Answering Chris Bennett’s Gratuitous Misrepresentation of Ayatollah Rūḥānī’s 2014 fatwa

 

Chris Bennett, of cannabis culture fame, appears to have aligned himself with CESNUR (Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni): the cultic network which I wrote about in three recent monographs.[1] They now appear to be using him as a proxy for their grievances against me and smear attacks.

Be that as it may, a recent article by him[2] purports to evaluate the so-called 2014 “psychedelic fatwā” by Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad-Sadiq al-Rūḥānī (1926–2022). Unfortunately, Bennett’s piece suffers from numerous factual inaccuracies, methodological oversights, logical fallacies, outright lying, and misrepresentations of both Shiʿi jurisprudence and the primary Arabic materials. What follows is a point-by-point clarification because Bennett’s “Psychedelic fatwā” hit piece is built on (i) basic mistakes about how Shi‘i fatwās work, (ii) mistranslation and misuse of the Arabic text, (iii) straw-man readings and outright distortions of my claims, and (iv) lots of insinuation where he has zero independent evidence.


 

Is this a real fatwā or “just an email”?

What the document actually is a standard istiftā’ / fatwā format. To wit,

 

باسمه جلّت أسماؤه
كما سبق وأجبناكم من أن الحكم الشرعي هو حلّية مثل هذه النباتات لأن الأصل الأولي في النباتات كما في بقية الأشياء التي لم يرد نص شرعي فيها هو الإباحة. ولا يمكن الحكم بحرمة شيء ما لم يرد فيه نص صريح أو يكون من مصاديق حكم عام ينطبق عليه، فالحكم بحرمة تعاطي الحشيشة مثلاً يرجع إلى كونه يؤدي إلى فقدان العقل، أو ذهابه من خلال حالة السُّكر. وأما ما ورد ذكره من بعض الروايات في الموضوع ففحصناها فوجدنا أن جميعها ضعيف السند لا اعتبار له.

 

Translated again:

In His Name, exalted are His Names!

As we have previously answered you: the legal ruling with respect to plants of this sort is permissibility (ḥilliyya), for the primary presumption regarding plants–as with other things for which no specific legal text has been revealed–is permissibility (al-ibāḥa). One cannot rule something forbidden (ḥarām) unless an explicit text exists to that effect, or unless it clearly falls under a general prohibition that applies to it. Thus the ruling that consuming hashish, for example, is forbidden returns to the fact that it leads to loss of intellect, or its disappearance through a state of intoxication (sukr). As for the reports (riwāyāt) mentioned on this subject, when we examined them we found them all to be weak in chain of transmission and therefore of no probative value (lā iʿtibār lahā).

 

That is exactly the kind of one-paragraph, signed, written reply that is called a fatwā in Twelver practice: a marjaʿ’s (source of emulation) written answer to an istiftāʾ. It does not need to be put on a website, typeset in a book, or pushed to Iranian media to count as a fatwā for the questioner and those who follow that marjaʿ. Bennett slides from “it wasn’t publicly posted” to “therefore it isn’t really a fatwā.” This reveals his complete ignorance of Shi‘i fiqh (jurisprudence) and its processes. Yet his core intellectual dishonesty in that piece rests upon the gratuitous assumption that his Western anglophone audience who don’t read Arabic and are not Shi‘i will not notice his ignorance masked as a clever deception, and will just take his word for it.

However, most fatwās issued every day by marājiʿ (sources of emulation) are private written replies. Public posting is a separate question. So:

  • Bennett admits there is a text I translated.
  • He admits it bears Rohani’s name.
  • He then declares it “no fatwā” purely because it was not used in Iranian policy and not mirrored on rohani.ir.

But that’s not how marjaʿīya works. Thus, here Bennett has committed a basic category error.

 

What the ruling actually says (vs what Bennett claims it says)

The core of the ruling is permissibility, not prohibition. Bennett does not seem to have noticed the difference. The legal heart of the text is:

“الحكم الشرعي هو حلّية مثل هذه النباتات … الأصل الأولي … هو الإباحة.”
“The legal ruling is the permissibility (ḥilliyya) of plants of this sort … the primary presumption is permissibility (ibāḥa).”

That is not “much ado about nothing.” In Shi‘i jurisprudence, when a senior marjaʿ explicitly applies aṣālat al-ibāḥa to a named class of things (here, “such plants”) in spite of knowing they are psychoactive, that is a clear permissive ruling unless and until further evidence of sukr (intoxication that annihilates the ʿaql/reason) is shown. Bennett’s line is basically: “Because it’s using a standard principle, it doesn’t count.” But that is how all fatwās work: they apply general usūlī (foundation) principles to concrete cases. His “nothing to see here” spin ignores that application is exactly what gives the text force.

 

The “weak chains” sentence is misused

The last sentence:

“وأما ما ورد ذكره من بعض الروايات في الموضوع ففحصناها فوجدنا أن جميعها ضعيف السند لا اعتبار له.”

is explicitly about riwāyāt – ḥadīth reports (and not Quranic text) – not about modern scientific data, MAPS papers, or visionary anecdotes. In other words: “As for some narrations mentioned on this subject, we examined them and found that all of them have weak chains…”

Bennett repeatedly glosses this as if Rohani is condemning “the copious amount of data” we sent, calling them “weak chains” and “not authentic.” That’s simply false. Modern academic studies are not “riwāyāt” with isnād (chains of narrators); that word refers to traditional ḥadīth reports about plants/intoxicants. Rohani is saying: the ḥadīth evidence that might have been used to prohibit the plants is not usable. That actually strengthens the permissive side of the argument; it does not weaken it. So he flipped the meaning:

  • Correct: “Ḥadīth evidence against these plants is weak, therefore we rely on the principle of ibāḥa.”
  • Bennett’s spin: “Evidence for these plants is weak, therefore the ruling is nothing.”

That’s an overt misrepresentation by Bennett.

 

Bennet’s cannabis shoehorn comparison

The hashish example:

“فالحكم بحرمة تعاطي الحشيشة مثلاً يرجع إلى كونه يؤدي إلى فقدان العقل، أو ذهابه من خلال حالة السُّكر.”

is carefully framed as a contrast:

  • Hashish is ḥarām (forbidden) because it does cause intoxication and loss of intellect.
  • These other plants fall under ibāḥa unless proven to do the same.

Bennett uses that to drag the whole thing back into the existing cannabis debate and then flood the reader with modern Iranian drug-policy history, which has nothing to do with the specific legal question we raised in 2012–14[3] or with the actual scope of Rohani’s answer. The fact that the Islamic Republic criminalizes all sorts of things a marjaʿ may treat as technically ḥalāl (or vice versa) is standard, never mind the fact that Rohani was actually one of several dissident Ayatollahs to the regime. He also distorts my claim, which was never “this fatwā rewrote Iran’s criminal code,” yet Bennett spends paragraphs “disproving” exactly that straw-man which was never asserted anywhere.

 

The “Only Wahid says so” – the sole-source smear

Bennett keeps repeating a mantra: “The sole primary source for the fatwā is N. Wahid Azal.” From that he invites the reader to treat the whole thing as an “urban legend.”

But the material I actually made public already contains:

  • The question letter from Nabīl in Beirut.
  • The Arabic fatwā page from Rohani’s office with code, signature, and seal.

I am not the “sole source” even in my own narrative; I am a translator and disseminator of a correspondence that involved multiple interlocutors and the office of a marjaʿ. Bennett simply ignores the documentary trail and treats my public caution about privacy (not dumping the entire correspondence verbatim) as if it were evidence of fabrication. Again, that’s argument from silence, not evidence of deceit.

He also quietly shifts between:

  • “Sole source for the existence of any fatwā” (which is false; there is a written Arabic page), and
  • “Sole source for the global media spin about psychedelics being ḥalāl”.

He blends those two to suggest I forged or invented the core ruling. He has no proof of that, just assertion by smear – a typical CESNUR tactic.

 

Double standards with comparators

He approvingly cites Islam and cannabis: Legalisation and religious debate in Iran and the 8-Ayatollah Q&A as “closer to a real fatwā” than my document – but:

  • Those are also individual replies to istiftā’āt that someone compiled.
  • They were also not originally released as big public “fatwās to the entire umma.”
  • They too rely on exactly the same usūlī principles (absence of explicit text = ibāḥa, limited by harm / sekr).

So: when a Western academic paper does this, he treats it as weighty jurisprudential material. When I do it, via an actual marjaʿ’s office, it’s downgraded to “just some email answers” because that fits his narrative that my work is overblown. But he can’t have it both ways.

 

Invented claims vs what I actually said

There are places where he attributes to me lines that simply are not in the Arabic text and were never presented by me as literal quotations from Rohani:

  • He says I claim the fatwā states “provided it be under the direction and supervision of qualified experts (ahl al-ikhtiṣāṣ), and that such plant substances as a rule do not impair the mind.”

This was stated verbatim in writing to Nabil Hamed. Bennett is free to review the Arabic correspondence literature linked below. Yet he sets up a fake mismatch: “look, those words aren’t here, therefore he’s lying,” rather than distinguishing between quotation and extrapolated jurisprudential correspondence across the eighteen-month dialogue.

He then keeps insisting I portray the ruling as “the equivalent of the Vatican approving psychedelics.” That’s rhetoric about symbolic significance, not a technical claim that Rohani’s office changed canon law for the entire Muslim world. I was quite explicit that this was a Twelver Shi‘i marjaʿ’s view, not a statutory reform on a state level. Bennett cleary does not understand the difference. In other words, he repeatedly collapses my advocacy framing into alleged forgery of the primary text – a red herring fallacy.

 

Misleading use of Iranian criminal law

A big part of his “debunking” is just:

  • Psychedelics remain prohibited by Iranian narcotics law.
  • No public arrests centred on ayahuasca.
  • No Iranian ministry has cited this fatwā.

All of that is perfectly compatible with my actual position, which I also unequivocally mentioned in my lecture in Ibiza during Fall 2014 and underscored:

  • A fatwā is a religious ruling, not a statute.
  • Iranian drug laws have long been out of sync with older Shi‘i permissive stances on many substances (as he himself notes about cannabis).
  • I never claimed Rohani’s ruling had been taken up as state policy; I presented it as a jurisprudential opening and symbolic precedent.

So the whole “Much Ado About Nothing” section reads as if I’d promised a revolution in Iranian state law and then failed to deliver it. That’s never what the 2014 interview or my public lecture about it in Ibiza claimed. Perhaps Bennett ought to go back to the source material and peruse them again.

 

Character smear grafted onto a technical discussion

The last third of the article stops being about the fatwā at all and simply pivots into setting me up as a crank according to Bennett’s butthurt definitions:

  • “Controversial individual,”
  • “outlandish claims,”
  • “nasty and aggressive Internet troll,” etc.

Those assertions are supported not by neutral third-party sources but by cherry-picked hostile forum posts and his own Part 2 article (which itself is based on decades of Bahā’ī polemic, Duginist doxxing, and more recent CESNUR smear). None of that is relevant to whether the Arabic text says what I said it says, or whether a Rohani fatwā exists. This is where the legal defamation angle sharpens: he uses the technical confusion he has created around the fatwā to frame me as dishonest, mentally unstable, and dangerous – not just “wrong about a legal point.” That’s way beyond fair comment on a public theological or jurisprudential dispute. Bennett has ventured into outright actionable criminal defamation – which he will indeed be held accountable for.

 

Reiteration

So the 2014 text by Rohani is a fatwā (ruling) for a muqallid (follower), regardless of later publication.

1.     Substance of the ruling

o   The text explicitly applies aṣālat al-ibāḥa to “plants of this sort,” declaring their legal status as permissible unless they clearly cause sukr and loss of intellect.

o   The only thing it rejects as “weak” are certain ḥadīth reports, not modern scientific data.

2.     Bennett’s distortions

o   He repeatedly misreads “riwāyāt” (ḥadīth) as if it referred to Western scientific evidence rather than religious narrations.

o   He treats lack of web-publication as proof that no fatwā exists, which misunderstands marjaʿ practice.

o   He refutes straw-men claims I never made (that the fatwā changed Iranian criminal law) while ignoring what I actually did claim (a permissive jurisprudential precedent).

3.     Smear tactics

o   Having muddied the factual waters, he uses the piece to portray me personally as dishonest, mentally ill, and dangerous, based on long-standing sectarian hostility rather than independent investigation.

Bennett then repeatedly asserts that the ruling “is not a fatwā” because it was not publicly posted on rohani.ir or announced in Iranian media.

Correction:

In Twelver Shiʿi jurisprudence, a fatwā is any written or oral legal response of a marjaʿ to a formal istiftāʾ (legal query). Most fatwās issued by marājiʿ:

  • are private,
  • are delivered by letter or email,
  • are binding on the questioner & followers,
  • and are not published online.

Publication is not a definitional criterion of a fatwā. Thus, Bennett’s premise is grounded in a Sunni-leaning popular misunderstanding of what constitutes a fatwā in the Shiʿi seminary tradition (ḥawza).

 

Misrepresentation of the Arabic Text

Claim:

Bennett writes that the ruling dismisses “all the evidence” provided in the correspondence as “weak chains.”

Correction:

The sentence in question reads:

“وأما ما ورد ذكره من بعض الروايات … وجدناها ضعيف السند لا اعتبار له.”

The word riwāyāt in Twelver fiqh refers exclusively to hadith reports, i.e., narrations with chains of transmission (isnāds).
It does not refer to:

  • contemporary medical papers,
  • ethnobotanical data,
  • neuroscience studies, or
  • visionary anecdotes.

Thus, the ruling states:

“The hadith evidence against these plants is weak and non-probative.” This strengthens—not weakens—the permissibility assessment. Bennett’s interpretation is philologically incorrect and outright wrong.

 

The Legal Core of the Fatwā

Claim:

Bennett claims the ruling contains “no endorsement” of permissibility.

Correction:

The legal core (ḥukm sharʿī) explicitly states:

“الحكم الشرعي هو حلّية مثل هذه النباتات … الأصل الأولي … الإباحة.”

Translation:

“The legal ruling concerning these plants is permissibility (ḥilliyya); the primary principle governing them is permissibility (ibāḥa).”

In usūl al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence), this is a clear permissive ruling unless there is evidence the substance causes sukr (intoxication that annihilates reason). Rohani distinguishes:

  • Hashish is forbidden because it causes intoxication;
  • “plants of this sort” are permissible unless proven intoxicating.

That distinction is central to Shiʿi jurisprudence and is accurately represented in the correspondence.

 

Ignoring the Normative Operation of Aṣālat al-Ibāḥa

Claim:

Bennett argues that because the ruling applies the “default principle of permissibility,” it lacks significance.

Correction:

This principle—aṣālat al-ibāḥa—is a foundational legal maxim in Shiʿi fiqh. Its application to a novel class of psychoactive plants is:

  • methodologically precise,
  • jurisprudentially consequential,
  • and historically relevant.

The fact that Rohani applies a major usūlī maxim to psychoactive botanicals is precisely what makes the ruling significant. Of course, Bennett is too arrogant as well as too dense to get a few English academic text on Shi’I jurisprudence to at least educate himself

 

Conflation of State Law and Religious Law

Claim:

Bennett writes extensively about Iranian narcotics law to argue the fatwā has “no effect.”

Correction:

State law (qanūn) and religious legal opinion (fatwā) are distinct domains in contemporary Iran. No claim was ever made that:

  • the fatwā changed Iranian criminal law,
  • or that psychedelic use is legal under state narcotics statutes.

The significance of the ruling lies in:

  • its jurisprudential reasoning,
  • its theological context,
  • and its reception in Western entheogenic discourse.

Bennett critiques a claim that no scholar ever made. In other words, he sets up a red herring fallacy that has no basis in any but his warped stoner reality.

 

False Attribution of Statements Not Claimed in the Fatwā

Claim:

Bennett asserts that I falsely claim the fatwā includes statements such as:

  • “under the guidance of qualified experts,”
  • “substances as a rule do not impair the mind,” etc.

Correction:

The first is a statement made in writing to Nabil Hamed in 2014 and the second was not an assertion made at all. Bennett conflates:

  • fatwā text,
  • with legislative advocacy.

This is academically sloppy and misleading, to put it mildly.

 

Mischaracterization of Source Independence

Claim:

Bennett writes that I am “the sole primary source” for the ruling.

Correction:

The correspondence involved:

  • the Beirut-based Shiʿi academic Nabil Hamed (the questioner),
  • the Arabic originals in the Ayatollah’s office,
  • and the publicly posted Arabic scan bearing code, header, signature, and seal.

These are independent sources of the document. That I released the translation does not make me its “sole source.” Thus, this assertion is factually incorrect.

 

Misuse of Comparator Material

Bennett praises the Iranian article Islam and Cannabis and the 8-marājiʿ Q&A as “more serious” while ignoring that:

  • they are also istiftāʾ responses,
  • many were originally semi-private,
  • and they rely on exactly the same usūlī maxims.

He applies a stricter evidentiary standard to my material than to his comparators, which is inconsistent – demonstrating both ignorance and intellectual dishonesty on Bennett’s part at the same time.

 

Irrelevancies and Personal Attacks

The latter section of Bennett’s article abandons academic analysis entirely and shifts to:

  • personal insinuations,
  • recycled sectarian polemics from Bahā’ī online conflicts,
  • ad hominem attacks unrelated to jurisprudence.

Such material has no place in a scholarly discussion and further undermines the credibility of the piece, never mind of Bennett personally.

 

Conclusion

Bennett’s article does not succeed in its stated aim of evaluating the 2014 ruling. It is undermined by:

1.     incorrect assumptions about Shiʿi fatwā practice,

2.     philological misreadings of the Arabic text,

3.     methodological conflations between jurisprudence and state law,

4.     misattributed claims,

5.     inconsistent use of comparators, and

6.     reliance on personal attacks.

A proper academic assessment must begin from the actual text and its jurisprudential context. When read correctly, the 2014 ruling is a legitimate istiftāʾ response applying the principle of aṣālat al-ibāḥa, with clear implications for the permissibility of certain psychoactive plants under Shiʿi law. It is therefore neither “an urban legend” nor “a misrepresentation,” but an authentic document within the normative structures of Twelver Shiʿi legal practice. Of course, Bennett does not understand any of these things – and in his hit piece has only hung himself with his own rope of adamant stupidity. But I guess times must be tough for an unhinged NARC buffoon like him who have to stoop to taking CESNUR money to criminally smear people for no reason other than the fact that they have lost multiple arguments on all the facts and evidence.

 


[3] See https://archive.org/details/20251122_20251122_1103 and https://archive.org/details/final-istiftaa-entheogens (retrieved 22 November 2025). See also the identical fatwa by the Lebanese cleric Shaykh Ismaeil Hariri who issued the same ruling independently of Rohani, https://archive.org/details/1_20251122_20251122_1151 (retrieved 22 November 2025).

Popular Posts