Note: In this session, Dr. Haqiqat, while explaining jurisprudential views on the prohibition or permissibility of nuclear weapons, considered separating three levels of construction, stockpiling, and use necessary and emphasized the absolute prohibition of using weapons of mass destruction against civilians. At the same time, by proposing a distinction between weapons of mass destruction and tactical nuclear weapons, he raised the possibility of difference in jurisprudential ruling in limited and military cases. The scholarly critics, while emphasizing the necessity of precise topic recognition and evaluating environmental consequences, called for deeper examination of the foundations of philosophy of law and ethics in inferring rulings on this issue.

According to the site of the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, the scholarly session titled “Jurisprudential Foundations of Using Nuclear Weapons” was held by the Jurisprudence of Politics and International Relations Group of the Institute on the evening of Sunday, November 2, 2025, at the Institute’s location.

In this session, Dr. Seyed Sadiq Haqiqat, member of the Jurisprudence of Politics and International Relations Group of the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies as the presenter and Hujjat al-Islams wal-Muslimeen Dr. Mohammad Hosseinpour Amini and Dr. Mohsen Mohajernia as scholarly critics were present. Dr. Abdulwahab Ferati, group secretary, undertook the scholarly secretariat of the session.

At the beginning of the session, Dr. Ferati, referring to the background of the discussion on the prohibition of nuclear weapons after the Twelve-Day War and the fatwa of the Supreme Leader on the prohibition of these weapons, said: “In the public space and even in university circles, sometimes a distinction is made between production and use of nuclear weapons; some accept the permissibility of production for deterrence, while the official fatwa of the Islamic system emphasizes the absolute prohibition of construction, stockpiling, and employing these weapons.”

In continuation, Dr. Seyed Sadiq Haqiqat at the beginning of his speech, while expressing eight theoretical preliminaries about weapons of mass destruction, stated: “The jurisprudential issue of nuclear weapons is among emerging issues and has no background in narrations. In this discussion, construction and stockpiling are separated from use, because from a jurisprudential perspective, they have different rulings. Nuclear weapons in terms of nature are in the ruling of chemical and microbial weapons and one can benefit from fatwas related to them for jurisprudential inference. It must also be examined whether narrations related to ‘alqaa al-samm’ have the capability of purifying the criterion and applying to this topic or not. Separating primary and secondary rulings, and also among secondary titles like necessity and expediency, is necessary in this issue. Besides transmission, reason can also independently rule that widespread use of nuclear weapons that causes destruction of humans and the environment is forbidden. At the same time, a difference must be made between jurisprudential and ethical judgment; because an action may be permissible jurisprudentially and improper ethically. Ultimately, this discussion is purely jurisprudential and theoretical and not overseeing political positions or governmental decisions.”

The member of the Jurisprudence of Politics and International Relations Group of the Institute in continuation emphasized: “A difference must be made among three levels of construction, stockpiling, and use. From a jurisprudential perspective, the ruling of these stages may differ. Besides this, independent reason can rule on the prohibition of using weapons that cause destruction of harvest and generation.”

He then referred to the opinions of contemporary jurists and different views in the field of permissibility or prohibition of nuclear weapons and noted: “In this regard, there are three major views: a group based on the verse ‘And prepare for them whatever you can of power’ have accepted absolute permissibility and in contrast, jurists like Imam Khomeini, Ayatollah Sobhani, Ayatollah Moballeghi, and the Supreme Leader hold absolute prohibition; and the third view makes a detail between construction and use.”

Dr. Haqiqat in explaining the jurisprudential documents of this issue referred to the famous narration ‘alqaa samm in bilad al-mushrikin’ and while examining five jurisprudential opinions in this field, said: “This narration cannot be directly generalized to nuclear weapons, because its human and environmental effects and consequences are far beyond the cases mentioned in narrations.”

He in continuation, referring to the analysis of some Sunni jurists and jurisprudential sources like the book Al-Injad fi Abwab al-Jihad by Qurtubi, stated: “In some Sunni sources, the discussion of using modern war tools like poison, snake, scorpion or even chemical and nuclear weapons has been raised. Newer writers have considered the principle of knowing and mastering these weapons obligatory, but consider using them permissible only in necessity.”

The presenter then added: “The issue of ‘necessity’ or ‘reciprocity’ is jurisprudentially doubtful. If the enemy uses nuclear weapons against soldiers, reciprocal response of the same kind is defensible; but if against civilians, jurisprudence does not give such permission. That they kill our innocents is not a reason for killing their innocents.”

Dr. Haqiqat in the second part of his speech, by proposing an important separation between weapons of mass destruction and tactical nuclear weapons, added: “This separation has been overlooked in jurisprudential discussions, while topic recognition in this regard can change the ruling. Weapons of mass destruction like the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have extensive and lasting destruction and are certainly forbidden. But tactical nuclear weapons that are used in a very small range and for military purposes have a different jurisprudential ruling.”

He explained: “Tactical weapons are usually used in a limited radius, for example one kilometer, and contaminate a specific area without the range of destruction reaching civilians. Therefore, if in a war only the enemy’s military forces are targeted, using this type of weapons is permissible.”

Dr. Haqiqat in the final summary of his speech referred to seven basic points:

1. The topic of chemical and nuclear weapons differs from the issue of casting poison, because its effects and range of destruction are more extensive;
2. Regarding the enemy and especially in reciprocity conditions, using war weapons against military forces is permissible;
3. Employing any weapon against civilians is absolutely forbidden and the title ‘public expediency’ cannot permit it;
4. Production and stockpiling of weapons, even nuclear type, with the intention of deterrence is permissible and in cases may be obligatory;
5. Independent reason also rules on the prohibition of using nuclear weapons against civilians;
6. Using nuclear weapons due to destruction of harvest and generation and inhuman effects is definitely forbidden;
7. Even in retaliatory operations, attacking civilians is not permissible, because retaliation in oppression is another oppression.

The member of the Jurisprudence of Politics and International Relations Group of the Research Institute of Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies at the end noted: “A distinction must be made between mass destruction nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear weapons. Tactical weapons that are used to eliminate enemy soldiers in a limited area have no jurisprudential prohibition; but using extensive weapons against civilians is absolutely forbidden.”

In continuation of the session, the critics by examining and analyzing Dr. Haqiqat’s presentation emphasized that before any opinion, it must be precisely specified what is meant by ‘tactical weapon’ and whether its long-term environmental and generational effects are compatible with the criteria of weapons of mass destruction or not? Because each of these stages may have a different jurisprudential ruling and analyses must consider these distinctions.

Also, by expressing doubt about relying solely on verse 60 of Anfal to justify ‘construction for deterrence,’ the concept of (power) in the verse is beyond military weapons and it cannot be simply taken as indicating permissibility of producing nuclear weapons.

In continuation of the session, some speeches of the attendees were dedicated to proposing disagreements about topic recognition; including that some Sunni jurisprudential sources have also discussed modern war tools but most of them have limited using dangerous tools only to necessity cases. The critics also warned that producing war tools even if apparently for ‘deterrence’ can come with the risk of transferring authority to future governments and becoming a prelude to use.

At the end of the session, Dr. Abdulwahab Ferati, secretary of the Jurisprudence of Politics and International Relations Group, presented a short summary and emphasized that the goal of this series of sessions is ijtihadic rereading and providing theoretical backing for strategic decision-making. He mentioned the necessity of continuing the discussion and compiling documented writings for utilization in the policy-making arena.