Search Result in All

Talking Properly: Politeness or Honesty? “Pious people have superior virtues. Their words are proper.” [Imam Ali (as), The Muttaqin Sermon] At the top of the list of moral virtues, which Imam Ali (as) lists for pious people, are controlling one’s tongue and speaking correctly. “Pious people have superior virtues. Their words are proper.” “Their words are proper” tells us a few things. Being proper does not mean being honest. You can talk honestly and ruin a nation. You can talk honestly and ruin a person. Backbiting is saying something that is true. [One says,] “I’m saying the truth [about him].” You are wrong to say this truth! You shouldn’t say all true things. You shouldn’t talk about a person’s fault when he is absent. Don’t say that. It is even said that when a person backbites you should defend the one who is absent. You shouldn’t say all truths. Proper doesn’t mean honesty. Talking properly is different from talking honestly. Sometimes people talk honestly in order to relieve themselves, but they shouldn’t. They tell others about their sufferings, but they shouldn’t. People sometimes talk honestly and tell others about the good deeds they have done, and that is hypocrisy. People sometimes talk honestly and show their hatred toward others. I can tell you numerous examples of honest words that are not “proper.” But I have to tell you one thing. Speaking the truth, in any area, reduces a person’s mental pressures. When you tell other people’s secrets, you release yourself. When you talk about your own pains, you release yourself. When you talk about your hatred, you release yourself. It’s interesting that some people say any truth and say, “My conscience is at ease this way.” That is not their conscious. They have relieved themselves in a way that God didn’t want. Releasing yourself like this ruins you and makes you cheap. Not all ways of finding ease are good. In the past, some psychologists used to say that if a person’s father has passed away and he has inherited money, since an obstacle has been removed from his life, why should he act like he is upset? He can easily go, have fun and say that he’s happy. Such a society will gradually lose its modesty. Do you know what happens when there is no modesty? When there is no modesty and people relieve themselves by talking honestly, they become weak. When you control your honesty due to your modesty and other boundaries, you will feel a pressure. This pressure makes a person grow and strengthens him. For example, when one gets angry, he shouldn’t curse. This brings a pressure. [One says,] “I honestly ask God to make you wretched! I wish you didn’t exist on this earth!” You should have controlled this! The result of some kinds of honesty is weakness. This pressure makes a person grow. It strengthens him. Should we push children to be honest or polite? Politeness. What is politeness? It’s basically modesty. Politeness tells a person what he shouldn’t say. Is politeness more valuable or honesty? If you don’t attack me, I’ll say politeness. A child likes to say many things honestly. But you should tell him, “You should observe these rules when you talk. This is politeness.” “Pious people have superior virtues. Their words are proper.” =================================== Follow us: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Panahianen/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/PanahianEN/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/PanahianEN Telegram: https://telegram.me/Panahianen/ ==============================

A sunni Aalim talking about Iran and Incident of Tabas when American plan failed

Syed-e-Moqawamat Syed Hasan talking about Revenge of Haji Imad - Arabic

Kids Program - Talking to Kids and interviewing them about likes and dislikes - Farsi

[01 Mar 2013] Pakistan pondering talking to Taliban - English

[8th May 2016] Talking about legislation, lots of stuff has to be changed: Matthew Fogg | Press TV English

This session: - Why does one disclose a secret? - Reason 1: Excessive talking - The habit of talking too much - Reason 2: Showing off - \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"I know\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" attitude - More reasons Hujjatul Islam Haq Panah is a Howza teacher in Qom, Iran.

Rahber-e-Muazzam Ayatollah Khamenei Talking with Industrialist, Technologist and Engineers From Sahar TV

Rahber-e-Muazzam Ayatollah Syed Ali Khamenei Talking with Industrialist, Technologist and Engineers From Sahar TV

Sayed Hasan Nasrullah talking about Shaheed Murtaza Mutahhari - Persian dubbed

Gilad Atzmon on Lauren Booth's Remembering Palestine (Press TV) talking about BDS & Integrity. We spoke about BDS and its crucial role but also about the corrosive impact of liberal Zionist support.

Ayatollah Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah talking about How to Become Revolutionary Muslim.

Faisal Meqdad was talking to reporters at a news conference on the sidelines of the Geneva-two conference. The remarks were made after the morning session between the Syrian government delegation and that of the opposition\'s was adjourned over the latter\'s support for the U-S decision to continue arming terrorist groups in Syria. The afternoon session of talks between the two sides was cancelled earlier due to disagreements over the basis of the talks. The Geneva-two talks have already been deadlocked amid sharp differences between the two sides. The foreign-backed opposition is demanding the formation of a government without President Bashar al-Assad. But Damascus says it won\'t accept the request, as it\'s not included in the Geneva communique which has already been announced as the basis of the talks.

BBC - Simpson\\\'s World in Holy city of Qom, Iran - talking to Ayatollah Mahdi Hadavi Tehrani

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.

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.

Iran's Secretary General of the High Council for Human Rights, Mohammad Javad Larijani has said that the recent claims by the International Atomic Energy Agency against Tehran are “laughable.” In his November 8 report on Iran's nuclear program, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano claimed that Iran had engaged in activities related to developing nuclear weapons before 2003, adding that these activities “may still be ongoing.” Based on the report, which Iran has called "unfounded and unbalanced," the IAEA Board of Governors on Friday passed a new resolution on the Islamic Republic's nuclear activities. The resolution voices "deep and increasing concern" over Tehran's nuclear program and also calls for Iran and the IAEA to intensify dialogue to resolve the dispute over the issue. Larijani made the remarks in a heated television debate aired on the American channel MSNBC. US president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. Richard Haass, Mike Barnicle and John Mitchun were the other guests on the television debate. What follows is a rough transcription of the interview: MSNBC: Let's go to the heart of the matter when it comes to Iran, the headlines of the past week, the IAEA report found evidence of nuclear weapons program in Iran and you are quoted as saying that is “quite laughable.” Why sir? Larijani: The reason is very simple. There is no single evidence in that. These allegations which is aired again is based on a document which was put to us four years ago based on a laptop somewhere found by United States authorities. And at that time, four years ago, it has been discussed with the agency and the conclusion was that none of these allegations could be verified. So by a letter it has been closed- the whole issue. Then again it has been renewed and [let me] just give you an example. A good part of this so-called document which is on the laptop, for example lecture notes that somebody presented in Brussels or at some universities. Some of them are parts of some textbook as put together with pictures, formulas, so it is totally inconclusive. MSNBC: Let's back up. Before I send this to Richard Haass- are you saying it doesn't exist? There is no nuclear program? Larijani: Well we have a very extensive nuclear program but not to the direction of producing arms. Our nuclear project is very extensive, very advanced. We are number one in the Middle East but we are not pursuing the nuclear armament for two basic reasons. Number one there is a Fatwa by Ayatollah Khamenei, the leader and it is against the Islamic jurisprudence to build and use mass destructing weapons. It is Haram we call it, unlawful. And secondly, it doesn't add to our security. It is more liability than asset for us. Our military muscle is strong enough to repel or to deter any imminent threat and this is basically very important achievement. MSNBC: Richard Haass, put this into perspective for us. What the reports were saying and what this gentleman is saying. Haass: Well quite frankly it is impossible to take the Iranian denial seriously. They are preposterous. The International Atomic Energy Agency taking information from all the member states in the United Nations have put together a comprehensive and extraordinarily damning report. And what there is, is a pattern, not a single incident, a pattern over years of Iranian program to move in the direction of developing nuclear weapons. We see a procurement mechanism to gain access to all sorts of equipment, we see all sorts of undeclared efforts to produce nuclear material now up to 20 percent well on its way to what it needs to produce a weapon, most important there is now serious evidence about the Iranian testing of the implosive device that would actually be the heart of the nuclear weapon. So the idea that the Iranians have all these underground and undeclared facilities, that they have been misleading the International Atomic Energy Agency for years, the idea they're doing this- this oil rich country in order to produce electricity? If you believe that you seriously have to believe in the tooth fairy. MSNBC: Sir this doesn't sound like preposterous, little pieces of information that were roaming together randomly. Larijani: Well the whole scenes of allegation is produced and initiated by the United States. It seems there is a good machinery to produce perpetual allegation against Iran, it is not only one case. I am telling you exactly that there are no secret programs in our nuclear program and development. Iran's transparency is far ahead of United States, far ahead of UK, far ahead of France and incomparable to Israel which is a renegade state in the sense of NPT. Barnicle: So you allow inspectors to just come into Iran. Larijani: The inspectors are coming to Iran periodically, the cameras are there 24 hours. This is quite obvious. Haass: But the whole concept the way this works, just when you talk about inspectors, let's just be clear, I am sure if everyone watching this will understand, the entire international nuclear inspection effort depends upon the willingness of the country in question to cooperate fully. This is a gentlemen's agreement. They declare their facilities that are involved in the nuclear business then the inspectors come in and look at them. If they do not declare facilities the inspectors don't give a chance and the problem is this is a gentlemen's agreement in a world where not every country is a gentleman. So Iran quite frankly has undeclared facilities and undeclared programs which the inspectors had not had access to and the reason we only know about it is that member states, not simply the United States sir, but many, many member states of the United Nations have provided independent information to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which by the way you know and I know is not controlled by the United States. We have fundamental differences with this agency over the years including over Iraq. We had fundamental differences and we've also had differences over Iran where we the United States felt, this agency was not being nearly tough enough. So now they have come in with an extraordinarily damning report and Iranian officials can dismiss it. MSNBC: So if this is a gentlemen's agreement, the gentlemen certainly don't agree and sir, you seem very confident and almost as if it's funny it's interesting because we interviewed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about this about a year ago, off camera, and he too seemed very comfortable about his position which is similar to yours. And if you are so comfortable with your position about the lack of nuclear armament and the facilities that the IAEA is talking about, why not let inspectors completely come in? Open the door let them come in and see what you have. Larijani: Well the mechanism that the gentleman addressed is not complete because first of all there is no single secret installment or activity which is concealed from the agency. Secondly, two years ago we asked the agency tell us all the questions you have and he managed to put to us six groups of questions. The questions were raised by themselves not dictated by us. So one by one groups of inspectors came to Iran and we cleared them up and there is official letters from them this group has been finished then we moved to another one. Well it doesn't make sense that every morning somebody says we guess there is some secret things done there. There should be foundation for this allegation. What do you mean the door should be open? They should ask where do you want to inspect? Did they want to inspect my bedroom or other places? I mean it doesn't make sense. Barnicle: A few moments ago when you mentioned the nuclear programs of other nations I detected a definite edge in your voice when you mentioned the state of Israel. Do you fear an attack from the state of Israel on your nuclear facilities? Larijani: Well I am beyond the fear. What is the difference between us and Israel? Israel has a bomb, not a member of NPT; it doesn't disclose anything to agency, nothing wrong with it. You see what the double standard is in here. We are member of NPT, they periodically come to Iran, their cameras are there, we don't have the weapon then the whole pressure is put on us. No, not at all. We don't fear any attack from anyone. We take it serious in our calculation but we don't fear. There is a difference between that. Mitchum: Given your tone again Sir when you talk about Israel, just a second ago why shouldn't we suspect that there would be ambitions for Iran to join the club of which Israel is a part with the nuclear arms? Larijani: We are very advanced in the nuclear technology which is a matter of pride for us and that gentleman mentioned that we have plenty of gas and oil with all good calculations, the age of this is up to 20-25 period, 25 years from now. It means that if we don't have it, then we should beg in front of the Western countries to light our houses and we know how bad they are treating us in this area. We are right now very happy that we have the first power plant, we know how to make the fuel. We already have more than 25 percent share of sodalite and erudite they don't give us a bit of this fuel that we need, even the twenty percent that we needed for Tehran. Haass: It's important to keep in mind we are not talking about an established democracy that treats its own people with respect, we are talking about a country also that is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. So this is obvious and understandable concern about what Iran is doing. Larijani: In terms of record I think United States of America is the largest and the greatest country supporting terrorism. The records of terrorist activity which is supported by the tax money of these people is enormous, I can go one by one. Barnicle: Wait a minute. This is a free country. And part of our gift is we have the liberty and the freedom to say anything and to sound foolish, to sound absurd, to sound smart. That's absurd saying that America is the biggest terrorist nation in the world. My question to you Sir is, you seem like a really nice guy, alright, why doesn't your country be a better neighbor? Larijani: We have fantastic relations with all of our neighbors... Barnicle: Really? [laughing] Larijani: Definitely, but the policy of demonizing Iran, a very important policy which is pursued in the region- well it has its own benefit. Barnicle But it's just in little things, like the American tourists cross the border, supposedly cross the border, you grab them, you scoop them, you hold them for months on end. Why? Larijani: This is a very simple question I answered before; suppose the security of your people... Barnicle You're here... Larijani: No, I'm here with visa- It's quite different. [Suppose] The security of the United States' people, on a patrol with Mexico elsewhere they pick 3 Iranians and ask them why are you here? They say well we are just walking in the desert. Well, with the whole hostility and suspicion which is between the two countries, you are in here to blow up somewhere definitely they will be put into jail for years if not in Guantanamo, they bring them somewhere else. It took a lot of time that we convince- I was working on this case because they were like me from ... Berkeley. I talked with their families, managed to contact between them and their families when they were arrested- for their families to come to Iran to take the suspicion away. This is very natural for security of people to suspect a cross bordering which is in the most volatile regional area of Iran- in which there is daily shooting over there. Barnicle Ok. They're going to blow up the desert. What is the root? What do you think is the root of Iranian paranoia towards the United States and towards many of its neighbors? What is the root of this paranoia? Is it the fear that we find out about your nuclear program? Larijani: We don't have any paranoia about our neighbors. We are very suspicious of American paranoia with us. The question is what is wrong with Iran that this persistent hostility... Barnicle: You have a track record of international terrorism. Larijani: This is not true. We are ourselves the victim of international terrorism- terrorism in the area. Let me ask you, who was helping Al-Qaida and Taliban for years while we were at war with them in Afghanistan? The United States of America. The money from the United States was pouring to Al-Qaida and Taliban- the idea was we should curb Iran by another religious front. Is it correct? Haass: No it's not correct. The United States did support the Mujahidin; obviously in order to get rid of the Soviet... to say that the United States supported Al-Qaida is again preposterous- the fact is that Iran is supporting terrorism in Lebanon, it's supporting groups like Hezbollah, groups like Hamas; it is involved in Iraq; it is involved in Afghanistan. Iran has basically become a regional power that is trying to destabilize many countries, trying to make them in some ways heavily influenced by Tehran and that is simply a fact of life- which again is one of the reasons the world is so concerned about Iranian nuclear program. How do we know Iran will not become even more aggressive? How do we know that nuclear materials will not end in the hands of a group like Hezbollah? What do we see about Iran's track record that would lead us to believe that Iran in any way would be responsible with nuclear material? This is a genuine concern and if you dismiss it as laughable Sir you are seriously underestimating not simply the American, not simply the Israeli, but I would suggest the world's concern over the direction your government is heading. Larijani: The disastrous thing is the blind policy of the United States in supporting carte blanche renegade Israel which is the source of all tension in the region. If you call Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist groups- they are fighting to be given the permission to live. What about Israel? Israel is involved in government sponsored terrorism. Kills anybody who thinks that it's not correct and deprives millions of people from basic tenures of life. 60 years of atrocity in that area is supported carte blanche by the US, this is even against the basic interests of that nation- they don't know it. Mitchum:Sir do you recognize the right of Israel to exist? Larijani: We recognize the rights of Jews, Christians and Muslims to live together in peace and tranquility- to create a racist regime in the middle of a land put the others out is like creating a small colony for the blacks and leave the rest for the whites. Mitchum: Thank you for the answer. Barnicle: The answer is no. Larijani: No, the answer is not no. We respect any decision by Palestinians. We are not in a position to tell them what kind of state they [should] have. But they should be given the chance to decide. MSNBC:This has been fascinating and a great picture window into the choices that Americans make when they're choosing their president and also a sense of what our Secretary of State and what our diplomats have to confront in dealing with when they're going out into the world and working with other countries. It is extremely complicated and often conversations feel like they're going in circles because it's very hard to develop a common understanding or even a place where you can start engaging and I think this was an example of that. Mohammad Javad Larijani, thank you for coming on the show this morning.

(Last 9 min missing. We thank LitleButerfli for the upload.) Sayyed Nasrallah: Ready for Dialogue, Resistance Weapon Saved Lebanon Marwa Haidar As his eminence stressed that kidnapping of the Lebanese visitors would not change Hezbollah’s position from the Syrian crisis, Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah announced his party’s decision to take part in the National Dialogue in Lebanon which President Michel Sleiman has called for. Sayyed Nasrallah affirmed that the Lebanese army has been the most important guarantee to establish security, urging Lebanese to support this service and to stand behind it. Addressing massive crowds who were marking the twelfth anniversary of Liberation in the southern city of Bint Jbeil, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the weapon of the resistance had defend Lebanon against the Zionist entity, adding that May 25 of the year of 2000 had hammered the last pin of the so-called “Greater Israel” coffin. Sayyed Nasralla also tackled the current developments related to the release of the Lebanese visitors who were kidnapped by Syrian opposition militants two days ago. Hezbollah S.G. thanked the three Presidents: Sleiman, Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Najib Miqati as well as former Premier Saad al-Haririr for their efforts that helped in releasing the visitors. His eminence also underlined the importance of the magical formula: army-people-resistance, saying it was the main deterrent against the Israeli attacks. Tackling the latest unrest in the north, Sayyed Nasrallah criticized what he described as the chaos of weapons, refusing to compare between these arms and the resistance weapon. “FIRM STANCE ON SYRIA” Talking about the abduction of Lebanese visitors, Sayyed Nasrallah said Hezbollah’s position from the Syrian crisis would not change, as he thanked different Lebanese, Syrian and Turkish figures for their efforts that helped in releasing the visitors. “We thank God the abduction ended without negative consequences. However it may have some positive ones,” Sayyed Nasrallah said. “Since the first moment of the abduction, several national parties launched many possible contacts in order to release the kidnapped visitors.\\\\\\\" “We thank President Sleiman, PM Miqati, Speaker Berri and Saad al-Hariri, who exert special efforts to free the visitors,” Sayyed Nasrallah added. Meanwhile, Hezbollah S.G. hailed the people’s commitment to calls of calm, noting that the cutting off the roads was useless. “We also thank people who were calm and respond to calls of self restrain.” “Cutting off roads is useless as well as attacking Syrian citizens which is forbidden,” Sayyed Nasrallah said. On the other hand, his eminence said that Hezbollah’s stance on the Syrian crisis was firm and obvious, stressing that the political solution was the only way to end the unrest there. “To kidnappers I say: your act is condemned and it harms what you are working on.” “If you were aiming at changing our political position on the Syrian crisis, then your act is fruitless and has no sense,” his eminence also told the kidnappers. “Our stance is firm and clear, we support the political solution in Syria in order to end the current crisis.” RESISTANCE ACHIEVEMENTS Talking about the occasion, Sayyed Nasrallah said that Resistance and Liberation day was for all Lebanese sects without exception, assuring that the formula of army-people-resistance was the only formula to defend Lebanon. “May 25 is a day for the Lebanese state as well as for all the national parties who contributed to this resistance. This day is also for all who supported the resistance to achieve this victory.” Sayyed Nasrallah said that the resistance had foiled Israeli project against Lebanon. “Everyone knows that the Israeli occupation of 1982 was a part of a US-Israeli project which aimed at inserting Lebanon in the Israeli era; however the resistance foiled this project.” “The Israeli enemy thought that its army would stay in Lebanon, but the resistance gave it a clear impression that the Lebanese land was not safe to implement its projects,” Sayyed Nasrallah added. “This land was liberated with dignity and without any precondition or any accord of humiliation,” Hezbollah S.G. stressed. “The conspiracy planned for Lebanon by the Israeli enemy has failed, thank God.” Sayyed Nasrallah also stressed that the Zionist entity by virtue of the resistance could not dare to attack Lebanon. “Since May 25, 2000 and till now, except for July war in 2006, the Israeli enemy hasn’t dare to attack Lebanon by virtue of army-people-resistance equation.” “Israel which has been attacking us, it fears today that we may attack it, for that the Zionist entity started the construction of the wall along the Lebanese-occupied territories borders.” “May 25 hammered the last pin of the so-called Greater Israel coffin,” Sayyed Nasrallah assured. Meanwhile, Hezbollah S.G. talked about the wall which the Zionist entity has been building along the border with Lebanon. But Sayyed Nasrallah said that this wall would not defend the Zionist entity, stressing that the resistance’s rockets have been capable of reaching any location in the occupied territories. “The Zionist entity sought to dominate the region from Nile to Furat, including Litani River. But today there are people whose rockets can reach any location in the occupied territories.” CHAOS OF WEAPONS Talking about the unrest the Lebanese witnessed in the country’s north, Sayed Nasrallah talked about a chaos of weapons in the country. His eminence also noted that no party can deny its procession of weapons, refusing to compare these arms with the weapon of resistance. “Surely no party can deny it has weapons.. Everybody in Lebanon has arms, whether it were heavy or light weapons.” “What is the aim of these weapons which we witnessed? It’s unacceptable for someone to say they are individual weapons.” Sayyed Nasrallah wondered about the achievements of these weapons, as his eminence refused to compare between the two types of arms. “We believe that there is an essential difference between the two types of arms.” Although that the two types of arms were not similar, Sayyed Nasrallah said he had no problem in discussing the resistance’s weapon. “We are ready to discuss this weapon or that. Let us discuss the defense strategy, the strategy that concerns all the Lebanese people.” In this context, Sayyed Nasrallah highlighted the importance of the army-people-resistance formula. READY FOR DIALOGUE Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah said Hezbollah was ready to go on the national dialogue which President Sleiman had called for. “President Sleiman called for a national Dialogue. Hezbollah agrees to take part in the dialogue without any precondition.\\\\\\\" But Sayyed Nasrallah said that March 14 alliance should also take part in the dialogue without preconditions, as they must abandon the calls for the government to step down. Hezbollah S.G. also called on Lebanese to support the army and to stand behind it. “The important service in Lebanon is the army”, Sayyed Nasrallah said, adding that the army “is the last and the most important gurantee of the security in Lebanon.” “For that we must defend the army in order for it to do its duties,” Sayyed Nasrallah said further.

Becoming familiar with some of the sweet concepts of the Sha’baniya Supplication / Session 3 In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. In talking about the Sh’abaniya Supplication, we are still talking about the first phrase. There is a very lofty concept in the first phrase, which should be discussed separately. This concept is “Tadarru” (beseeching). The Commander of the Faithful, Ali (‘a), explicitly calls to the God of the universe, “I am standing between Your hands. I am poor before You and beseeching You.” I am standing in front of You like one who is very small and poor in front of one who is completely rich and great, “…and beseeching You.” Beseeching is a term, which has been used seven times in the Holy Qur’an with the same meaning. Of course, it’s more than seven times. But, only in seven cases has it been used with exactly the same meaning of a person praying to God pleadingly. The fundamental meaning of beseeching is not crying. Crying is one of its results. It is the height of pleading, entreating, and being humble in front of the Almighty God. If we want to say the meaning, a person who beseeches is one who pleads a lot. A person who beseeches is one who doesn’t have any pride or assets. He’s extremely humble. It has been said in the Holy Qur’an, “Already We have seized them with punishment, but they neither humbled themselves to their Lord, nor did they beseech Him.” [Qur’an 23:76] After feeling distress and destitution, they didn’t beseech God! In this supplication, it is as if by saying, “I am poor before You and beseeching You,” the Imam is answering this verse from the Chapter “The Believers.” The Qur’an says, “We have seized them with punishment, but they neither humbled themselves to their Lord...” Imam Ali replies here, “I am poor before You.” And the Qur’an says, “…nor did they beseech Him.” Imam Ali says in this supplication, “…and beseeching You.” Beseeching has been mentioned in the Qur’an in different situations. Beseeching is a kind of pleading, which isn’t hidden anymore and is apparent. This broken heart shows itself, “Pray to your Lord beseechingly and in secret.” [Qur’an 7:55] This means to call God beseechingly, meaning openly, or hidden within yourself. There are other verses, which refer to this too. The verse of the Chapter “The Cattle” is suitable for these days. “Why did they not entreat when Our punishment overtook them! But their hearts had hardened, and Satan had made to seem decorous to them what they had been doing.” [Qur’an 6:43] Why didn’t they beseech Us when our punishment overtook them? The Almighty God tells what He expects explicitly. When a divine tribulation comes, the servants should beseech Him. God is waiting to bring His servants under His shelter. In this verse, God asks why they didn’t beseech Him. The reason they didn’t beseech Him was that their hearts had become so hardened that they didn’t even go to God in tribulations, “Satan had made to seem decorous to them what they had been doing.” In the verse before this verse, God the Almighty says that He has sent this scourge for people to beseech Him, “We have certainly sent (apostles) to nations before you, then We seized them with stress and distress so that they might entreat (Us).” [Qur’an 6:42] For us common people, this kind of beseeching God is elicited in tribulations. For those who don’t beseech God, even in tribulations, their hearts have truly become hardened as the Qur’an says. But, for people with understanding and the Friends of God, beseeching God is the result of their deep understanding, extreme interest and intense ardor for the high position of being close to God. We should resolve this riddle in our minds once and forever, that is this extent of crying needed when talking to God that the Commander of the Faithful moaned to God like this? What did he really want? What punishment did he fear?! We should accept that there is a spiritual maturity, which many don’t achieve at all. This spiritual maturity is more than fearing punishment, more than the intensity of suffering that a person will tolerate in Hell, and more than the fear of a sinful person or a criminal of retribution. Some good people feel such a severe need for being close to God that if they see they are far from this intense need, even a bit, they cry to God beseechingly. Was the Commander of the Faithful a weak person for someone to see his crying, broken heart? All his existence was solidity. If the entire universe had turned upside down, he would have stood firmly and wouldn’t have even flinched! He had nothing to be afraid of or to lose. So, why did he moan to God like this? He had reached a spiritual maturity. He felt a severe need for those high spiritual positions. When he felt a bit far from that desirable point, and that peak became more novel and substantial for him every moment, he would cry pleadingly.

With all the different current events going on in the world, we all really need a funny, relaxed, refreshing, and yet eye-opening commentary on it all. Sayyid Shahryar\'s here to humbly shed a little insight into all that\'s going on around the world; past, present, and perhaps even future. In this episode of \'Keepin\' It Real\', we\'re going to be talking about Thanksgiving in our Thanksgiving special, so \'Can You Please Pass the Turkey?!\', as you watch our part 1 of 2 episode titled \'Can You Please Pass the Turkey?!\'. But seriously, what is the reality of this almost mythical event that is celebrating yearly in the United States of America, and is commonly known as \'Thanksgiving\'? And according to the \'Thanksgiving\' myth, where and when did the first glorious \'Thanksgiving\' take place? According to the myth of \'Thanksgiving\', who were the people that attended this mythical first \'Thanksgiving\'? And despite it being an incredibly derogatory term, who does the term \'Injuns\' refer to? According to the myth of \'Thanksgiving\', how long did the first mythical \'Thanksgiving\' take; i.e. how many days? Yet, despite this crazy colonialist propaganda regarding the mythical \'Thanksgiving\', what is the actual historical truth about the first \'Thanksgiving\'? And if the accurate history of the Native Americans was taught in American universities and schools, would we at \'Keepin\' It Real\' even have to talk about the subject? What does Mr. Phillip Deloria, scholar of Native American History at Harvard\'s History Department say about the aforementioned question? According to certain historians, for how many years were the Native Americans living in the Americas, which includes the United States of America? (hint: well over 10,000 years!) What was the name of the Native American tribe that lived in the area of Massachusetts when the infamous Pilgrims arrived and were present in the area when the first historical \'Thanksgiving\' took place? Who was Chief Ousamequin and what does the Native American term \'Sachem\' mean? What does Illuminative.org have to say about all this? What was \'Indian Fever\', where did it come from, and approximately how many Native Americans were killed by it? What was \'King Phillips War\', who was \'King Phillip\', approximately how many people died in this war, and why would we bring it up in this episode where we\'re talking about the myth of \'Thanksgiving\'? What in the world is a \'Moniker\' and what is its relation to white racist supremacism in the context of \'King Phillip\'? And why are Native Americans incorrectly known as \'Indians\' and what does Christopher Columbus have to do with this colossal mishap? And finally, [thank God], who is Chief Metacomet and why do we call him Chief Metacomet ibn Ousamequin, and in the end, what happened to his head and his tribal allies? And please forgive the Islamic Pulse team, because we really do try to keep the host of \'Keepin\' It Real\' from talking this much. And yes, we know, the correct spelling of \'Thanksgiving\' is not \'Tanksgiving\'. but thanks for your help anyways. And kindly don\'t forget to watch our Thanksgiving Special conclusionary episode titled \'Can You Please Pass the Turkey Again?!\' [Emphasis on the \'Again?!\'], which will be released much sooner than you expect. Hey, we\'re just \"Keepin\' It Real\". #IslamicPulse #KeepinItReal #KIR #NewsCommentary #Islam #Allah #Quran #GlobalArrogance #Revolution #AhlulBayt #Thanksgiving #Thanksgiving2022 #HumanRights #GlobalPoverty #Turkey #PumpkinPie #Pie #IslamicAwakening #BlackFriday #CyberMonday #Genocide #UnThanksgivingDay #NationalDayofMourning #SunriseCeremony #Attack #Defense #Justice #Truth #Media #Evil #Freedom #Slavery #DebtSlavery #Humanity #God #America #USA #NewEngland #West #Britain #UK #NoThanksNoGiving #thankstaking #MayflowersKill #Pilgrims #Indians #Imperialism #SettlerColonialim #Colonialism #Native #NativeAmerican #Indigenous #Funny #Laugh #Smile

With all the different current events going on in the world, we all really need a funny, relaxed, refreshing, and yet eye-opening commentary on it all. Sayyid Shahryar\'s here to humbly shed a little insight into all that\'s going on around the world; past, present, and perhaps even future. In this episode of \'Keepin\' It Real\', we\'re going to be talking about \'Can You Please Pass the Turkey Again?!\', in our part 2 of 2 titled \'Can You Please Pass the Turkey Again?!\' [Emphasis on the \"Again?!\"], because you can never have enough of Thanksgiving. If you haven\'t checked out the previous episode on Thanksgiving, titled \'Can You Please Pass the Turkey!\', [Emphasis on not having an \"Again?!\" in its title], then please do so, otherwise many of the intricate issues discussed in this episode might not make much sense to you, and that would be quite unfortunate. So with the pleasantries aside, what is \'The National Day of Mourning\', where does it occur, how often does it occur, why does it occur, when does it occur, and at this event, what is it that occurs? And what is the \'Indigenous Peoples Sunrise Ceremony\', where does it occur, how often does it occur, why does it occur, and when does it occur? Who is Mr. Frank James from the Wampanoag Tribe and what does he say about the Wampanoag\'s welcoming of the Pilgrims? And why is it that whenever there is murder and destruction, there is always someone making money? So, what are we talking about when we\'re talkin\' about money, well the following questions and their answers in the episode will blow you away: How many millions of whole Turkeys are eaten yearly on Thanksgiving? [answer is more than you expect] What percentage of whole Turkey sales during the year, occur just in Thanksgiving? [answer is less than 100 percent] Approximately, how many millions of dollars were spent on Thanksgiving in the year 2020? [answer is way more than $100 million] Approximately, how many millions of dollars were expected to be spent on Thanksgiving in the year 2021? [answer is way more than the previous figure] And how many millions of dollars are spent just on stuffing on Thanksgiving? [watch the episode for answer] How many millions of boxes of stove top stuffing are sold by Kraft from October through December, which includes Thanksgiving? [millions of boxes!!] What percentage of Campbell\'s cream of mushroom soup sales occur around Thanksgiving? [answer is more than 39.9%] How many millions of pounds of cranberries are purchased at Thanksgiving? [millions of pounds!!] And what just coincidentally happens to be the busiest travel day of the year in the United States of America? And what also just coincidentally happens to be the two largest online shopping days of the year in the United States of America? Approximately how many millions of duped and bamboozled American consumers shopped online or in-store starting from Thanksgiving, to Black Friday, and thru Cyber Monday in just the year 2020 in the U.S.A? [the answer is unbelievable, unimaginable, and sickening] How many billions of dollars were spent by duped and bamboozled American consumers on Black Friday, just in the year 2020? [the answer is in billions!!] And how many billions of dollars were then spent by duped and bamboozled American consumers on Cyber Monday, just in the year 2020? [the answer is in billions!!] And with all this crazy amount of money that we\'re talking about, where in the world do these Americans get all this money from; I mean, who in the world has this much cash in hand?!?! Aaand second to last, what are just a few, but hard hitting statements of the Native Americans themselves as regards to \'Thanksgiving\'? And finally, what are 5 humble suggestions that we have at \'Keepin\' It Real\' when it comes to the mythical and historical \'Thanksgiving\'; and \"Can You Please Pass the Turkey Again?!\" Hey, we\'re just \"Keepin\' It Real\". #IslamicPulse #KeepinItReal #KIR #NewsCommentary #Islam #Allah #Quran #GlobalArrogance #Revolution #AhlulBayt #Thanksgiving #Thanksgiving2022 #HumanRights #GlobalPoverty #Turkey #PumpkinPie #Pie #IslamicAwakening #BlackFriday #CyberMonday #Genocide #UnThanksgivingDay #NationalDayofMourning #SunriseCeremony #Attack #Defense #Justice #Truth #Media #Evil #Freedom #Slavery #DebtSlavery #Humanity #God #America #USA #NewEngland #West #Britain #UK #NoThanksNoGiving #thankstaking #MayflowersKill #Pilgrims #Indians #Imperialism #SettlerColonialim #Colonialism #Native #NativeAmerican #Indigenous #Funny #Laugh #Smile

Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate talking about this impending market collapse and talking about the dollar crisis and impending recession

When first discovered in 2010, the Stuxnet computer worm posed a baffling puzzle. Beyond its unusually high level of sophistication loomed a more troubling mystery: its purpose. Ralph Langner and team helped crack the code that revealed this digital warhead's final target -- and its covert origins. In a fascinating look inside cyber-forensics, he explains how. The idea behind the Stuxnet computer worm is actually quite simple. We don't want Iran to get the Bomb. Their major asset for developing nuclear weapons is the Natanz uranium enrichment facility. The gray boxes that you see, these are real-time control systems. Now if we manage to compromise these systems that control drive speeds and valves, we can actually cause a lot of problems with the centrifuge. The gray boxes don't run Windows software; they are a completely different technology. But if we manage to place a good Windows virus on a notebook that is used by a maintenance engineer to configure this gray box, then we are in business. And this is the plot behind Stuxnet. So we start with a Windows dropper. The payload goes onto the gray box, damages the centrifuge, and the Iranian nuclear program is delayed -- mission accomplished. That's easy, huh? I want to tell you how we found that out. When we started our research on Stuxnet six months ago, it was completely unknown what the purpose of this thing was. The only thing that was known is very, very complex on the Windows part, the dropper part, used multiple zero-day vulnerabilities. And it seemed to want to do something with these gray boxes, these real-time control systems. So that got our attention, and we started a lab project where we infected our environment with Stuxnet and checked this thing out. And then some very funny things happened. Stuxnet behaved like a lab rat that didn't like our cheese -- sniffed, but didn't want to eat. Didn't make sense to me. And after we experimented with different flavors of cheese, I realized, well, this is a directed attack. It's completely directed. The dropper is prowling actively on the gray box if a specific configuration is found, and even if the actual program that it's trying to infect is actually running on that target. And if not, Stuxnet does nothing. So that really got my attention, and we started to work on this nearly around the clock, because I thought, well, we don't know what the target is. It could be, let's say for example, a U.S. power plant, or a chemical plant in Germany. So we better find out what the target is soon. So we extracted and decompiled the attack code, and we discovered that it's structured in two digital bombs -- a smaller one and a bigger one. And we also saw that they are very professionally engineered by people who obviously had all insider information. They knew all the bits and bites that they had to attack. They probably even know the shoe size of the operator. So they know everything. And if you have heard that the dropper of Stuxnet is complex and high-tech, let me tell you this: the payload is rocket science. It's way above everything that we have ever seen before. Here you see a sample of this actual attack code. We are talking about -- round about 15,000 lines of code. Looks pretty much like old-style assembly language. And I want to tell you how we were able to make sense out of this code. So what we were looking for is first of all is system function calls, because we know what they do. And then we were looking for timers and data structures and trying to relate them to the real world -- to potential real world targets. So we do need target theories that we can prove or disprove. In order to get target theories, we remember that it's definitely hardcore sabotage, it must be a high-value target, and it is most likely located in Iran, because that's where most of the infections had been reported. Now you don't find several thousand targets in that area. It basically boils down to the Bushehr nuclear power plant and to the Natanz fuel enrichment plant. So I told my assistant, "Get me a list of all centrifuge and power plant experts from our client base." And I phoned them up and picked their brain in an effort to match their expertise with what we found in code and data. And that worked pretty well. So we were able to associate the small digital warhead with the rotor control. The rotor is that moving part within the centrifuge, that black object that you see. And if you manipulate the speed of this rotor, you are actually able to crack the rotor and eventually even have the centrifuge explode. What we also saw is that the goal of the attack was really to do it slowly and creepy -- obviously in an effort to drive maintenance engineers crazy, that they would not be able to figure this out quickly. The big digital warhead -- we had a shot at this by looking very closely at data and data structures. So for example, the number 164 really stands out in that code; you can't overlook it. I started to research scientific literature on how these centrifuges are actually built in Natanz and found they are structured in what is called a cascade, and each cascade holds 164 centrifuges. So that made sense, it was a match. And it even got better. These centrifuges in Iran are subdivided into 15, what is called, stages. And guess what we found in the attack code? An almost identical structure. So again, that was a real good match. And this gave us very high confidence for what we were looking at. Now don't get me wrong here, it didn't go like this. These results have been obtained over several weeks of really hard labor. And we often went into just a dead-end and had to recover. Anyway, so we figured out that both digital warheads were actually aiming at one and the same target, but from different angles. The small warhead is taking one cascade, and spinning up the rotors and slowing them down, and the big warhead is talking to six cascades and manipulating valves. So in all, we are very confident that we have actually determined what the target is. It is Natanz, and it is only Natanz. So we don't have to worry that other targets might be hit by Stuxnet. Here's some very cool stuff that we saw -- really knocked my socks off. Down there is the gray box, and on the top you see the centrifuges. Now what this thing does is it intercepts the input values from sensors -- so for example, from pressure sensors and vibration sensors -- and it provides legitimate code, which is still running during the attack, with fake input data. And as a matter of fact, this fake input data is actually prerecorded by Stuxnet. So it's just like from the Hollywood movies where during the heist, the observation camera is fed with prerecorded video. That's cool, huh? The idea here is obviously not only to fool the operators in the control room. It actually is much more dangerous and aggressive. The idea is to circumvent a digital safety system. We need digital safety systems where a human operator could not act quick enough. So for example, in a power plant, when your big steam turbine gets too over speed, you must open relief valves within a millisecond. Obviously, this cannot be done by a human operator. So this is where we need digital safety systems. And when they are compromised, then real bad things can happen. Your plant can blow up. And neither your operators nor your safety system will notice it. That's scary. But it gets worse. And this is very important, what I'm going to say. Think about this. This attack is generic. It doesn't have anything to do, in specifics, with centrifuges, with uranium enrichment. So it would work as well, for example, in a power plant or in an automobile factory. It is generic. And you don't have -- as an attacker -- you don't have to deliver this payload by a USB stick, as we saw it in the case of Stuxnet. You could also use conventional worm technology for spreading. Just spread it as wide as possible. And if you do that, what you end up with is a cyber weapon of mass destruction. That's the consequence that we have to face. So unfortunately, the biggest number of targets for such attacks are not in the Middle East. They're in the United States and Europe and in Japan. So all of the green areas, these are your target-rich environments. We have to face the consequences, and we better start to prepare right now. Thanks. (Applause) Chris Anderson: I've got a question. Ralph, it's been quite widely reported that people assume that Mossad is the main entity behind this. Is that your opinion? Ralph Langner: Okay, you really want to hear that? Yeah. Okay. My opinion is that the Mossad is involved, but that the leading force is not Israel. So the leading force behind that is the cyber superpower. There is only one, and that's the United States -- fortunately, fortunately. Because otherwise, our problems would even be bigger. CA: Thank you for scaring the living daylights out of us. Thank you Ralph. (Applause)

After Effects Tutorial │ Making A Still IMAGE TALK Using EXPRESSIONS!! - English

Important points of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah\'s speech 16 February 2021 Martyrs Day: ⭕-Nasrallah: I send my salutations to people of Bahrain, and hope they return Bahrain back to its normal, natural place, after its traitorous leaders made country into base for normalization w/Zionist enemy, betrayal of Palestinian cause. ⭕-Nasrallah: Sheikh Ragheb Harb launched the position of refusing to shake hands/deal with the enemy, particularly when the enemy is the Zionist enemy. This refusal is in and of itself a weapon in the Resistance\'s arsenal. ⭕-Nasrallah: On recent accusations being bandied around in Lebanon [over Lokman Slim\'s murder]. Every time something bad happens in Lebanon, accusations and insults directed against Hezbollah. Local, Arab, and Social media used to direct these accusations ⭕-Nasrallah: What is happening to us violates all principles and laws. In every legal system, one is innocent until proven guilty. Except in Lebanon. When it comes to Hezbollah, we are guilty and condemned until our innocence is proven. ⭕-Nasrallah: I understand Hariri\'s insistence on holding on to Interior Ministry. Hezbollah/AMAL did this on Finance Ministry, so we understand other parties doing the same. ⭕-Nasrallah: We have a problem in Lebanon called social media networks. Someone issues a statement, it\'s then picked up by supporters of one group against another, and it appears that there\'s a big crisis. There are American and Israeli electronic armies trying to initiate sectarian, political clashes in Lebanon. Recently, a Jordanian - obviously acting for Israel - was boasting that he initiated social media clash between Iranians and Iraqis. We must beware of this. Even among supporters of allied political parties, you\'ll have people who resurrect old issues and clash on social media. And then political parties have to clean up mess. I\'m not telling people not to express their opinions. Just to do it without insults, accusations, attacking symbols and figures. And just because someone, especially from allies, made a verbal mistake, don\'t go ripping their head off. We\'re friends, and this can be handled civilly. ⭕-Nasrallah: When we look at region, which powerfully impacts Lebanon, there are several factors to consider: Iranian nuclear issue, in light of new US admin and its new positions. We also note obvious Israeli , Saudi concern, and disagreement w/US ⭕-Nasrallah: Second, the Yemen issue -- new US admin, for several reasons I don\'t have time to analyze, stopped support for Saudi war, appointment of Yemen rep, called for end to war. If even in form, this is a positive matter, but Yemenis have right to be cautious. Enemy [US] could be playing trick, so Yemenis have reason to be cautious. But, change in US direction on Yemen war is positive ⭕-Nasrallah: Now on Syria issue, w/new Biden admin, we have to see US stance on east of Euphrates, Kurds, Turks, ISIS revival. US admin says its goal isn\'t to protect oil anymore but to fight ISIS, and now the Americans are re-releasing ISIS fighters into Syria, Iraq. So they\'ll have excuse to stay. If Trump admin wanted to remain in some places and withdraw from others, seems Biden admin wants to reassert American presence everywhere, so they revived ISIS ⭕-Nasrallah: Of course, the Resistance will once again defeat ISIS as it did before. Now, as [US] trying to revive ISIS in Iraq, Syria, and also in Lebanon, Hezbollah must go on the offensive to deal with this ISIS revival ⭕-Nasrallah: Clear US Biden admin\'s priority is China and Russia. China is economic threat to US, unbearable to Americans. This could be reason, in initial phase, how to deal w/ME issues differently. Not moral difference, but admission of realities: Iran, Syria, Yemen resilience. So American calculus is how to quickly deal w/these issues to free up itself to deal w/China ⭕-Nasrallah: On Israeli-Palestinian issue, no one is even talking about Deal of the Century. Looks like when Trump and Kushner left -- it was Kushner\'s deal anyway -- Deal of Century was abandoned, which is concerning to Israel, Saudi Arabia. Deal of Century Triangle was Trump-Israel-Saudi. Now, we hear US Secretary of State say they don\'t recognize Israeli soveriegnty over Golan, Jerusalem remains issue to be negotiated, and talking about 2 State Solution -- these are indicators Deal of Century over. This is because of resilience of Palestinians, Resistance Axis, against Trump, so it\'s forcing new US admin to reevaluate how to deal with this issue ⭕-Nasrallah: We think Israelis are exaggerating importance of normalization, just like they did w/Egypt and Jordan. Yes, Israel has peace w/Egyptian, Jordanian state, but their peoples have taken a very clear stance against Israel. We see this in position of Bahraini people, opposition, clerics who oppose normalization w/Israel or dealings w/Bahraini financial institutions w/Israel. And the Bahrainis are under threat from their leaders. We see same opposition in Tunisia, Algeria, Pakistan and other countries. So, we\'re betting on the people in these countries, because this is a battle for the people. We\'re not asking them to carry a weapon, just to boycott Israel and Israelis in every way. ⭕-Nasrallah: Israeli army chief Kochavi said that Israeli leadership must undergo change -- pretending they adhere to law and only target military targets. He said Israel must change approach, and if weapons are stored among civilians, they must strike them as well. Who is he fooling, that this is a change? IDF is a terrorist army that targets civilians, and this is attempt to give good image to ugliest, most murderous army in history of humanity ⭕-Nasrallah: Hezbollah is not seeking confrontation. But if you strike our towns and civilians, we will strike yours. In any case, we actually have civilians. But by Israeli admission, Israeli people are an army in reserve. They go to work, school, but all soldiers. So there really is no real distinction between Israeli soldiers and civilians. In the past, we deterred Israel by striking their settlements and colonies. We\'ll do it again. ⭕-Nasrallah: Israel can\'t act like it did in the past. We are in the era of the Resistance. Of course, Resistance deals w/these matters patiently, but no one should think we will be lax in defending ourselves

Clip Pay attention to Me Ali Reza Panahian Salam my dear. How are you? “May I come up?” Come dear. Do you want to sit here while I’m talking? Shall I talk while you’re sitting here? “Read.” *** During the days and nights of the holy month of Ramadan, we should reap the most benefit. How can we receive light from this month? How can we benefit from God’s Grace in this holy month of Ramadan? By paying attention! This is the main factor. The most important capacity we have in our soul and which we don’t usually benefit from is paying attention. Paying attention is not usually considered to be something that valuable. No matter how much you stand behind a store window and say, “I have truly paid attention to this car behind the window,” this is not something valuable in this world. People say, “You shouldn’t have paid attention to it.” But it is exactly the opposite when standing before God. Whoever has gained something, he has gained it by paying attention to God wholeheartedly and by beseeching Him. In the beginning, paying attention happens in one’s mind. “I have turned my face to Him Who has created the heavens and the earth…” [Qur’an 6:79] A person should pay attention to God in his thoughts. Gradually, when this paying attention becomes deeper, it turns into paying attention with one’s heart. A person faces Him with his heart. “I have turned my face to Him…” “Salam.” Salam my dear. How are you? “May I come up?” Come dear. Come. It’s fine. Come up. Do you want to sit here while I’m talking? Shall I talk while you’re sitting here? Sit here; I’ll talk. You sit, I sit, and we’ll talk. It’s not a problem if I talk? “No. Read.” Read? She says read. Do you want to go down or are you comfortable sitting here? Do you want to go down? She says she won’t come. Let her be. “Candy…” No, no, leave her. “I’ll take her. She’ll be distracting.” No, will you be distracted? “No.” [Audience,] “Haj Aqa, we shouldn’t pay attention [as you were explaining].” Don’t pay attention. She got the candy from you but didn’t come. Of course I am happy to be in the presence of this luminous child. She’s so pure. See. This dear child reminded me of Mr. Baha’udini. His son-in-law related, “Once, I came home, and I saw the children were very noisy. But he was sitting and thinking deeply. I said, ‘Children, be quiet!’ I quieted them. Then, Mr. Baha’udini noticed me. He said, ‘What do you want with the children?!’ I said, ‘I thought they shouldn’t be noisy and bother you.’ He replied, ‘What do they have to do with me?’ I realized that children do not distract Mr. Baha’udini at all.” This ability to pay attention is very valuable. Paying attention means that my face, my soul and my heart are turned toward You God. I’m paying attention to You now. “I have turned my face to Him Who has created the heavens and the earth…” Paying attention to whom? To the One Who has created the heavens and the earth! God doesn’t want anything from His servant. He says, “Just pay attention to Me.” God gives everything to His servant. He’s not stingy at all. God has created us so that He may give to us. God doesn’t want anything. God doesn’t like negligence. He says, “Why aren’t you paying attention to Me?” When a person pays attention, that’s it. Don’t leave your soul unattended to pay attention and become busy with everything it wants. Say, “Wait, I should have a program for myself now.” In order to strengthen your attentiveness, you should pay attention to your sorrows, my dears. Nothing will drag a person’s attention to itself like sorrows. Find beautiful spiritual sorrows and pay attention to them. This is what supplications do. This doesn’t mean we should be sad. It means we should pay attention. If crying and sorrows help, even better. Now what if sorrows distract us from God? That’s a nasty sorrow. Having a sorrow that does not cause a person to pay attention to God and which distances him from God is very bad. This doesn’t mean having sorrows. It means paying attention, and we should gain this ability. O God, help us to leave this holy Month as people who are attentive. There were times when we paid attention to other things besides You. Especially if we have enjoyed them too - very bad! “I ask for Your forgiveness for every pleasure other than remembering You.” [Imam Sajjad (as), Al-Dhakirin Supplication] God doesn’t want anything from His servant. He says, “Just pay attention to Me.” God gives everything to His servant. He’s not stingy at all. God doesn’t want anything. God doesn’t like negligence. During the days and nights of the holy month of Ramadan, it is by being attentive that we benefit. How good it is to recite the Qur’an while being attentive. How good it is to pray while being attentive. Do your work while being attentive. Do your work, but your heart should be with God. ***

Becoming familiar with some of the sweet concepts of the Sha’baniya Supplication / Session 2 In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. In the beginning of the “Sha’baniya Supplication,” many reasons for not supplicating God have been mentioned. These reasons show that when a person wants to say something to God, there is no need to say anything. God hears a person’s words even before he says anything; God knows his words. The Almighty God knows a person’s needs, so how else can one talk to God? Perhaps many people don’t read supplications because they think God knows everything that is in their hearts and all their needs. The Commander of the Faithful (‘a) mentions the reasons for not praying. After the passionate insistence that can be seen at the beginning of the supplication, after that intense emotion, beseeching and escaping from others, life and the world towards God, and after the enthusiasm that he shows for talking to God, he immediately says some things, which seem to be reasons for not praying. The Imam (‘a) says, “I have hope for the reward that is with You. You know what is inside me. You are aware of my needs and my inner being. My return to the Hereafter and my eternal home are not hidden from you.” You are not unaware of my past or my future and what I want to tell You. “Whatever I want to say or request, and also what I have hope for my outcome, are not hidden from You.” All of these can be a reason for not praying. “God You know my situation!” If the Almighty God knows these, why does he insist on talking to God? Actually, I want to say that the Commander of the Faithful, Ali (‘a), wants to announce the severity of his insistence here. Although God knows, he is beseeching Him and asking Him, “Hear my prayer. Hear my voice. Pay attention to me when I talk to You.” When the Commander of the Faithful says these words, his insistence on praying becomes clear. “I insist and I know that You know all about me.” We regular people may not really have this deep understanding like Imam Ali (‘a) that God is totally aware about us. But, the Commander of the Faithful has a deep understanding and belief that God is aware about a person. So why does he insist for God to hear him when he knows that God hears? This shows a certain level of desire and asking, when a person puts these kinds of rational words aside. As a poem says, “Say goodbye to wisdom.” If a person wants to reason exactly, he may say, “God, I’m sitting here and You know all my requests.” But, when this intense emotion, enthusiasm and pleading reaches a peak, a person cannot be patient and quiet anymore. We should read the “Sha’baniya Supplication” with this intention that we have come to see how the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) talks to God. This supplication is amazing. We should read it in a way that we are looking at the face and insistence of the Commander of the Faithful (‘a). I remember a tradition in which the Imam said some things to his companion. His companion said, “I saw that the Commander of the Faithful was leaving the city at dawn. I asked, ‘Where are you going?’ He replied, ‘I’m going after my own wishes!’ The Imam was in a different mood when he said this. I asked, ‘What are your wishes and needs?’ The Imam replied, ‘The one who should know, knows. I don’t need to tell these to anyone else.’” Here, the Imam is saying the same sentences to his friend too. And, he left in that different mood. He would wail and cry very much (when praying). God, if we aren’t able to reach You, we ask to see at least the Commander of the Faithful’s supplications one time, so that we can understand what is going on in the world, how Your friends felt and look at them from afar. If we are never able to imagine this feeling clearly and aren’t able to experience this in ourselves, let us see it in the unique face of the Commander of the Faithful. See in the first phrase of this supplication how Imam Ali states his beliefs about God, “God, whatever happens to me till the end of my life is in Your hands and Your knowledge. What comes to me or is taken away, benefits or loss, are in Your hands and not the hands of anyone else.” He’s showing his extreme monotheism. Along with this, Imam Ali (‘a) is showing a great enthusiasm, and that enthusiasm doesn’t allow him to be silent. Although God sees him, his severe enthusiasm compels him to talk to his God. As I explained about the previous phrase, this severe enthusiasm causes him to say, “Hear my prayer. Hear my voice.” There is no need for him to say these. God hears.

What will the future be like? The future is Islam. Follow us: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Panahianen/ ... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/PanahianEN/... Twitter: https://twitter.com/PanahianEN Telegram: https://telegram.me/Panahianen/ ============================== We are at the end of one century and the start of a new century based on the Hijri solar calendar. Even if it wasn’t the beginning of a new century the changes in the world show that a long period of history has finished and the state of the world is changing. Maybe we couldn’t have said this eight months ago. We couldn’t have said it last year. But now, with the events that we are witnessing in the world in recent months and in the period that we are in, everyone agrees that we are at a turn in history, an expression used by the dear Leader of the Islamic Revolution. The last century can be called the century of the rise and fall of Western civilization. When I was a teenager, about fifty years ago, people used to say that we are at the end of the world. But this statement was retracted by the world\\\'s most prominent thinkers some time ago. Fukuyama said, “I was wrong when I said the end of history is liberal democracy. We don’t know where the end of history is because liberal democracy hasn’t been successful.” What do you predict for this coming century? What do you suggest for its name? I have a suggestion for the name of this century. The coming century is bringing a civilization that will replace Western civilization. It will be an alternative civilization to Western civilization, according to many thinkers. Of course, they say this quietly and don’t announce it frequently on TV. The alternative civilization will be the \\\"new Islamic civilization.\\\" The future civilization will be a \\\"Mahdavi [Imam Mahdi] civilization.\\\" Why am I saying this? Because no one in the world has any plans for the future! There is no thinker in the world to say that the future will be determined by socialism, or by liberal democracy, or to say the future will be determined by a certain lifestyle. Yes, in terms of technology, they say technology will advance a lot! Yes, it is said that the world’s governments will be saved from dictatorial rulers. Yes, everyone is saying that a new chaos is being created in the world. Everyone says these things. But can the United Nations ensure order in the world? No. The previous century was the century of the rise and fall of Western civilization. The next century is the century of the new Islamic civilization. It has been narrated from Imam Muhammad Baqir (as), “Our government will be the last government. Because after our government has been established, has succeeded and that great civilization ‘has been raised by God above all religions’ [Qur’an 61:9], no one will say, ‘If I had been in charge, I would have done that too.’” According to Imam Baqir (as), when that government is established no one will have anything else to say. A theoretical vacuum will have existed. There is no voice in the universe talking about the future of the world for us to evaluate it to see if it is right or wrong! No one in the world says that in the future everyone will go toward Marxism, or that everyone will go toward a certain religion. Except for us. We are the only ones talking about the future! For forty years, we have been answering in religious forums. We have answered doubts. We have answered false claims. There is no longer a false claim in the world for us to answer! No one even has a claim for the future. Only these minarets and mosques of yours talk about the future. Only you have hope for the future! This is a big celebration itself. And our community must be the one to explain the Mahdavi civilization. Every mosque, gathering, class or book that does not talk about the Mahdavi future of the world, has reduced its own value to nearly zero. Tell me about the future! What will the future be like? #AliRezaPanahian #EndOfTheWorld