On Sunday, Iran’s Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi issued a fatwa condemning President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an act some experts view as an incitement to terrorism. The decree called for Muslims worldwide to unite against leaders who threaten the integrity and leadership of the Islamic community, or Ummah. In this ruling, Shirazi categorized such leaders as “warlords” or mohareb, a term that indicates individuals engaged in warfare against God. Under Iranian law, those designated as mohareb could face severe penalties, including execution or exile. Notably, Shirazi concluded his fatwa with prayers for divine protection from these purported enemies and for the swift return of the Mahdi, a prominent messianic figure in Shiite Islam.
British-Iranian commentator Niyak Ghorbani criticized the fatwa, suggesting it constitutes a state-endorsed call to terror. In a social media post, he emphasized that the Islamic Republic’s hostility extends beyond its borders, signaling ambitions for international violence motivated by religious beliefs. Ghorbani asserted that the West must understand the gravity of the situation, as Iran prepares for potential violent actions on a global stage under the guise of religious ideology. This fatwa follows a period recently termed the “12-Day War,” during which American and Israeli military actions reportedly harmed Iran’s nuclear capabilities, escalating tensions in the region.
The conflict intensified on June 13 when Israeli airstrikes targeted Iranian nuclear and military sites, leading to the deaths of significant figures within Iran’s military and scientific community. In retaliation, Iran launched ballistic missiles at Israeli cities, marking a significant escalation. The United States entered the fray shortly thereafter, conducting strikes against three Iranian nuclear sites. President Trump had previously cautioned that further uranium enrichment by Iran to weapons-grade levels would prompt additional U.S. military action. This warning followed a brief ceasefire, marking the end of the intense, multi-faceted conflict.
Historically, Iranian clerics have utilized fatwas as tools to incite violence, with one of the most infamous examples being the 1989 decree against British author Salman Rushdie. The fatwa, issued due to alleged blasphemy in Rushdie’s novel “The Satanic Verses,” forced him into hiding and triggered violent reactions, including the murder of a Japanese translator and attacks on the book’s publishers. The repercussions of that decree have haunted Rushdie for decades, resulting in multiple assassination attempts, including a serious stabbing incident in 2023, which left him partially blind.
The recent fatwa against Trump and Netanyahu raises concerns about the present dangers that might arise from religiously motivated violence. Experts express alarm over the implications of such a decree, considering it part of a broader strategy for Iran to position itself as a defender of the Islamic faith on an international scale. This global outreach indicates a willingness to engage in conflict if the Islamic Ummah is perceived as under threat. Analysts are watching closely to see how this situation unfolds, particularly in light of recent escalations, and the historical context of Iran’s religious and geopolitical motivations.
In summary, the issuance of this fatwa exemplifies a combination of internal and external threats as part of Iran’s continued narrative against perceived enemies. The implications of this decree could extend beyond rhetoric, potentially affecting geopolitical relations and increasing tensions in an already volatile region. Observers remain vigilant about the potential for escalated conflict arising from such declarations, particularly as they resonate with Iran’s historical patterns of engaging in violence in the name of religion. The global community will need to navigate these complex dynamics carefully, considering the potential ramifications of further aggression prompted by pronouncements like Shirazi’s fatwa.
