Talk:Ali Khamenei's fatwa against nuclear weapons

Washnigtonpost and Foreign policy
Firstly, the article by Washingtonpost starts with quotations from three US senior political figures, after which it is written "As part of the administration’s diplomacy with Iran, senior officials have claimed that the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons." By the way I don't know why you have asserted "The source does not even mention the word "recognize"" in your edit summary. as you see there's no mention of "recognize".

Secondly, by a simple search in the Foreign Policy article, you will see that after analyzing his interview with an Iranian official he writes: "Iran began publicizing Khamenei’s fatwa against nuclear weapons in 2004, but commentators and news media in the United States and Europe have regarded it as a propaganda ploy not to be taken seriously." and the phrase "have regarded it" is linked to the article of Washingtonpost. Mhhossein (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice you had changed the wording as part of the undo. I've changed it back to "in remarks by the administration of US president Barack Obama", since each US president constitute their own administration.
 * I see the link to the Washington Post article. I agree it would be fine to use "however" for the Porter source after the first sentence in the paragraph, but after the Khalaji statement it is more likely to be understood as a response to Khalaji (which it is not). I propose keeping it as it is now - in my view, it means nearly exactly the same, except it avoids the potential confusing over who Porter is responding to.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Anders Feder: It's not only the president Obama referring to the fatwa according to the sources, but two other senior officials. So, we'd better mention "US Senior officials" instead of mentioning only Obama. The sources, as I said above, support this. On removing "however"; I believe that per WP:EDITORIALIZING we are not limited to direct mention to sources. In his article, Porter talks about "commentators and news media in the United States and Europe" and regards the article of Washingtonpost as an example. So, his article might be counted as a response to Khalaji's. What do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The statement is not attributing the remarks to Obama himself, but to his administration. Obama's administration include all his officials and himself.
 * Regarding Porter, the operative word is "might": The Porter source does not "directly and explicitly" support the relationship that is implied to the Khalaji source. Again, I think the meaning is clear in the current form - as long as we omit "however", the reader can easily "put 2 and 2 together" and figure out that Porter is responding to the claims raised in media like the Washington Post source.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fair enough. Mhhossein (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox
Does the article need an infobox? I found no suitable infobox for it, can any one suggest a choice for it? Mhhossein (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Use a reliable source
I had not seen the definition in the ref and sorry for writing OR in edit summary. However, this definition of taqiya is not valid because Neither of Nytimes and JAMES RISEN are reliable for explaining Shia jurisprudence. Rather you have to find scientific sources from scholars working in this regard. At most you can state them as an opinion not a fact. Mhhossein (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * An IP is trying to push his POV without trying to participate in talk page dicussion. I believe that Neither of Nytimes and JAMES RISEN are reliable for explaining Shia jurisprudence and we need another more reliable source to define Taqiya! What do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry for the late reply. My understanding of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is that the NY Times is a reliable news source, but it isn't a source for scholarship on Islam. A factual assertion made by a newspaper that is contested is better left out until a source which is more appropriate for the context. So in this case, I'd have to concur with your view. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khamenei's fatwa against nuclear weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130810154009/http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=302258 to http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=302258

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian's edit
Hey, I hid the materials added by you. Can you see that some of the points are already addressed and that these details are too deep to be inserted in the lead and that the body already addresses these details? -- M h hossein   talk 16:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Khamenei's fatwa against nuclear weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/10/16/when-the-ayatollah-said-no-to-nukes/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150711211807/http://nuclearenergy.ir/legal-aspects/ to http://nuclearenergy.ir/legal-aspects/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112211620/http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=781&Itemid=4 to http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1287&Itemid=16
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://iranian.com/posts/open-letter-of-ali-khamenei-s-nephew-to-the-us-president-barak-o-49515
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.borhan.ir/NSite/FullStory/News/?Id=3462

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

False statement and blatant misunderstanding of “taqiyya”
I think the this excerpt from the analysis section should be removed and I’ll explain why:

“Some analysts raised the possibility that Khamenei might be lying by using taqiyya, which is religious dissembling. In 2015, an open letter to Obama, posted on Iranian.com, reportedly from a nephew of Ali Khamenei, stated that Khamenei practiced taqiyya with regard to the fatwa.”

Not only is the overall proposition absurd and only coherent if the author’s extent of knowledge on “taqiyya” is from comments sections on Fox News and YouTube and not the Wikipedia article on taqiyya (though I understand we are simply reporting what “some analysts” said, no matter how misleading and false it is) but explaining taqiyya as “religious dissembling” — which *we* editors are saying, not the analysts — is 100% incorrect. I’m agnostic and even I know that taqiyya only allows a Shia to lie about *their status as a Muslim* in the face of grave harm/death. For us to use the word “dissembling” implies a general carte blanche for Shias to lie about anything at any time, but taqiyya only permits one very specific lie in a specific situation.

So my questions are:

(1) Can I remove that excerpt altogether? The definition of taqiyya as simple “dissembling” certainly has to go as it’s plain inaccurate, but do we need to keep this snippet of what some “analysts” said, even though it’s a fringe, misleading, and by definition, impossible claim? Would we include in the anthropogenic climate change article “some analysts have disputed the risk of GHG emissions due to CO2 being non-toxic to humans” anywhere but a “Common Myths” subsection?

(2) If the answer to (1) is “yes”, it’s at least in line with Wikipedia standards for me to insert a clause or sentence after that excerpt to the effect of “However, taqiyya only permits lying about [the things I said above]”, correct? (Not that phrase verbatim, I’d make sure it’s in proper Wikipedia voice and style of course)

3) If the answer to (2) is yes, do I need to add a citation for that, since it’s clearly explained and cited in our own article on taqiyya?

Thanks. Kookookeekee (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There are two paragraphs with references to taqiyya. Do you propose to delete both?  The second seems neutral and is probably worth keeping, since it has been part of the U.S. political discussion of whether to believe the fatwa. NPguy (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A user, on the first 2 days of his editing life, is insisting 1&2 to add something that is already found in the same section of the article as he is inserting to. So, with his version in effect, we have "Some analysts raised the possibility that Khamenei might be lying by using taqiyya, which is a form of religious dissembling" and "Others have raised the possibility that the fatwa may fall under the Shia practice of taqiyya: dissembling to avoid the threat of religious persecution" both in the same section. One should be removed. -- M h hossein   talk 03:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)