نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استاد خارج فقه و اصول حوزه علمیه قم؛ پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و اندیشۀ اسلامی، تهران، ایران.
2 گروه حقوق بینالملل، دانشگاه علوم اسلامی رضوی، مشهد، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
In the realm of contemporary international relations, the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khamenei declaring the absolute prohibition of the production, stockpiling, maintenance, and use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction stands as a unique phenomenon at the intersection of jurisprudence, ethics, and strategic policy. This fatwa was officially announced on 19 February 2010 and subsequently formalized in a message to the First International Conference on Disarmament in Tehran (April 2010), where it
was registered as an official document with the United Nations and transformed into
a foundational component of the foreign policy and defensive doctrine of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Despite its significance, however, the nature and robustness of this religious ruling have frequently been met with misunderstanding and oversimplification in Western academic and policy circles, often being interpreted as a temporary diplomatic tool, a tactical position arising from circumstantial conditions, or a revisable decree. These misconceptions underscore the necessity of a profound and meticulous analysis to elucidate the true essence of this viewpoint. The present article, with the aim of resolving existing ambiguities and providing a precise analytical framework, addresses the central and
pivotal question: What is the jurisprudential-political nature of Ayatollah Khamenei’s nuclear fatwa? Is it a “secondary ruling” issued on the basis of the principle of taqiyya (dissimulation) to navigate an emergency situation and thus temporary in nature? Is it a “governmental ruling” based on the “expediency” of the system and therefore dependent on variable temporal and spatial conditions, subject to revision? Or is it ultimately a “primary religious fatwa” that is permanent, rooted in unchanging jurisprudential principles, possessing the firmness of a divine injunction? This research, employing an analytical-descriptive method and drawing on library sources, examines the theoretical foundations of Imami jurisprudence regarding the key concepts of “fatwa,” “governmental ruling,” “secondary ruling,” taqiyya (dissimulation), and maṣlaḥa (expediency), while separately evaluating each of the three hypotheses raised. In examining the first hypothesis—namely, the perception of the fatwa as a “secondary ruling” based on taqiyya (dissimulation)—the research findings demonstrate that this notion is fundamentally invalid. In Shiite jurisprudence, taqiyya is a defensive mechanism to preserve life, property, or faith under conditions of danger and weakness, yet it is subject to clearly defined red lines. The most critical of these limitations is the absolute prohibition of taqiyya in matters that lead to “safk al-dimāʾ” (the unjust shedding of blood and the killing of human beings). Given that weapons of mass destruction essentially involve the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents and the widespread destruction of life, their use is impermissible under any circumstance, including taqiyya. Furthermore, rulings based on taqiyya are typically issued covertly or without explicit reference to religious evidence; in contrast, the nuclear fatwa was proclaimed openly and grounded in clear rational and scriptural foundations (such as the Quranic prohibitions against “destroying crops and progeny” and “spreading corruption on earth”). In the second step, the hypothesis that this position is a “governmental ruling” based on maṣlaḥa (expediency) is also rejected. A governmental ruling is an executive directive issued by the walī al-faqīh (jurist guardian) in his capacity as the Islamic ruler to manage societal affairs, in terms of the immediate exigencies and harms of the day. Such rulings are inherently “particular” (pertaining to a specific instance), “temporary,” and “subject to change.” In contrast, the fatwa prohibiting nuclear weapons is a “universal” ruling (as a real proposition), globally applicable and eternal, with its subject matter being the intrinsic prohibition of an act, beyond time and place. This fatwa is the product of the ijtihad process aimed at “discovering” the divine ruling, not a managerial decision for governing the state. Furthermore, the concept of maṣlaḥa in Shiite thought fundamentally differs from the Machiavellian notion that the end justifies the means. In Imami jurisprudence, achieving an expediency (such as national security) through an intrinsically illegitimate and prohibited means (such as producing weapons of mass destruction) is impermissible. The final conclusion is that Ayatollah Khamenei’s position is a “primary religious fatwa” that possesses all the components and conditions necessary for a fatwa. First, this position is derived from the “system of ijtihad” and results from the process of deduction based on the four primary sources (Quran, Sunnah, reason, and consensus), and it is not a personal or political opinion. Second, it has been repeatedly and explicitly “proclaimed” with no ambiguity. Third, given his dual role as a marjaʿ taqlīd (religious authority) and jurist guardian, both his followers and, more importantly, all components of the Islamic Republic system (including the passage of the “Law on Proportionate and Reciprocal Action” in the Islamic Consultative Assembly) have regarded this fatwa as binding and have acted upon it. This fatwa is permanent unless the mujtahid recognizes an error in his deduction. Even conditions such as urgency (iḍṭirār) cannot override the primary ruling of prohibition, as the condition for invoking urgency in jurisprudence is the absence of any permissible means of salvation, which does not apply in the military and defensive domain due to the availability of conventional and deterrent weapons. Therefore, the fatwa prohibiting nuclear weapons is neither a flexible political strategy nor a temporary defensive shield, but rather a doctrinal principle, an enduring religious commitment, and a manifestation of Islam’s humanitarian and ethics-centered approach in the realms of security and power. The doubts raised stem primarily from a lack of precise understanding of these specialized jurisprudential concepts and the distinctions between them in Shiite political thought.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)