Moral Animated Stories - Never Trust a Stranger - Urdu Hindi
A partridge and a rabbit get into an argument about their home. This is a story about what happens to them when they blindly trust a stranger to...
A partridge and a rabbit get into an argument about their home. This is a story about what happens to them when they blindly trust a stranger to help them settle their problem.
5m:18s
116811
Ahmadinejad Iran unaffected by Financial Crises - News - English
Iran hails world financial crisis as 'end of capitalism'
Oct 15, 2008
TEHRAN (AFP) — Iranian leaders say the world financial crisis...
Iran hails world financial crisis as 'end of capitalism'
Oct 15, 2008
TEHRAN (AFP) — Iranian leaders say the world financial crisis indicates the end of capitalism, the failure of liberal democracy and divine punishment -- marking the superiority of the Islamic republic's political model.
"The school of Marxism has collapsed and the sound of the West's cracking liberal democracy is now being heard," supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday, recalling the fate of the Soviet Union.
Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is backed by Khamenei, said on Tuesday that "it is the end of capitalism."
Such convictions can be traced back to the ideals of the 1979 Islamic revolution, which Ahmadinejad has sought to revive since he rose to power in 2005.
The firebrand president, who has not missed a chance to denounce Western "decadence" since his election, has exploited the scale of the global crisis to play up his argument.
He benefits from the luxury that the Tehran stock market has been unaffected by the losses that bourses in neighbouring Gulf states have suffered. That stability is attributable to the absence of foreign investors and to the government's firm grip on economic activity.
Several Iranian newspapers, regardless of their reformist or conservative leanings, have also blamed the global economic crisis on excessive liberalism.
And some officials, such as the head of Iran's electoral watchdog body, have come up with less conventional theories and branded the turmoil as "divine punishment."
"These people see the outcome of their bad deeds. This problem has spread to Europe now which makes us happy. The unhappier they are the happier we become," Ayatollah Ali Janati, who heads the Guardians Council, said in last Friday's prayer sermon.
Ahmadinejad has recently echoed that, saying "the reason of their defeat is that they have forgotten God and piety."
The financial crisis should be a divine sign that "the oppressors and the corrupt will be replaced by the pious and believers," he said, adding that "an Islamic banking system will help us survive the current economic crisis."
Ahmadinejad's administration favours such a system, based on interest-free lending, but the system has not been widely implemented and faces criticism by economists.
Elected on a justice campaign, the president has gone on a spending spree to "bring the oil money to the tables" of Iranian people.
But the cash injection to the economy has fuelled inflation, which has risen from around 10 percent at the time of his election to nearly 30 percent.
For Iran's supreme leader, the crisis particularly signifies the superiority of the Islamic republic's political structure, which combines elements of democracy with those of a theocracy.
Khamenei hailed the "victory of the Islamic revolution" in the face of Marxist and liberal ideologies. "Now there is no sign of Marxism in the world and even liberalism is declining," the all powerful leader said.
The Iranian regime deems the concepts of democracy and human rights as "imperialist" tools to dominate other nations.
The Islamic republic thus defends its electoral practice of vetting candidates running for public office according to their religious adherence and its judicial system, which resorts to the death penalty for serious crimes more than any country in the world except for China
6m:56s
34295
[11 Nov 13] Speech to Members of the Soldiers of Islam Mourning...
A small portion of the Farsi is included, but the
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on November 11, 2013 by Ayatollah...
A small portion of the Farsi is included, but the
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on November 11, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with the members of the Soldiers of Islam Mourning Committee.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
The Soldiers of Islam Mourning Committee is an auspicious phenomenon. The idea that our soldiers form mourning committees is a very auspicious and important idea. The pivot of this committee is mourning for Ashura. The other tasks that you referred to are good and necessary subsets, but the pivot is reviving and understanding the depth of Ashura.
One point in this regard is that the connection between the words \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"committee\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" and \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"soldiers\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" has an important meaning. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Soldiers\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" means those people who engage in jihad in the face of the enemy. Jihad includes \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"moqatele\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Moqatele\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" means a military war. Jihad is a combination of different wars such as military wars, intellectual wars, psychological wars and social wars. A combination of these things is jihad and jihad includes all of these wars. One of the characteristics of jihad is the existence of an enemy. Not any effort is called jihad. It is possible that someone engages in scientific work, but this may not be jihadi work. Jihad is a movement which is launched in the face of a hostile act and a hostile enemy. Those people who engage in jihad in the way of God and who enjoy a jihadi characteristic and spirit will realize that this is a real blessing for their hearts and souls.
Jihad is necessary because human societies are not devoid of enemies. They may have few or many enemies. Sometimes, like our society, they have many enemies and sometimes they do not. But in any case, they have an enemy. Therefore, if a society has an internal force for confronting the enemy - this force is comprised of soldiers and mujahids - then it can have a feeling of security. But if it does not enjoy this force, then it will be like a body that suffers from lack of white blood-cells which are in charge of fighting against infection. In such circumstances, all kinds of diseases may afflict this society.
The effort of this group of people to revive and commemorate Ashura and to mourn for Hussein ibn Ali (a.s.) is very appropriate and necessary. Therefore, the essence of this connection - that is to say, the connection between mourning committees and soldiers - is very blessed and good. You should not abandon this and you should preserve it as much as you can.
Another point is that the word \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"heyat\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [committee] means lack of order in the conventional sense of the word. They say that such and such a person acts in a heyati way. This means that he acts in a disorganized way. Perhaps we can say that you are the first people to impose order on an organization which is disorderly by nature. This is a very good thing.
Well, why does the word \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"heyati\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" mean disorderly in the conventional sense of the word? This is because when someone enters an Imam Hussein (a.s.) heyat, no one tells them where to sit and where not to sit and when to come and when to go. All the movements and comings and goings are based on the will of the people and this originates in faith. This is a very good thing and you should preserve it. You should preserve the committee\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s relationship with what people love and believe in. You should preserve the interest that the hearts of people have in this committee. That is to say, it should not be the case that the committee acts in a formal way.
In my opinion, the centers that you should work in are Hussainiyahs. You do not need bureaucratic organizations. Hussainiyahs, heyats and mosques are the centers that you should engage in. If we affiliate this committee to an organization and if we specify a multi-storey building for that with bureaucratic equipment, this is not a committee anymore. I fear that it may face certain problems. I am not saying that it will not be a committee, but in my opinion, the nature of such committees requires the enthusiastic participation of the people in mourning ceremonies for Imam Hussein (a.s.). This is what exerts a powerful effect on them. This is what the Revolution originated from. At least, it can be good ground for growing revolutionary virtues and teachings.
The next point which is very important is the issue of nurturing panegyrists and protecting them against errors and mistakes. This is very important. One of our serious problems is really this. Panegyrists have acquired a bad name in this regard, but it is not particular to panegyrists. This issue is not particular to panegyrists and other people in charge of such affairs. It has been witnessed that those people who take the minbar and those who recite eulogies for Ashura - including panegyrists, those who have minbar and other such people - have said inappropriate things. Sometimes you and I have meeting and talk and I may say an inappropriate thing. This is not a problem because it is between you and me. This is not important. But sometimes, we have an audience of one thousand, 10 thousand or 50 thousand people and sometimes, this audience turns into millions of people. In such circumstances, we should see what effect an inappropriate and wrong statement may exert on our audience. A number of people may accept this wrong statement and they may learn a wrong concept. A number of people may reject this statement and they may take an instant dislike towards the essence of religion. Besides, there may be an angry argument between certain groups of people.
Notice that certain deviations may emerge as a result of this wrong statement. Since long ago, we have seen that sometimes panegyrists perform rowzas that are obviously wrong, but they continue to perform because in order to make a few people shed tears. This is not particular to the present time. Since I was a child, I have participated in mourning ceremonies and I have listened to people who took the minbar. Should we make people shed tears at any price?
You can narrate the event and you can do it in an artistic way in order to produce strong effects on people, but you should not say things which are false. I have heard that, addressing the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.) a panegyrist said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Whatever you have is because of Imam Hussein (a.s.)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". Notice how wrong this is. How can someone talk such nonsense about the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.)? Whatever Imam Hussein (a.s.) has is because of the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.). Whatever he has is because of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.). Why do they not understand such concepts? Besides, they claim that they are good panegyrists and they say whatever crosses their mind. In my opinion, we should attach great significance to such issues.
The next point is concerning the issue which was raised by Mr. Nejat as well. He is right. Such committees cannot be secular. We do not have secular Imam Hussein (a.s.) committees. Anyone who is interested in Imam Hussein (a.s.) is also interested in political and jihadi Islam and the kind of Islam which engages in fighting, offering blood and laying down one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s life. This is the meaning of faith in Imam Hussein (a.s.). If a panegyrist takes care not to enter into political discussions, this is wrong. Of course, this does not mean that whatever political event takes place in the country, we should bring it up in rowzas and we should adopt specific orientations - whether revolutionary or anti-revolutionary - towards it. This is not what I mean, but revolutionary and Islamic thoughts and the auspicious guidelines which Imam (may God bestow paradise on him) formulated in our country should be brought up in such ceremonies.
This task is a great and important task. The best people who can perform rowzas for Imam Hussein (a.s.) are mujahids in the way of God and these young soldiers. You should appreciate the value of this and you should provide guidance. This can be a bright and shining spring for enlightening the minds of the people and the audience and it can improve them in terms of Islamic and religious teachings.
How good it is to pay attention to the issue of reading the Holy Quran in mourning ceremonies. How good it is to employ Islamic, revolutionary and Quranic concepts in mourning ceremonies. Sometimes, when they mourn, people say certain clichés such as \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Hussein vay\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". Well, this has no value and one learns nothing from repeating \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Hussein vay\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". When the audience says such clichés, you can raise revolutionary, Islamic and Quranic issues and issues which are related to the present time. When the audience repeats it, this becomes internalized in their minds. This is very valuable. This is a task that cannot be carried out by anyone except you. No media network can inculcate religious teachings into the minds and the hearts and souls of people. Therefore, this is an important and great task. I hope that Allah the Exalted rewards and bestows success on you so that you can carry out this task in the best way possible.
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings
9m:28s
31727
[24 July 2013] Sayed Nasrallah Speech at Islamic Resistance Women Iftar...
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=103321&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=14&s1=1
S. Nasrallah: EU...
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=103321&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=14&s1=1
S. Nasrallah: EU Decision Means Involvement in any Israeli Aggression
Eslam al-Rihani
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said on Wednesday that the latest EU decision regarding Hezbollah will only doom to failure, advising the European states to soak their paper in water and drink it, for the Resistance will remain vital and victorious by the will of Allah Almighty.
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan NasrallahDuring his speech at the annual Iftar ceremony held by the Women\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Committee of Islamic Resistance Support Association of Hezbollah, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that the resistance has its own presence and influence in the regional equations, and has been always a concern at the Lebanese, Arab, regional and international levels, whether positively or negatively.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"A positive interest from those who believe in the resistance, pin their hopes on it and consider it to be a source of pride, and negative interest from those who consider it a source of threat for their occupation and hegemony,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he said.
His eminence indicated that the Resistance is not on the margin and there is always attempts to eliminate and crush it, whether militarily, politically, morally or culturally, expressing beliefs that such decisions have no more than psychological effects.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The most important for the Lebanese Resistance is to get the support of its people and to express their will, pride and view in defending their land and their sovereignty.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Resistance has gained credibility among people in Lebanon and the Arab and Islamic world and in many places of the world due to its sacrifices and steadfastness because it did not back down, retreat or get defeated and also due to its achievements and field victories.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Resistance has changed the game rules and dropped projects and liberated captives, dignity and sovereignty of Lebanon. It also imposed a leading position for Lebanon in the region and will remain a solid fork in the eye of the Zionists and those who want Lebanon to get worse,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" his eminence added.
Touching on the EU member-states\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' decision that blacklisted what they dubbed \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'the military wing\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' of Hezbollah, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the decision has been announced in the media without issuing a formal statement to unfold its motives, evidence and logic.
His eminence noted that the EU official statement will be issued within days, and the party will see then whether it will hold any argument or logic to be discussed, pointing out that the historical course of the European states confirms that their stance is not subjected to any values.
Thanking all presidents, leaders, personalities and institutions that rejected the EU decision and condemned it, his eminence stated that the party wasn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t surprised by the decision but the leadership has expected it since the previous period.
Iftar 2013Hezbollah Secretary General went on to say that the Zionists have expressed that the decision was the result of diplomatic efforts they exerted, recommending some of those who rejoiced in Lebanon to hide their joy a little bit so they wouldn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t express the same state of happiness as the Israelis.
Sayyed Nasrallah reiterated that the EU countries have insulted themselves and their principles, interests and sovereignty when they submitted to the Israelis and Americans, stating that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"EU countries should know they are giving legal cover for Israel to launch any war on Lebanon because Israel can claim it is waging war on the terrorists.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"These countries make themselves a full partner in the Israeli aggression on Lebanon, on the Resistance and on any target for the resistance in Lebanon.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
The Lebanese Resistance leader asked why the military wing of Israeli army wouldn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t be put on the list of terror? While the EU \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"repeatedly admits that Israel occupies Arab land and does not implement international resolutions since tens of years, and the whole world witnessed the Israeli massacres.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
He also voiced that the EU stance is subjected to the interests and pressures, not to the values and principles, where its effects are nothing more than psychological.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"In this country, resistance fighters fought the Israeli occupation and have endured a lot of pressure and sacrificed martyrs. Then you come to those who are the sons of this people and say they are terrorists. This is a very bad abuse for the fighters, for their people, and for their successive governments that were supporting the Resistance by their ministerial statements,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he said.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This is bad for Lebanon and the Lebanese government and people and not only for Resistance fighters,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he added, stressing that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"this will not undermine our morale.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
Addressing the European states, Sayyed Nasrallah said: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are nationalists even in holidays. You can retake the visas you were granting for us. We do not have money in Europe. We do not have commercial or trade projects in Lebanon or abroad. therefore, this decision has no effects in this regard.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Yesterday, European delegates in Lebanon tried to say that the decision will not affect relations with Lebanon,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" recalling that some in the March 14 bloc are working to frustrate the people and descend walls on their hopes.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This decision aims at making us bow, to force us to step back and to be afraid. But I tell you that all you will get is failure and frustration,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" his eminence told the European Union.
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan NasrallahIn the same context, Hezbollah Secretary General said that those who think that the resistance, which confronted in such days the strongest army in the region over 33 days, will be undermined by a silly decision is either will be subjugated by this decision are either delusional or ignorant.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This decision will not be able to achieve any of its goals and we invite them (EU states) to correct this mistake because it will not lead to result,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he stressed.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Dip it (the decision) in water and drink it,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he added to the EU.
Touching on the local situation, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the other camp in Lebanon will not be able to exploit the decision in their domestic political calculations, or to isolate the party and form a cabinet without it.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"A government without Hezbollah will not be formed, not because we are eager for it but for other things.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
His eminence jokingly suggested that Hezbollah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s ministers in the next government will be of the military wing of the party. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"So do not bet on exploiting the decision internally,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he told the Lebanese political rivals.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We call for the formation of a political government that preserve Lebanon and play in the heart of the storms moving around us.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Resistance will remain and will be victorious by God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Will,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah concluded.
34m:1s
24753
*STRONG CLIP* The Inner Beauty of Women - Hasan Rahimpour Azghadi -...
Professor Hasan Rahimpour Azghadi explains how the West treats women as commodities and explains the logic behind Islamic hijab (dress...
Professor Hasan Rahimpour Azghadi explains how the West treats women as commodities and explains the logic behind Islamic hijab (dress code/veil).
5m:20s
18728
Diskussion om Hijab - English sub Swedish
Diskussion om Hijab
En diskussion som tar upp slöjan (Hijab) ur olika perspektiv med argument för och emot.
Talk about Hijab
A...
Diskussion om Hijab
En diskussion som tar upp slöjan (Hijab) ur olika perspektiv med argument för och emot.
Talk about Hijab
A discussion that addresses the veil (Hijab) from different perspectives with the arguments for and against.
5m:6s
17425
[Arabic] لقاء خاص مع الرئيس بشار الأسد - Bashar...
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the...
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
34m:40s
13961
[English Translation] Interview Bashar Al-Asad - President Syria on...
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the...
DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday,
Following is the full text of the interview:
Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President.
President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness?
President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else.
Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example.
President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces.
Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria?
President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir.
Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel.
President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference?
President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command?
President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance.
Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance?
President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now?
President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak?
President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change.
Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game?
President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do?
President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles?
President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis?
President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names.
Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups?
President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves.
Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month?
President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend.
Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options.
President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see.
Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions?
President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear.
Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term?
President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\\\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government.
Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014?
President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League?
President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations?
President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted?
President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house.
Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel?
President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world.
Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon.
Al-Manar: Thank you.
33m:34s
13442
Martyr Beheshti (R) & Imam Khomeini (R) On Wilayat...
In the occultation of Imam Mahdi (ATFS), our Fuqaha have the general Wilayah (authority) on the Muslim Ummah. And a conditions...
In the occultation of Imam Mahdi (ATFS), our Fuqaha have the general Wilayah (authority) on the Muslim Ummah. And a conditions fulfilling Faqih (or a group of Fuqaha) are to manage and administer the affairs of the Muslim Ummah.
Martyr Beheshti establishes an argument and lists the rationale behind this Islamic model of governance. In addition he lists the qualities and conditions that a Faqih needs to fulfill before he can be given the authority over the Muslim Ummah.
The clip also includes the response of Imam Ruhollah Khomeini when asked that with absolute authority, wouldn\'t the Faqih turn into a dictator? In other words, wouldn\'t Wilayat al-Faqih bring about dictatorship? Watch how Imam (R) responded to this question.
#WilayatulFaqih #WilayatalFaqih #GovernanceOfJurist #PoliticalIslam #PoliticalModel #Imamah #Wilayah #Islam #Politics
5m:1s
13269
Video Tags:
purestream,
media,
production,
martyr
beheshti,
imam
khomeini,
wilayat
al-faqih,
imam
mahdi,
fuqaha,
wilayah,
muslim
ummah,
manage,
occultation,
rational,
islamic
model
of
governance,
qualities,
authority,
absolute
authority,
dictator,
question,
response,
Politics: An Islamic Obligation! | Farsi sub English
This clips shatters the argument of the separation of Islam & Politics. Let\'s hear the arguments from Imam Khomeini and Agha Panahian.
This clips shatters the argument of the separation of Islam & Politics. Let\'s hear the arguments from Imam Khomeini and Agha Panahian.
4m:48s
11108
Video Tags:
Pure,
Stream,
Media,
Pure
Stream,
Pure,
Stream,
Media,
Agha,
Ali,
Reza,
Panahian,
Islamic,
Obligation,
Political,
Statements,
Politics,
Imam,
Khomenei,
Islamic,
Revolution,
Dear Sunnis | BISKIT | English
Biskit is back to tackle the old question: which Islam is true Islam? Sunni or Shia? Of course, we all know the answer, It’s \\\"Shia...
Biskit is back to tackle the old question: which Islam is true Islam? Sunni or Shia? Of course, we all know the answer, It’s \\\"Shia Islam” – according to Shias. And it’s \\\"Sunni Islam” – according to Sunnis. That’s right – the Biskit Guy isn’t here to reply to this polemical argument, but to absolutely bury it once and for all.
#UnityWeek
#OneUmmah
#TheMessengerUnites
#ProphetMuhammad
10m:0s
10674
Video Tags:
Islamic,
Pulse,
IslamicPulse,
Short,
Clips,
Clip,
Scohlar,
Unity,
Week,
Sunni,
Shia,
Muslims,
Islam,
Cast,
Shia
vs
Sunni,
Differences,
IP
biskit
muzaffer
hyder
Why do we call America THE GREAT SATAN? | Farsi Sub English
This powerful clip will answer a very key question for you. Is America today the great Satan or Iblis? What is our argument?
Imam Khamenei, the...
This powerful clip will answer a very key question for you. Is America today the great Satan or Iblis? What is our argument?
Imam Khamenei, the Leader of the Muslim Ummah, explains this.
4m:36s
10106
Video Tags:
purestream,
media,
production,
America,
greatsatan,
powerful,
clip,
keyquestion,
iblis,
imam,
kahmenei,
leader,
muslim,
ummah,
Session 8: Wilayat-e-Faqih | Farsi sub English
This session:
- Arguments for Wilayat-e-Faqih
- First Argument: Intellect
- Second Argument: The Quran
- Continuation of the mission of...
This session:
- Arguments for Wilayat-e-Faqih
- First Argument: Intellect
- Second Argument: The Quran
- Continuation of the mission of Prophets
Hujjatul Islam Qasemi is a Howza teacher in Qom, Iran.
6m:52s
8901
Video Tags:
Qom,
TV,
QomTV,
Wilayat,
Faqih,
Session,
Faqih,
Issues,
Scholar,
Shaykh,
Ustaad,
Qasemi,
Wilayat-e-Faqih,
Quran,
Teachings,
Prophet,
Mohammad,
Howza,
Session 4: The ‘Akhbari’ School of Thought | Farsi sub English
What is the \\\'Akhbari\\\' school of thought? What is its fundamental argument against Taqleed of a Marja\\\'. Is Taqleed in-line with the...
What is the \\\'Akhbari\\\' school of thought? What is its fundamental argument against Taqleed of a Marja\\\'. Is Taqleed in-line with the teachings of Ahl al-Bayt (a) or not? Let\\\'s take a watch.
9m:42s
8680
Video Tags:
Qom,
TV,
QomTV,
School
of
Thought,
Akhbaari,
Ahl
al-Bayt,
Teachings,
Shaykh,
Qasemi,
Howza,
Taqleed,
Marja,
Are Women Sex Objects? | Dr. Rahimpour Azghadi | Farsi Sub English
Are Women Sex Objects? | Dr. Rahimpour Azghadi
Who benefits from scantily dressed women? Should physical and sexual attraction be the basis...
Are Women Sex Objects? | Dr. Rahimpour Azghadi
Who benefits from scantily dressed women? Should physical and sexual attraction be the basis for the respect and honor of women? How long does the beauty and sexual appeal last for a woman? So does physical beauty, attraction, and sexual appeal not have any place in Islam? A well explained argument for why Islam has prescribed Hijab.
It is essential for men and women to understand the philosophy of Hijab and its impact on human society.
#Hijab #Beauty #SexualAttraction #SexObjects #EyeCandy #Freedom #Oppression #Islam
4m:53s
8478
Video Tags:
purestream,
media,
production,
women,
sex,
objects,
drrahimpour,
azghadi,
benefits,
scantily,
dressed,
physical,
sexual,
attraction,
respect,
honor,
beauty,
place,
islam,
argument,
hijab
essential,
men,
philosophy,
[11 February 2013] 34th Anniversary of Islamic Revolution - The Debate -...
Press TV\'s The Debate looks at the 34th Anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. With Sayyed Muhammad Marandi, Christ Bambery and Frederick...
Press TV\'s The Debate looks at the 34th Anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. With Sayyed Muhammad Marandi, Christ Bambery and Frederick A Peterson III - hosted by Marzieh Hashemi. Recorded from the live broadcast on February 10, 2013 at 1830GMT
26m:9s
7926
Session 9: Wilayat-e-Faqih | Farsi sub English
This session:
- The argument of Narrations (hadith)
- Are the narrations of Infallibles a proof?
- How to resolve a dispute between...
This session:
- The argument of Narrations (hadith)
- Are the narrations of Infallibles a proof?
- How to resolve a dispute between believers?
- Imam Sadiq\\\'s (A) guidance
Hujjatul Islam Qasemi is a Howza teacher in Qom, Iran.
9m:24s
7801
Video Tags:
Qom,
TV,
QomTV,
Narrations,
Hadith,
Wilayat-e-faqih,
Qom,
Iran,
Howza,
Teacher,
Infallibles,
Believers,
Guidance,
Narrations,
Peace and Justice Unite Our Struggles - Noreen Fatima - Eng
Noreen Fatima speaking at the Respect Conference 2007. Makes the argument that the principles of peace and justice unite the struggles of all the...
Noreen Fatima speaking at the Respect Conference 2007. Makes the argument that the principles of peace and justice unite the struggles of all the resistance groups.
6m:25s
7071
[01] [Drama] The Chef - English dubbed
A happily married couple runs one of the most successful restaurants in Tehran. He\\\'s the head chef and she\\\'s the manager. But when she goes...
A happily married couple runs one of the most successful restaurants in Tehran. He\\\'s the head chef and she\\\'s the manager. But when she goes on television and starts singing her own praises without also acknowledging her husband\\\'s efforts, he takes offence and leaves the restaurant. What starts out as a small argument keeps escalating until it threatens to tear their family apart.,
44m:6s
6559
Seeking Protection From America? | Sayyid Abbas Musawi | Arabic Sub English
Martyr Sayyid Abbas Musawi trashes the argument of seeking protection from the United States of America. Instead, he invites Muslims towards an...
Martyr Sayyid Abbas Musawi trashes the argument of seeking protection from the United States of America. Instead, he invites Muslims towards an alternative that is in-line with the teachings of the Pure Muhammadan Islam.
1m:57s
6554
Video Tags:
purestream,
media,
production,
protection,
america,
sayyid,
abbas,
musawi,
martyr,
argument,
invite,
muslims,
teachings,
pure,
mohammadan,
islam,
The colonial origins of the global food market - Raj Patel - English
Raj Patel describes a history of the emergence of global food market which was constitutively tied to colonial expansionism and exploitation. The...
Raj Patel describes a history of the emergence of global food market which was constitutively tied to colonial expansionism and exploitation. The argument is on the line that India's food deficiency developed its severity - on an unprecedented scale - only after the colonial agricultural reforms and its integration of local economies into the global. The severe famines that we saw were a result of policies and socio-economic dynamics, not production technology per se. In other words, it was a construction of ‘distribution’ mechanism. Later, some invested their hopes in the so-called "Green Revolution", introduced since the 1960s in India. With the pesticides, chemical rich fertilizers, and GM seeds that came with it, the yields did increase, for a while at least. But increasing yields is one thing and food security another. The new technology, policies, and practices accompanying the "Green Revolution" made the Indian farmers even more vulnerable. The problem they now faced was not only that of ‘distribution’ but also of ‘production’. More than a hundred thousand Indian farmers have committed suicide due to increasing vulnerability in the last two decades. The Indian Punjab, which was the epicenter of the "Green Revolution", is in a severe crisis today and, some suggest that, parts of it "could be(come) barren in 10 to 15 years." A closer look at the history of Bt Cotton and Monsanto's monopolozing policies and years of neo-liberal reforms in India should be quite illuminating for anyone interested in this subject.
4m:51s
6510
Have Softer Approach Against America? | Ayatollah Misbah Yazdi | Farsi...
You must have heard this argument somewhere that if you deal with America in a comparatively softer manner, you wouldn\\\'t have to face...
You must have heard this argument somewhere that if you deal with America in a comparatively softer manner, you wouldn\\\'t have to face America\\\'s aggression and oppression. What is the response of Ayatollah Misbah Yazdi to such proposals? What kind of enmity exists between us and the United States of America?
#DeathToAmerica
1m:33s
6112
Video Tags:
purestream,
media,
production,
Softer,
Approach,
America,
Ayatollah,
Misbah,
argument,
deal,
aggression,
face,
oppression,
response,
proposals,
enmity,
United,
States,
Animated Cartoon - Pororo - A Day in Porong Porong Forest - English
It’s a bright new day in Porong Porong Forest. Crong and Pororo get into an argument in the morning over Crong’s mischievous behavior. The...
It’s a bright new day in Porong Porong Forest. Crong and Pororo get into an argument in the morning over Crong’s mischievous behavior. The friends want Eddy to make a giant bubble, so Eddy has been busy inventing a bubble machine. However, trouble occurs when the bubble flies away carrying Petty inside! The friends panic and try to rescue her, but Petty isn’t worried at all. In fact, she is having a great time flying around in the bubble. Petty eventually gets rescued by Tongtong and lands safely. The sun sets with the friends playing hide and seek, and the day comes to a happy end as everyone enjoys a delicious fish dinner.
11m:0s
6103
Crisis as Opportunity - Life Inc. - Douglas Rushkoff - English
Look forward to watching this. From the trailer it seems that the argument is not a nostalgia for the past. It is deeper. I liked the fact that the...
Look forward to watching this. From the trailer it seems that the argument is not a nostalgia for the past. It is deeper. I liked the fact that the documentary seeks to bring in the larger historical and social context in the picture. Compare that to documentaries like Consuming Kids that focus mostly on hyper-consumerism. Hyper-consumerism I believe is a manifestation of something much larger and deeply pervasive what may be referred to as MATERIALISM. Now how to define and trace the source of materialism are challenging questions. The documentary seems inclined on the rise of capitalism. But it does hint toward renaissance and the transformation in cultural outlook. Would be interested to see how material and cultural are combined in the narrative of this book and movie.
2m:12s
5999
Why Libya? Oil, gold, uranium, weapons tests mean long conflict in US...
The war of intervention in Libya is yet another American illegal adventure, argues Keith Harmon Snow, an independent war correspondent. The...
The war of intervention in Libya is yet another American illegal adventure, argues Keith Harmon Snow, an independent war correspondent. The objective, he says, secured access to Libya's significant oil supply, other mineral resources and defense testing. He says the argument of humanitarianism and stopping a "warlord" was a absolute nonsense. If that argument were true, he contends, there are far more brutal war criminals in African countries the US could have chosen to target.
5m:14s
5916
Insulation Equation - Life Inc. - Douglas Rushkoff - English
Look forward to watching this. From the trailer it seems that the argument is not a nostalgia for the past. It is deeper. I liked the fact that the...
Look forward to watching this. From the trailer it seems that the argument is not a nostalgia for the past. It is deeper. I liked the fact that the documentary seeks to bring in the larger historical and social context in the picture. Compare that to documentaries like Consuming Kids that focus mostly on hyper-consumerism. Hyper-consumerism I believe is a manifestation of something much larger and deeply pervasive what may be referred to as MATERIALISM. Now how to define and trace the source of materialism are challenging questions. The documentary seems inclined on the rise of capitalism. But it does hint toward renaissance and the transformation in cultural outlook. Would be interested to see how material and cultural are combined in the narrative of this book and movie.
2m:23s
5773
Michael Behe makes his case for intelligent design-English
Michael J. Behe is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh...
Michael J. Behe is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known for his argument for irreducible complexity, which asserts that some biochemical structures are too complex to be adequately explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore more probably the result of intelligent design.
21m:15s
5573