they think would justify it?


Before I trust Obama’s optimistic “religion of peace” assessment, I would trust that of Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, whose bio at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs shows a Harvard email address and portrays him as a knowledgable and experienced guy:


“Rolf Mowatt-Larssen served over three years as the Director of Intelligence and Counterintelligence at the U.S. Department of Energy. Prior to this, he served for 23 years as a CIA intelligence officer in various domestic and international posts, to include Chief of the Europe Division in the Directorate of Operations, Chief of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Department, Counterterrorist Center, and Deputy Associate Director of Central Intelligence for Military Support. Prior to his career in intelligence, Mr. Mowatt-Larssen served as an officer in the U.S. Army. He is a graduate of the United States Military Academy, West Point, NY.


I assume he probably has a good idea what he is talking about, when he writes: “Over many years of tracking Iran’s nuclear program, I remain uncertain about the Iranian leadership’s real intentions — is their quest for nuclear energy merely a cunning cover for developing nuclear weapons? Has a decision already been made to build a bomb? If so, who has made this decision, and on what basis? How important is the religious case, for or against nuclear weapons, in an Islamic theocracy? Are conflicting statements concerning the status of nuclear weapons issued by clerics and scholars signs of dissension between religious and secular authorities in Iran?”  (


If HE is still unconvinced of what the Iranian military would do after writing

Islam and the Bomb

Religious Justification For and Against Nuclear Weapons

Why is Obama so certain that Iran would be a safe keeper of nuclear weapons?


My thoughts are often drawn back to prophecies for an answer.  Consider this IRANIAN prophecy:

Mullah Majlisi wrote that, Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (Mohammed’s cousin and son-in-law) prophesied that just prior to the return of the Twelfth Imam – the Mahdi – the Ultimate end times Savior of Islam – a “tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West.” Leading “the strongest army on earth,” the new ruler in the West will carry “a clear sign” from the third imam, (whose name was Hussein Ibn Ali.)  Obama’s middle name, Hussein, is believed to be that sign.  The Hadith also says that “Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us.”  The name Barack, in both Arabic and Farsi (Persian) means blessing; Barack Hussein means “the blessing of Hussein” in both languages.  Even the surname Obama, written in the Persian alphabet as O-Ba-Ma, means “he is with us,” another key point of Majlisi’s tradition.


None of this is reassuring to me.  I think I understand Netanyahu’s determination to bypass Obama and make his case on the Iranian threat to Congress and the American people directly.




While you wait on that, consider reading


Antichrist 2016-2019: Mystery Babylon, Barack Obama & the Islamic Caliphate











— contributed by David Montaigne on February 11, 2015

We encourage you to Share our Reports, Analyses, Breaking News and Videos. Simply Click your Favorite Social Media Button and Share.

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 3 comments
  • truthlovingsoul

    and it is ok that israel has publicly threatened to nuke the entire planet if attacked? the samson option? hello?

    • dangle5

      after what the jews and israel has been through, holocast , bombings , etc, who could blame them , they are the apple of GODs eye, , are u jelous?

    • David Montaigne

      The Samson option has worked as a deterrent so far. Israel would retaliate against enemies, not the whole planet. And even in the article above I said it would be OK for Iran to do the same thing – use them if attacked:
      “Which I would find reasonable in an all-out war like an invasion of Iran”

Top Stories
Recent Stories


Top Global

Top Alternative



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.