Iranian clerics call for assassination of Trump and Netanyahu

Agree with you that this subject does go too far off thread really, but there is a small part that is relevant I think, and that is the whole thing of "Islamic apologists" that keep cropping up on anything to do with Iran.

I don't know the Koran. I tried to read it but gave up. My understanding is though that it does have horrific parts.

I do know the Bible though, and that has lots of really horrific bits in it. Genocide, incest, pimping. slavery, human sacrifice, it's all in there. I debate Bible stuff online a fair amount.

And while many Christians say " My denomination does not believe in the bad bits", there is a thing going on where many folk, esp those to the right, appear to take the view that every Muslim of every Islamic denomination fully embraces every bad bit of the Koran.

Not your good self of course.

Folk to the left though, again in general, do have the freedom of religion thing going on, and they recognize that Islam is really not that much different to Christianity, in that not everyone believes in all the bad bits. But these folk on the left are too often accused of being Islamic apologists. We have all seen this.

And I think we had a bit of that on this thread. Posters suggesting all Shia Muslims must now try to kill the two men. It is their sacred duty. But that does not happen. There are about 250 million Shia Muslims, And have they killed Salman Rusdie yet ? No. He suffered a horrific attack yes. Because there will always be some who go the full hog. How many I have no idea. But it is not all.

This is why I do not see this as being much different to evangelical pastors wanting gays killed. There will always be some willing to follow, but not all.

And yes, this Iran thing is the state. But you know, as I posted above, the anti gay evangelicals are at state level too, in Uganda.

If religion in this day and age is used to do things like order assassinations, how do we know as a society if we should still respect others' religious beliefs or not?

Religion has always been used to do things like order assassinations. And war and torture.😒

And I say that as a sort of religious person.

As a society we can respect religious and non-religious beliefs easily. Most of us do it all the time without even thinking.☺️

The US pastors are not misreading the Bible though

That very much depends on your personal view and who you ask, which is why I said 'in my view'.

If you're an evangelical who is convinced a strict and literal reading of the Bible is the only way to go as it is the literal word of God, for example, you're going to take those verses as a strict instruction/warning.

If you're one of quite a few other flavours of Christianity, you may be very aware of the problematic nature of taking a translated text literally (there's a lot of debate around the translation of some of these terms), and be more inclined to focus on the 'spirit of the law' and the overarching message of Jesus of love, inclusiveness, grace, etc.

Notably, Jesus himself is not recorded as condemning homosexuality, and in the New Testament it is largely Paul who opines on it. And Paul and his pronouncements is another contested area....

There'd be a major staffing issue in the Church of England if gay people were to be made unwelcome - there are a lot of gay vicars in the Anglo Catholic tradition, amongst others.

Anyhow, a topic for another thread, most likely.

I agree the Pope has been very good on this, I've enjoyed his telling off of Vance and Trump enormously. He doesn't seem afraid to speak truth to power. More power to him.

The US pastors are not misreading the Bible though. The Bible is pretty clear on that. It says gays are abhorrent to the Lord. That some Christians choose to ignore that does not mean the Bible does not say it. And yeah I get the new covenant and that. But the NT has likes of 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1 :9-10, Romans 1:27. So there is that.

I get your point where Iranian clerics are part of the state. And I did post above about Trumps Freedom of Faith Commission speech last week, when an Catholic Arch Bishop, at least one other Bishop, a Rabbi, and his US faith team were laughing at him boasting about killing the Iranian leadership twice.

Not completely the same, but both on the wrong side of right or wrong.

I agree with what the Pope says about the war though. It does appear the current WH don't agree with the Pope.

Thank you for this, it’s good to know and chimes very much with my experience of my Muslim friends.

Thank you, I agree with most of your post.

Here though, I would make the distinction that the US evangelical pastors are not agents of the state in the way the Iranian clerics are, so it wouldn’t be seen as an act of war in the same way: If it is an act of war for a religious leader to call for the death of a leader of a State, then I would say that when the US evangelical pastors call for gays to be killed, that would also include gay leaders of States ?

To be clear, that doesn’t mean I minimise what they say - which is utterly abhorrent and relies on a misreading of the bible, in my view - or the fact that there are millions of Americans who would identify as Evangelical Christians.

While radical or militant groups often misuse religious terminology—labeling opponents as "enemies of God"—to justify political violence, the mainstream scholarly consensus and orthodox Islamic jurisprudence do not legitimize vigilante killings or clerical hit lists.

From what I see they are not specifically calling for the assignation. They are saying its ok to kill them, that anyone who does kill them will be blessed, and that it is a duty to kill them, because they broke laws by killing their people. Yeah, that is word play on their part really, they did call for the deaths.

Quote " Does Islam condone murder if a cleric decides a person is an ‘enemy of God’ or an enemy to an Islamic state?".

I have no idea about Islam in general, I have never studied it. And I have not studied the version of Islam that that Iran does. They did do the same against Salman Rusdie for writing a book. And there looks to be a standing order against protestors in Iran that dates from 1999.

There was the executions in Saudi Arabia over the Arab spring. Is that similar ? That is all pretty much blocked on my web sorry.

If it is an act of war for a religious leader to call for the death of a leader of a State, then I would say that when the US evangelical pastors call for gays to be killed, that would also include gay leaders of States ?

I reckon religion is pretty crap all round really. I don't know much about Islam as I say, but I do know about Christianity. And in fact, I am watching a "Left Behind" film just now. The Nick Cage one. About the Rapture. You know, the Christian thing where almost every man, woman and child on earth are left behind and earth becomes a blazing hell. Only the Christians are saved.

It's all rather blood thirsty to me.

The two people involved are not state leaders, so an assassination on tej direction of Iranian clerics (given it’s a theocracy) would likely be seen as an act of war.

Does Islam condone murder if a cleric decides a person is an ‘enemy of God’ or an enemy to an Islamic state?

The thread is about the clerics calling for the death of two people. Not threatening war. Although they have most likely done that given that Iran is a Theocracy.

The Sudan Times is the most I can find on what the clerics said, I have no idea of bias or whatever. And this is from 2025,

Iranian cleric issues death fatwa against Trump and Netanyahu - The Sudan Times

"In a forceful religious decree issued Sunday, Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi, one of Iran’s most senior Shiite clerics, pronounced a fatwa branding former US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as mohareb—“enemies of God.” The ruling calls on Muslims worldwide to “make them regret their words and mistakes,” labeling supporters as haram and promising divine rewards for those who act"

And there is this line :

"A statement published via Mehr News Agency emphasized that any regime threatening Iran’s Supreme Leader or major clerics should be treated as war criminals."

So mitigating circumstances do appear to be involved here. And there is this bit -

Under Iran’s religious legal framework, being classified as mohareb can warrant the death penalty, including execution or crucifixion.

So "can warrant the death penalty,". Does anyone have a link where it says demands death in the current form ?

Threats can have mitigating circumstances. The correct people to be making threats of war are the government of the respective nation - not religious leaders.

Who's said it's ok?

I think she's an absolute lunatic, who spouts dangerous nonsense.

What she isn't, though, is a religious leader. These people are in a position where they can wield huge influence and appear to be trying to lead people to believe their spiritual wellbeing depends on carrying out the worst crimes.

Surely you see the distinction?

The thread is about the religious leaders of Iran. Do you approve of them?

I could understand that people felt emotional after all the build up we had been reading/seeing in the media about what the IRGC were doing in murdering thousands of their own civilians for protesting.

You understood people celebrating an assisination yet you are 'surprised' when people shrug their shoulders at words about 2 men who are responsible for the deaths of 10s of 1000s of innocent people and the suffering of millions and millions more?

You 'report neutrally' on actual assisinations but then condemn words from clerics.

Like I said it just doesn't really add up for me.

But she’s not a cleric, so that’s ok then.

This is what Laura Loomer posted on her social media in regards to the Ayatollah’s funeral. She is a staunch ally of Donald’s.

Loomer stirred the internet on Thursday with a post indicating the idea of bombing Iran. She replied to a post stating that Khamenei's body was currently in cold storage as Iran prepared for a “historic funeral” by writing, “A funeral for Khameni? That’s what we call a target rich environment. 💣," on her social media handle.

This is why I am asking if anyone has what the clerics actually said. I can't get that on my net, can anyone else ?

And do you agree with the point that I made, that threats can have mitigating circumstances. Do you agree with that ?

Really this instance of A threatening B because B threatened A can be traced back decades. Is this war not about Iran threatening to nuke Israel ? So it does really go back to 1979 and who threatened who first.

Personally I would like to see this cycle stop, through dialogue, not bombs.

But if this is specifically about what the clerics said this time, then mitigating stuff does come in.

Nah. Because then threads become about who posts what rather than what they post. For example, I notice some posters who post a decent amount on what do appear to be anti-Muslim threads. But I don't say "you seem to have an anti Muslim thing going on"

I also notice posts have been removed from this thread, hence reported. But I can't recall seeing anything offensive being posted.

It would make a very brief thread if we just all agreed, yes clerics shouldn’t be ordering killings. Who disagrees with this? No-one that I can see.

What else do you think there is say on this @Twiglets1 before you agree we are allowed to discuss the clerics order in the context in which it was made?

I’m not sure I follow, sorry if I’m missing something that should be obvious.

The post I quoted made an accusation that posters had been saying that Israel’s actions were ok. I hadn’t seen that on the thread, so was asking who had said they were. If somebody did, then that’s going to be very easy to quote.

The OP was about the Iranian clerics - supposedly men of God - inciting their followers - supposedly Muslims - to commit murder. It wasn’t about other leaders, and there was a specific point being discussed about the fact it was religious leaders - not state leaders - making the call.

Do Mumsnetters have a duty to monitor all threads and scold every poster who they disagree with?

This thread is about religious leaders ordering assassinations though. They shouldn’t be doing that if they are supposed to be some spiritual authority. I think this demonstrates they are religious in name only.

You didn't have a single word of condemnation when you broke the news that Trump and Netanyahu assassinated Irans leader, not even a 'they shouldn't be doing that'. No scolding of the posters who replied to you celebrating his assassination, no surprise that posters were celebrating a leaders actual assassination like you expressed surprise that people were 'shrugging their shoulders' at words on this thread. That's where this thread falls flat for me. I don't really understand where you are coming from with it? Are you very religious yourself is that why you take more issue with words from clerics than people actually being assassinated? Maybe if this thread is about religion and not assassinations it would have gone better on the religion board or whatever it is called.