Trump-Iran latest: Top cleric issues fatwa against US president and Netanyahu for being ‘enemies of god'
Iran 's top cleric has issued a fatwa against US president Donald Trump and Israeli prime minister Netanyahu for being 'enemies of God', according to Iranian state media.
Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi said the US president and Mr Netanyahu were guilty of 'mohareb', waging war against God, following attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Those identified as 'mohareb' can face execution, crucifixion, amputation or exile, according to Iranian Sharia law.
The fatwa said: 'Any person or regime that threatens or assaults the leadership and religious authority of the Islamic Ummah is considered a mohareb.'
Iranian clerics have issued similar fatwas in the past, the most famous of which targeted author Salman Rushdie following publication of his novel, The Satanic Verses.
Mr Rushdie lost his right eye in 2022 after he was stabbed several times in New York by a man citing the fatwa.
On 13 June, Israel launched aerial attacks on Iran after claiming it was just days away from developing a nuclear bomb.
The US followed days later, striking three nuclear facilities with 14 30,000-pound 'bunker-busting' bombs.
Top Iran cleric issues fatwa against Trump and Netanyahu
Iran's top cleric has issued a fatwa against US president Donald Trump and Israeli prime minister Netanyahu for being 'enemies of God', according to Iranian state media.
Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi said the US president and Mr Netanyahu were guilty of 'mohareb', waging war against God, following attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Those identified as 'mohareb' can face execution, crucifixion, limb amputation, or exile, according to Iranian Sharia law.
Alexander Butler30 June 2025 09:29
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
India wants ‘big beautiful' trade deal with US after Trump tariff threats
Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman revealed India 's strong desire for a 'big, beautiful' trade deal with the US, even as negotiations face challenges. A critical 9 July deadline approaches, after which the US could impose additional tariffs of up to 26 per cent on Indian goods. India has established clear red lines in the Bilateral Trade Agreement talks, primarily concerning the protection of its agriculture and dairy sectors. Trump has accused India of being a 'tariff king' and seeks greater market access for its agricultural exports, while India defends its tariffs as necessary and WTO -compliant. Negotiators have extended their discussions in Washington, indicating efforts to bridge differences and secure an agreement before the deadline.
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Kill Trump if he threatens the Ayatollah, says new fatwa
Donald Trump and anyone else who threatens to kill Iran's supreme leader are 'waging war against God' and should be punished by death, according to a new religious fatwa. Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi said 'any person or regime that threatens the leadership and religious authority' is considered a 'mohareb' – one who wages war against God – under Islamic law. The cleric, speaking in Iran, declared that any co-operation with such individuals or regimes by Muslims or Islamic governments was religiously forbidden and the crime punishable by death. The ruling was published following a formal inquiry on how Muslims should respond to threats against Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other Shia religious authorities. On June 17, the US president said he knew where Ayatollah Khamenei was but wouldn't target him – 'at least not for now'. Muslims making representations to the cleric asked what the ruling was on threatening religious authority and Islamic leadership, and what Muslims' duties would be if 'this act is carried out by the US government or anyone else'. 'In recent days, we have witnessed that the US president and leaders of the Zionist regime have repeatedly threatened to assassinate the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution and some scholars and religious authorities,' they said. Mr Makarem Shirazi is one of Iran's most senior religious authorities and is a source of theological guidance for millions of Shia Muslims globally. He called on Muslims worldwide to 'make these enemies regret their words and mistakes.' 'If they suffer hardship or loss, they will have the reward of a mujahid in the path of Allah, inshallah,' Makarem Shirazi wrote, promising divine reward for those who act against perceived enemies of Islamic leadership. His rulings carry significant weight within Iran's theocratic system and among Shia communities internationally. Analysts believe the fatwa could intensify a crackdown on domestic dissidents, as many Iranians are critical of the supreme leader. The broad language of the ruling could give the judiciary power to execute critics of Khamenei by classifying their opposition as 'waging war against God.' At least 700 people have been arrested over the past few days on charges of spying for Israel. Under traditional Islamic jurisprudence, the charge of 'mohareb' historically applied to armed rebellion against Islamic authority and carries the death penalty. The ruling effectively brands anyone threatening Iran's leadership as subject to execution under religious law and calls for Muslims globally to kill the person behind threats. Iranian clerics have previously issued similar edicts against perceived enemies of the Islamic Republic, including the 1989 fatwa by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini calling for the death of Salman Rushdie, the British author, over The Satanic Verses, his 1988 novel. Mr Rushdie was blinded in his right eye during a knife attack in 2022. Hadi Matar, 27, who authorities believe was responding to the fatwa, was jailed for 25 years. The new fatwa was declared amid escalating tensions between Iran and both the United States and Israel following a 12-day war that ended with a fragile ceasefire. Mr Trump said he is not speaking to Iran and has offered them 'nothing', following reports that the US is mulling helping the country access as much as $30 billion (£22 billion) to build a civilian nuclear energy programme. He lashed out at Chris Coons, a Democratic senator, who repeated claims the president is eyeing up a deal with Iran that could involve sanctions relief, similar to the one brokered by Barack Obama in 2015. 'Tell phony Democrat Senator Chris Coons that I am not offering Iran ANYTHING, unlike Obama, who paid them $Billions under the stupid road to a Nuclear Weapon JCPOA (which would now be expired!), nor am I even talking to them since we totally OBLITERATED their Nuclear Facilities,' Mr Trump said in an overnight Truth Social post. On Monday, Iran accused the president of playing 'games' with his shifting stance on whether to lift sanctions that the country claimed was not aimed at finding a resolution. 'These [statements by Trump] should be viewed more in the context of psychological and media games than as a serious expression in favour of dialogue or problem-solving,' Esmaeil Baghaei, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, said. It comes as a leaked recording emerged of Iranian officials remarking that US strikes on the country's nuclear facilities were less devastating than they had expected. The audio, published by The Washington Post, paints a different picture about the impact of the US bombing raid to that described by Mr Trump, who said the operation 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear programme. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, dismissed the recording as 'nonsense'. 'It's shameful that The Washington Post is helping people commit felonies by publishing out-of-context leaks,' she told the newspaper. 'The notion that unnamed Iranian officials know what happened under hundreds of feet of rubble is nonsense. Their nuclear weapons programme is over.' Iran has said that diplomatic talks with Washington cannot resume unless the US rules out further military strikes. 'We have not agreed to any date, we have not agreed to the modality,' Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran's deputy foreign minister, told The BBC. 'Right now we are seeking an answer to this question. Are we going to see a repetition of an act of aggression while we are engaging in dialogue?'
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Supreme court to hear case that could further erode campaign spending limits
The US supreme court agreed on Monday to hear a case that could further erode restrictions on money in politics, in a challenge that comes in part from Vice-President JD Vance. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, Vance and Steve Chabot, a former Republican congressman from Ohio, are challenging limits set on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates. The case was filed when Vance was a senatorial candidate, in 2022. The court's landmark Citizens United ruling in 2010 threw away limits on outside spending on elections, allowing corporations and unions to inject unlimited money into elections as a matter of free speech. The current challenge from Republicans makes a similar argument, claiming that limits on how much spending can be coordinated with a campaign impede their first amendment rights. It also comes at a time where unfettered outside spending has become a norm in US politics. The case is challenging limits to what's called 'coordinated' spending between a party and the campaign, while independent expenditures, those often made by political action committees, have been unlimited since Citizens United. The limits themselves vary depending on population and which office a candidate is seeking. On the low end, a candidate for the US House of Representatives in a state with multiple representatives would be limited to $63,600, while a Senatecandidate in a state with a large voting age population would be nearly $4m. The US court of appeals for the sixth circuit upheld the limits based on a prior supreme court ruling in 2001 on coordinated spending, but the plaintiffs have argued this 2001 decision is outdated given other more recent campaign finance decisions. The Trump administration filed a brief in the case that aligned with Republicans, and the justice department called on the supreme court to consider the case. Democratic groups have asked to intervene to defend the existing limits. The case will be heard in the court's next term, which starts in October. ScotusBlog, the much-watched website written by lawyers and legal scholars, says the case 'may be the first potential blockbuster of October term 2025'.
