Search Result in All

Complete Sermon of Prophet Muhammad SAWW at Ghadeer Khum by Agha Hassan Mujtaba Rizvi - English The Ghadir event and its significance Seventy days before his demise, when Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF) 1 was returning to Medina after his last pilgrimage to Mecca, he reached the pond of Khum (Ghadir Khum) near Juhfa. It was the 18th of the month of Dhul-Hijja of the year 10 AH (March 15, 632 AD). By this time, the Prophet (PBUH&HF) had conveyed all of the divine commandments to his nation except for the formal and explicit public announcement of his divinely appointed successors as the leaders, guardians, and guides for the believers for all days to come. By the order of Allah, the Prophet (PBUH&HF) stopped at the pond of Khum, gathered the crowd of pilgrims, and delivered his last universal speech. In this sermon, he presented his last religious instruction which finalized the last divine religion and made Islam the perfect religion in the sight of Allah. Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (PBUH), the fifth Imam and successor of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: “The last obligatory duty that Allah sent down was al-Walaya(adherence to the guardian assigned by Allah). Then, He sent down the verse: ‘Today, I completed your religion…’1 once the Messenger of Allah established it in Juhfa area.” This message was the most unique in the entire mission of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) due to the revelation of Verse 67, Chapter 5 of the Holy Quran before his speech. In this revelation, Allah warned His Messenger that failing to deliver this last message would nullify his entire mission. This unprecedented warning proves that this last message contained the most important religious commandment of Allah for the Muslim nation. Moreover, the contents of this last message were so crucial to the faith that the Prophet (PBUH&HF) emphatically required all those who directly or indirectly heard the sermon of Ghadir Khum to convey it to people who were not aware of its details, and parents to convey it to their children for all generations to come. Hence, this sermon addresses all Muslim generations of the world until the Day of Judgement. This emphasis naturally implies that the content of this message has a vital role in the future of the Muslims, their spiritual health, and their felicity in the Hereafter. The main issue that the Prophet (PBUH&HF) addressed in his speech in Ghadir Khum was that Allah appointed Ali Ibn Abi Talib (PBUH) as the guardian (Wali), the master (Mawla), the leader (Imam), and the commander (Amir) of all believing men and women, the deputy and the executor of his affairs (Wasi), and his successor (Khalifa). His sayings and commands should be preferred over the opinions of all others in every matter. Obeying him is obeying Allah, and disobeying him is disobeying Allah. Whoever follows him (and his sayings) is a believer under the guardianship of Allah, and whoever turns away from him (or his sayings) is a disbeliever under the guardianship of Satan. Guardianship (al-Walaya) expresses a bilateral relation between the guardian and the people. Observing al-Walaya by people means adhering to the guardian and acknowledging his authority by heart, tongue, and action. On the other hand, the action of al-Walaya by the guardian means offering protection from evil, spiritual assistance, care, support, and guidance for his adherents. A divinely appointed guardian guards his adherents from misguidance, spiritual destruction, wrongdoing, and sin as much as they adhere to him and his commands. Establishing al-Walaya has been the ultimate goal of religion and the fruit of the entire efforts of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF) during his mission. One who submits to Allah’s representative and adheres to him has indeed acknowledged Allah’s authority and guardianship and is a true monotheist in obeying Allah. Acknowledging the guardianship of the leaders that Allah appointed and submitting to them is the greatest pillar of faith. It safeguards the followers from the wrath and punishment of Allah. Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (PBUH) said: “Islam is established by five things: prayer, charity, fasting, pilgrimage, and al-Walaya (adhering to the guardians authorized by Allah). None (among them) was called for as (emphatically as) al-Walaya was called for. However, people accepted the first four and abandoned al-Walaya. People who refused to submit to the leaders that Allah appointed resemble the Satan who refused to submit to the viceregent of Allah, Adam (PBUH), and consequently, became an outcast and went under the curse of Allah forever as mentioned in the Holy Quran.1 It is narrated that Imam al-Ridha (PBUH) said: “The similitude of the believers in accepting the guardianship of the Commander of the Believers (Ali) on the day of Ghadir Khum is that of the angels in prostrating before Adam (i.e., submitting to him), and the similitude of those who turned away from the guardianship of the Commander of the Believers on the day of Ghadir is that of the devil (Iblis). In one of his speeches on the anniversary of the day of Ghadir, Imam Ali (PBUH) said: “Allah does not accept the faith (of an individual) except after he acknowledges the guardianship of whom He required. He does not arrange the means of His obedience (for an individual) except after he adheres to His ropes and the ropes of His authorized people. Thus, Allah sent down to His Prophet (PBUH&HF) on the day of the large trees1 that which explained His will for His sincere and chosen servants. Allah commanded him to convey (the message) without being concerned about the hypocrites or the deviants, and guaranteed him protection against their evil... By that, Allah completed His religion, and delighted the eyes of His Prophet (PBUH&HF), and the believers. Some of you witnessed this event and some received its news. This (appointment) concluded the beautiful word of Allah for those who observe patience… ”

AYATULLAH KHAMENAEI’S MESSAGE TO HAJJ PILGRIMS – 2011/1432A.H. In the Name of Allah, the All-Beneficent, the All-Merciful All praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, and may divine blessings and greetings be to the Master of the creatures, Muhammad al-Mustafa and his immaculate family and his elect companions. The spiritual spring of Hajj has arrived with its freshness, purity and God-given grandeur and majesty, gathering again the faithful and eager hearts like butterflies encircling the Ka’bah of Divine Monotheism and Islamic Unity. Camped at Makkah and Mina, Arafat and Mash´ar are the fortunate human beings who, having responded to the call of (وَأَذِّن فِي النَّاسِ بِالْحَجِّ): (22:27) “proclaim the Hajj to all the people”, are being honored with the hospitality of the Clement and Munificent Lord. Here is the blessed House and the source of guidance from which the enlightening Divine signs radiated and the canopy of safety was set up to cast its universal shade. Wash your hearts in the Zamzam of piety, humility and God’s remembrance. Open the inner eye to the lights of the Divine signs. Embrace the spirit of submission and dedication, which are the hallmarks of true servant-hood. Keep on refreshing in your hearts the memory of that patriarch who, in willing compliance, led his Ishmael (Ismâeil) to the scene of sacrifice, thus showing us the clear path of attaining the friendship of the Glorious Lord and the manner of traversing it with a resolve infused with faith and an intent imbued with sincerity. The station of prophet Abraham (Ibrâhim) is one among these clarifying signs. The footprint by the side of Holy Ka’bah of prophet Ibrâhim, may Peace be upon him, is only a symbol of the station of Ibrâhim. The station of Ibrâhim is his station of dedication and self-sacrifice, his fortitude and resistance to personal desires and fatherly feelings as well as against the domination of unfaith, polytheism and Nimrod, the tyrant of the time. Today these two paths of deliverance lie open before each of us, individuals belonging to the Muslim Ummah. Determination, courage and firmness of resolve on part of each one of us can advance us towards the same goals to which mankind have been invited by the Divine envoys from Adam to the Seal of the Prophets, with the promise of dignity and felicity, in this world and in the Hereafter, for those who take this path. It will be worthy of the Hajj pilgrims’ attention at this great assembly of the Islamic Ummah to address the most important issues of the Islamic world. The uprisings and revolutions in some important Islamic countries are at the head of these issues. The events that have taken place in the Islamic world in the period between the previous and present Hajj pilgrimages can change the destiny of the Islamic Ummah, and they forebode a bright future accompanied with dignity and progress, material and spiritual. Dictators and ‘corrupt’ taghoots, allied with foreign powers, have been overthrown in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, and the stormy waves of popular uprising in some other countries threaten to bring down the castles of wealth and power. This new chapter in the history of Our Ummah reveals certain facts which are all manifest Divine signs and give us vital lessons. These facts should be taken into account by Muslim nations in all their calculations. First, a young generation has emerged from the hearts of these nations after decades of political subjugation to foreign powers, which with its admirable self-confidence, is ready to face threats, confront the dominant powers and is determined to change the status-quo. Second, despite the authority and efforts of secular rulers and their overt and covert measures to curtail the influence of religion in these countries, Islam, with its conspicuous and impressive presence, has become the guiding principle of popular expression and sentiment. Like a fountainhead effusing through popular discourse and behavior it has given vitality and freshness to the rallies and activities of the millions. The mosques and minarets, Islamic slogans and calls of Allahu Akbar, all are clear indications of this fact and the recent Tunisian elections provide decisive evidence for this claim. There is no doubt that free elections in any Islamic country will hardly result in anything but what happened in Tunisia. Moreover, as revealed for all by this year’s events, God Almighty has placed such a force in the resolve and determination of nations that no power whatsoever can withstand it. With this God-given power nations can change their destiny and partake of Divine help. Furthermore, during the last decades arrogant powers, led by the United States, had reduced the regional states to a subjugate condition through their political and security tactics. They imagined to have opened an obstacle-free highway for their rising economic, cultural and political domination over this susceptible part of the world. But now they are the primary target of the disgust and hatred of the region’s nations. Undoubtedly, the regimes emerging from these revolutions will never submit to the disgraceful inequalities of the past, and the political geography of the region will be drawn by the nations in pursuance of their dignity and complete independence. In addition, the crafty nature of the hypocritical Western powers has become all too apparent for the people of these countries. The U.S. and Europe made their utmost efforts to retain their pawns in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, each of them in a particular way. But when their wishes had to give in before the resolve of the nations, they cast a wily friendly smile at the triumphant public. There are further precious facts and manifest Divine signs embedded in the regional events of the past year, which are not hard to discern for reflective minds. Nevertheless, the entire Islamic Ummah and especially the revolutionary nations stand in need of two basic elements: First, the continuity of their stand and avoidance of slackness in resolve. In the Qur’an, the Divine summons to the Greatest Messenger, may God bless him and his family, are addressed in these words: فَاسْتَقِمْ كَمَا أُمِرْتَ وَمَن تَابَ مَعَكَ وَلاَ تَطْغَوْا “Be steadfast, just as you have been commanded—[by Allah] and whoever has turned [to God] with you—and do not overstep the bounds (11:112)” and (فَلِذَلِكَ فَادْعُ وَاسْتَقِمْ كَمَا أُمِرْتَ). “Be steadfast, just as you have been commanded (42:15).” The Prophet Moses, may peace be upon him, is quoted as telling his people: (وقَالَ مُوسَى لِقَوْمِهِ اسْتَعِينُوا بِاللّهِ وَاصْبِرُواْ إِنَّ الأَرْضَ لِلّهِ يُورِثُهَا مَن يَشَاء مِنْ عِبَادِهِ وَالْعَاقِبَةُ لِلْمُتَّقِينَ) “Turn to God for help and be patient. The earth indeed belongs to God, and He gives its inheritance to whomever He wishes of His servants, and the outcome will be in favor of the pious people. ” (7:128) At the present, the most significant aspect of piety for the risen nations is not to halt in their auspicious movement, and not to let themselves be diverted by the achievements of this phase. This is the important part of the piety whose possessors are rewarded with the “favorable outcome.” Second, careful awareness with regard to the plots and gimmicks of the arrogant international powers who have suffered a setback from these uprisings and revolutions. They evidently will not sit idle. They will reenter the arena with all their political, financial and security outfits to reestablish their influence and control in these countries. Their outfits are carrot and stick and deceit. Experience has shown there are some among the elite who are susceptible to these gimmicks. Fear, greed or negligence prompt them to serve the enemy. The vigilant eyes of the youth, intellectuals and religious scholars should be closely watchful. The greatest threat posed by the Camp of Unfaith and arrogant powers lies in its intervention and influence over the structures of the new political systems in these countries. They will do their utmost to see that the new systems do not take on an Islamic and republic identity. All the concerned people in these countries and all those who cherish their homeland’s honor, dignity and progress should work to ensure the complete and perfect Islamic and republic character of the emergent polity. In this regard, the role of the constitutions will be significant. National unity and official recognition of sectarian, tribal and ethnic differences are a precondition of future success. The valiant revolutionary nations of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, as well as other awakened and combatant nations, should know that the sole means of deliverance from the oppression and guile of the United States and other Western hubristic powers is to establish a global balance of power conducive to their interests. The Muslims should bring themselves on a par with the great world powers in order to be able to reach a serious solution of their problems with the World-devourers. This cannot be achieved except with the cooperation, understanding and solidarity of Islamic countries. This was an unforgettable advice of the great Imam Khomeini. For months on, the United States and NATO dropped bombs on the heads of the Libyan people making Gaddafi, a vicious dictator, an excuse. Gaddafi was someone who was considered their close friend before the valiant uprising of the Libyan people. They used to coddle him, steal the wealth of Libya through his hands and press or kiss his hand in order to dupe him. Following the people’s uprising, they made him an excuse to destroy the entire infrastructure of Libya. Which state could stop the tragic massacre of the Libyan people and destruction of the country at the hands of NATO? Until the claws and fangs of the bloodthirsty and barbaric Western powers are not broken, such dangers will remain conceivable for Islamic countries. Their safety from such dangers is not possible except by forming the Islamic world as a powerful pole. Today the West, United States and Zionism are weaker than ever before. Economic troubles, successive failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, deep-running public outrage in America and other Western countries with its daily widening scope, the struggles and sacrifices of the people of Palestine and Lebanon, the daring popular uprisings in Yemen, Bahrain and some other countries under American influence—all these are significant portents for the Islamic Ummah, especially for the emergent revolutionary nations. Faithful men and women throughout the Islamic world, particularly in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya should make the most of this opportunity for the formation of an international Islamic power block. The vanguard and the elite of the uprisings should place their trust in Almighty God and, with reliance on His promise of help, adorn the new chapter in the history of the Islamic Ummah with their lasting achievements, thus earning God’s approval and fulfilling the prerequisites of His help May Peace be upon God’s righteous servants! Sayyid Ali Husaini Khamenaei 29 Dhul Qa´dah, 1432 05 Âbân, 1390 27 October, 2011

Two US police officers have been ordered to stand trial in the death of a mentally ill homeless man following a violent arrest last summer. California's Orange County Superior Court Judge Walter Schwarm made the ruling after a hearing that included surveillance video of the confrontation between the officers and 37-year-old Kelly Thomas in the city of Fullerton. Officer Manuel Ramos is charged with second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. Jay Cicinelli is charged with involuntary manslaughter and assault or battery by a public officer. Both have pleaded not guilty. The officers confronted Thomas while responding to reports that a homeless man was looking into parked cars at a transit center. "This is another victory, on another battle," said Thomas' father, Ron. "We're going to start a new one with the trial." John Barnett, Ramos' attorney, said he would seek another court's review of Schwarm's ruling and did not expect his client would end up facing a jury trial. "We're disappointed that they were held to answer but we will seek review in an appropriate manner," he told reporters after the ruling. "He believes, and he is innocent." Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas said during the hearing that Ramos bullied a shirtless Thomas with his menacing remarks and aggressive stance — actions that would have led anyone to fear they were about to get beaten by police. "Any person, any creature on this earth would have fear at that point," Rackauckas told the court during the preliminary hearing. "You're going to fight or flee because this is an imminent threat of a serious beating by a police officer who is there with a baton and a gun and other police officers.... This is going to be a very bad deal," the prosecutor said. Defence attorneys countered that police — who are authorised and trained to use force when necessary — viewed the incident as an encounter with a man who refused to give his name and continued to resist arrest even as multiple officers rushed to assist. The three-day hearing was marked by repeated showing of clips from surveillance video and audio recordings of the confrontation. The footage includes scenes of officers pummelling and pinning down Thomas as he screams that he can't breathe and moans for his father until he goes silent and is taken away by medics, leaving behind a pool of blood. Barnett, Ramos' attorney, said during the hearing that the video — which was introduced by the prosecution — shows that his client made a conditional threat during his conversation with Thomas, stating he wanted the man to start listening and following police orders, such as sitting with his legs stretched out and providing his name to officers. "All that Kelly Thomas had to do was simply comply," Barnett said. "Officer Ramos just lifts him up, he's going to arrest him. ... Not only can he do it, he must do it. He is bound to do it." "Officer Ramos didn't do anything that should or could kill Kelly Thomas," Barnett said, pointing out that his client is often seen on the video at the man's feet. Prosecutors have argued that Ramos punched Thomas in the ribs, tackled him and lay on him to hold him down while Cicinelli — who arrived later on the scene — used a Taser four times on Thomas as he hollered in pain and hit him in the face eight times with the Taser. Thomas lost consciousness and was taken to a hospital. He was taken off life support and died five days later. The coroner's office found that Thomas died from compression of his chest that made it difficult for him to breathe and deprived his brain of oxygen, and facial injuries stemming from his confrontation with law enforcement. In court, Schwartz, Cicinelli's attorney, challenged those findings, noting that testimony by a paramedic who treated Thomas at the scene indicates that Thomas was breathing, although with difficulty, during the confrontation. Schwartz also defended his client's use of the Taser on Thomas, who was still struggling and resisting officers' efforts to handcuff him, and said Cicinelli only swung the Taser at Thomas' hand when the man made an effort to grab the weapon. "To call that a crime is to effectively handcuff our police officers out in the field from dealing with any combative suspect," Schwartz said. The hearing in a Santa Ana courtroom was marked by lengthy testimony from medical experts and graphic photos of Thomas' injuries, including multiple bruises and a bloodied eye, while he was lying on the autopsy table. Attorneys repeatedly played portions of the grainy surveillance video, which was paired with audio from digital recorders worn by some of the officers who were present and which brought some of Thomas' supporters to tears and prompted them to leave the courtroom. The incident last July prompted an ongoing FBI investigation to determine if Thomas' civil rights were violated, an internal probe by the city, protests by residents and an effort to recall three Fullerton councilmembers that is slated for next month's ballot. The recall was sparked after angry residents chastised the council members for failing to take significant action regarding the incident.

Supreme Leader\\\'s Speech to Government Officials and Participants of Conference on Islamic Unity 29/01/2013 The following is the full text of the speech delivered on January 29, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in a meeting with government officials and foreign participants of the 26th Conference on Islamic Unity. The meeting was held on the occasion of the birthday anniversaries of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) and Imam Sadiq (a.s.). In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful I would like to congratulate all of you honorable audience, the dear guests, who have come here from other countries, the ambassadors of Islamic countries and also all the great people of Iran - who proved their kindness and commitment to the issue of prophethood in practice - on this auspicious and great Eid. I also congratulate the entire Islamic Ummah - who has a feeling of unity and unanimity centered on the auspicious name of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) - on this great Eid. I would like to extend my congratulation to all the liberated people throughout the world on this auspicious Eid. The blessings which have been bestowed on the great birthday of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) really belong to all the liberated people throughout the world. These blessings belong to all the people who are after liberation, justice and achieving lofty and divine values. A number of mystics believe that the month of Rabi al-Awwal is the spring of life in the real sense of the word because in this month the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) and also his honorable grandson, Imam Abu Abdullah Ja\\\'far ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq were born. And the birthday of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) is the beginning of all the blessings that Allah the Exalted has bestowed on humanity. We - who consider Islam as a tool for humanity to achieve happiness and salvation - [should know that] this divine blessing is because of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) which has been bestowed on us in this month. In fact, we should consider this great birthday as the beginning of all the blessings with which Allah the Exalted honored the human community, the Islamic Ummah and the followers of truth. It is not enough to merely celebrate this birthday anniversary. We should primarily strengthen our spiritual relationship with the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.). The world of Islam should strengthen its spiritual and emotional relationship with the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) on a daily basis. This is the common ground between all the Muslims throughout the world. Those whose hearts beat for the formation of the Islamic Ummah should rely on this issue: the spiritual and emotional relationship with the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.). That is to say, they should primarily make a serious decision to follow this great personality in all the issues. In a number of holy Quranic ayahs, certain points have been explained about the Holy Prophet\\\'s (s.w.a.) behavior, his political behavior, the kind of government he had and his feeling towards the people - whether towards Muslims or non-Muslims. The moral education of the great companions of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) and their behavior show the kind of orientation that Islam and the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) adopted towards education of the Islamic Ummah. We should practice these in our own lives. We should do these in practice. It is not enough to say these in words. Today, the ground is prepared for this issue. Islamic Awakening is a truth and it has happened. After many decades of domination during which the enemies of Islam and the enemies of Muslims spread their domination over Islamic countries - in the form of direct colonialism, neocolonialism, indirect colonialism and in the form of cultural, economic and political domination - the core of awakening has grown gradually. And after many years during which the Muslim nations were crushed under the enormous pressure of domination of the west and European and American governments, Islamic Awakening has been established and it is revealing itself. Today, people throughout the world of Islam feel that Islam is their tool for achieving dignity, glory and independence. Thanks to Islam, all the national dreams of a nation can come true in the world of Islam. Thanks to Islam, Islamic nations can stand up against the domination of the west and against the arrogance, oppressive domination and exploitation of western governments. And the west has to retreat. Today, you can see this in the world of Islam. More than thirty years ago this event took place in Iran. Today, we also see this in the world of Islam such as in North Africa. Steps are taken towards victory. Of course, there are certain problems, but if we remain vigilant, problems cannot create obstacles in our way. The Holy Quran says, \\\"They shall by no means harm you but with a slight evil\\\" [The Holy Quran, 3: 111]. Yes, they harm us and create problems for us. But, if we have determination, rely on God and decide to move forward, they cannot create obstacles in our way. Today, Islamic nations have awakened. Thanks to Islam, they feel that they can get their message across to the enemies of the world of Islam and the corrupt Zionist network which has established domination over policies of western governments. These victories are very valuable. \\\"Allah promised you many acquisitions which you will take, then He hastened on this one for you\\\". This is part of the divine promise which was fulfilled. \\\"And held back the hands of men from you, and that it may be a sign for the believers and that He may guide you on a right path\\\" [The Holy Quran, 48: 20]. Each victory that a nation achieves against the enemies and against their propaganda and evil tools is a divine testimony and a divine sign: \\\"And that it may be a sign\\\". If you move forward, you will achieve results. Today the world of Islam is faced with the plots of the enemies. I would tell you dear brothers and sisters - whether Iranian or non-Iranian - that today, the enemy\\\'s most important tool for confronting Islamic Awakening is creating discord. They want to pitch Muslims against Muslims, destroy Muslims at the hands of Muslims and keep them busy with conflicts. What is better than keeping Muslims busy with conflicts for the enemies of Islamic independence? Since the first day that the Islamic Revolution achieved victory, they pursued the policy of creating discord among our nation and our country. But the Islamic Republic stood up against this plot with absolute determination. We announced, our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) announced and the Iranian nation repeatedly stressed - throughout his lifetime and after his demise - that we believe in Islamic brotherhood. We condemn any rift among Muslims. This is exactly the opposite of what the enemies\\\' agents, who use any small incident to create discord among Muslims, want. If you take a look, you see that today the policy of the enemies of Islamic Awakening in North African countries is to create discord. This is the policy of global arrogance. They want to make them kill one another and pitch them against one another. The cure for this disease is a feeling of unity between Muslims. Muslim nations should become united. Inside each country, different groups, different denominations and different parties should join hands. They should not let religious, political and partisan differences and differences of opinion dominate their major moves so that they can stand up against the enemy. Today, this is the only way. The enemies try to create discord by using all kinds of tricks. You can see this. When Muslims busy themselves with conflicts, the issue of Palestine and standing up against the greed of America and the west will be sidelined and the enemies will find the opportunity to hatch their plots. Today, we can see that westerners have started a new movement in Africa in order to dominate African nations and to maintain their presence again in the lives of African people. When the fire of discord is kindled, the enemy finds the opportunity to do anything. What disasters they are creating in Pakistan, our neighboring country, under the pretext of differences in this country. How they make a group of people kill another group of people in Syria. How they completely silence the voice of a nation in Bahrain. They deprive a nation of everything. How they pitch the people against one another in Egypt and other areas. These are the policies which may have been shaped as a result of certain individuals\\\' personal and religious motives. But the main plot has been hatched by the enemies. I do not accuse anybody of intentionally and willingly hatching the plot of the enemy. But I firmly say that each kind of discord among Muslim nations or inside each Islamic country means that they are playing into the enemies\\\' hands. This is a kind of help offered to the enemy. Everybody should take the issue of unity seriously. Primarily elites, including political, religious, academic and seminary elites should do this. Elites, wherever they are, should do this. In our country, everybody should take the issue of unity seriously. Creating religious discord among different Muslim groups is a great danger. If the enemies can fuel the fire of sectarian discord somewhere, extinguishing this fire is one of the most difficult tasks. We should prevent this from happening. This is not possible except if the elites, in each country, show their initiative, make efforts and preserve their purity. Scholars, academics, politicians and those who are influential, should explain to the people the plot of the enemy and his hope of creating discord among the people, Islamic countries, Islamic parties, different orientations in different Islamic denominations and between Shia and Sunni. They should inform the people. This is a great danger which the enemies have been involved with. The English have long experiences in this regard. We have read about them in history books and we can see what they have done to create discord. They know how to do it and the others have learnt this from them. They are busy trying to create discord. We should avoid discord. We should not fuel the fire of discord by arousing shallow and vulgar feelings. This will burn the fate of nations. It will completely destroy them, it will help the enemies of Islam, the enemies of Muslims and the enemies of independence succeed in their goals and it will help them hatch their plots. We should remain vigilant. Islamic unity is a sacred slogan. If the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) were among us today, he would invite us to promote unity as this holy ayah says, \\\"It grieves him that you should perish: ardently anxious is he over you: to the believers is he most kind and merciful\\\" [The Holy Quran, 9: 128]. He would prevent these kinds of discord. If we love the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.), we should meet this major demand that he made. I ask Allah the Exalted to bestow on all of us the blessing to do what we say. Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\'s mercy and blessing Source: http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1739&Itemid=4

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.

Session 4 / Becoming familiar with some of the sweet concepts of the Sha’baniya Supplication In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. The feeling of wanting to supplicate God is a feeling that is caused by spiritual maturity. As a result of spiritual maturity, a person feels dependent on God, like the attachment a child has to his parents. When you separate a child from his mother, he doesn’t calm down no matter what logic you use. He can’t tolerate even a moment of being separated whatever your reasoning. One who reaches spiritual maturity gains this feeling in connection with the Lord of the universe. The difference is that a child doesn’t have a sense of guilt, humility, humbleness, beseeching, and many other feelings towards his parents that a servant has towards his master. But, this kind of feeling of needing to be close to one’s parents, is created in a person who has reached spiritual maturity. Of course, his feeling of needing to be close to the Lord of the universe is much more intense than that of a child. He sees some obstacles between God and himself. He feels sad because of these obstacles. These obstacles may be natural obstacles, like the length of one’s lifespan before meeting God. He sees these natural obstacles as being a barrier for getting close to God and meeting Him, so he cries. Or these obstacles may be from himself, and they are usually of this type. Basically, one of the good feelings that a servant who has attained spiritual growth feels towards his master is that he always feels guilty before his master. This feeling of guilt is a true feeling and not a compliment. This will be the cause of his broken heart and sorrow, and he will be able to supplicate God. If the Almighty God wants to be gracious to a person, He puts him on the path of the relationship between a servant and his master. Naturally, there is only crying on this path. Perhaps many who are not familiar with these ideas will be surprised at these words. It’s like a person who wants to use logic to compel a child to be patient and silent for a few minutes while being apart from his mother. But the child doesn’t accept this at all. It’s as if no one understands the child, and the child doesn’t understand others. Rumi says beautifully in a poem, “When He wants to help us, He pulls our interest towards moaning.” Next, the poem describes a heart, which moans. “Auspicious is the heart, which burns for Him (from love). Good for the eyes, which weep for Him. A person who sees the end is a blessed servant. The end of each cry is a laugh. Wherever there are flowing tears, there’ll be mercy. Wherever there is running water, there’ll be greenery.” The poem continues describing crying. These are not descriptions, which will create that feeling in us. It’s like trying to describe a perfume or the smell of a flower. Or, it is like when we try to explain colors for a person who cannot see. There aren’t any words for describing colors. There are no words for describing the smell of a flower, or the smell of a perfume or cologne. Although people experience it, they cannot describe it. This state of wanting to supplicate God is created due to a spiritual growth. A person’s spiritual growth causes him to feel a need. This is in the same way that when people reach the age of maturity they feel a need for a companion, the same way that parents feel a need for children, and the same way that people feel a need for being in a community and are sad when they are alone. When a person grows spiritually, he wants this relationship with God too. All these supplications can be understood in such an atmosphere. If a person is not in such an atmosphere, he cannot understand this supplication at all. It’s very good if we recite this supplication with this feeling, this pleading and praying that, “God, open this door for me.” Or, we should read this supplication with the feeling that we are very far from the feeling that the Commander of the Faithful, Ali (‘a), felt. Praising this beautiful relationship and regretting that we don’t have it can bring a person closer to Him. Let’s talk about one of the phrases. In accordance with the rituals for supplication, the Imam (‘a) says, “What comes to me or is taken away, benefits or loss, are in Your hands and not the hands of anyone else.” One of the rituals for supplication is that a person announce his knowledge about God, especially knowledge about the oneness of the God of the universe. Seeing only God to be effective in the world, in our being and in our lives and remembering these monotheistic teachings in our praying to God and our supplications is beautiful. A tradition says, “When someone says, ‘There is no strength or power except from the High and Great God,’ the Almighty God immediately says, ‘My angels! See My servant confessed that no one has power except Me. Now, resolve any problems that he has.’”

Who was Ammar ibn Yasir? In this episode of Unsung Heroes, Sayyid Haydar Jamaludeen speaks about \"Ammar ibn Yasir\". Yet, who was Ammar ibn Yasir? And along with Ammar ibn Yasir, who all else from his family was tortured by the polytheists of Mecca? And who specifically had a hand in the torture of Ammar ibn Yasir and his family members? Who was the first martyr of Islam and who was the first female martyr of Islam? What did Ammar ibn Yasir do, after he had witnessed the heart-wrenching martyrdom of his mother and father, right in front of his eyes? What verse of the holy Qur\'an was revealed as regards to Ammar ibn Yasir? Who was the first person to observe Taqiyya in religion of Islam? What did the Messenger of Allah (S) tell some of the Muslims to do in the early era of Islam, when the pressures from the polytheistic Quraysh became all too unbearable? Which 4 personalities did the Messenger of Allah (S) say that Paradise is eager for? Where was Ammar ibn Yasir appointed to as a governor? Did Ammar ibn Yasir participate in the wars of Jamal and Siffin? And finally, what is a famous prophecy of the Messenger of Allah (S) regarding Ammar ibn Yasir, and how does this prophecy prove the rightfulness of Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (A)? Find out this and more in this episode about one of the most courageous, faithful, and loyal companions of the Messenger of Allah (S) and Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (A), \"Ammar ibn Yasir\", as Sayyid Haydar Jamaludeen goes through some of the beautiful, honorable, and yet largely overlooked \"Unsung Heroes\" of Islam. #IslamicPulse #UnsungHeroes #Islam #Allah #Quran #AhulBayt #Muslim #Martyrdom #Shahadat #History #Martyr #Shaheed #Honor #Valor #Sacrifice #Chivalry #Courage #Mohammad #Ammar #AmmarYasir #ImamAli

Who was Zayd ibn Harithah? In this episode of Unsung Heroes, Sayyid Haydar Jamaludeen speaks about \"Zayd ibn Harithah\". Yet, who was Zayd ibn Harithah, how did he live his life, and what was his biographical background? How did Zayd ibn Harithah end up in the house and under the protection of lady Khadija (A)? And subsequently, how did Zayd ibn Harithah end up in the care of the Messenger of Allah (S)? Who was the first male person to accept Islam at the hands of the Messenger of Allah (S), and who was the second? Who did Zayd ibn Harithah choose between his own birth father and the Messenger of Allah (S)? What did the polytheists of Ta\'if do to the Messenger of Allah (S), who did the holy Prophet (S) take with him, and how did the companions of the holy Prophet (S) protect him? In the city of Medina, who did the Messenger of Allah (S) make the \'brother\' of Zayd ibn Harithah? What happened in the Battle of Mu\'tah? And finally, how did Zayd ibn Harithah attain the lofty status of martyrdom? Find out this and more in this episode about one of the most loyal, devout, and faithful companions of the Messenger of Allah (S) and Imam Ali (A), \"Zayd ibn Harithah\", as Sayyid Haydar Jamaludeen goes through some of the beautiful, honorable, and yet largely overlooked \"Unsung Heroes\" of Islam. #IslamicPulse #UnsungHeroes #Islam #Allah #Quran #AhulBayt #Muslim #Martyrdom #Shahadat #History #Martyr #Shaheed #Honor #Valor #Sacrifice #Chivalry #Courage #Zayd #Harithah #ZaydIbnHarithah #Prophet #ImamAli

Who was Abu Haytham Malik ibn Tayyihan al-Ansari? In this episode of Unsung Heroes, Sayyid Haydar Jamaludeen speaks about \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Ibn Tayyihan\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". Yet, who was Ibn Tayyihan, how did he live his life, and what was his biographical background? Who was among the first people in Medina to accept Islam? Which famous tribe did Ibn Tayyihan belong to? What is an interesting story about Ibn Tayyihan as regards to the idol worshippers of Medina? What are known as the Pledges of Aqaba, and was Ibn Tayyihan a part of these pledges? When appointing representatives to the Aws and Khazraj tribes, who did the Messenger of Allah (S) appoint as his representative to the Bani Abd al-Ash-hal tribe? Who were the Ansar and the Muhajireen? What was the financial status of Ibn Tayyihan and how did he serve Islam with this financial status? What was the system of brotherhood that was established by the Messenger of Allah (S) in the city of Medina? What was the name of one of our previous Unsung Heroes who was known as Dhul Sayfayn and why was Ibn Tayyihan known as Dhul Sayfayn? What famous tradition from the Messenger of Allah (S) is related from Ibn Tayyihan, and where and why did Ibn Tayyihan relate this tradition? Which battles did Ibn Tayyihan participate in and which battle did he attain martyrdom in? Who buried Ibn Tayyihan and what did that individual say about Ibn Tayyihan? And finally, how did Ibn Tayyihan attain the lofty status of martyrdom? Find out this and more in this episode about one of the most loyal, devout, and faithful companions of the Messenger of Allah (S) and the Commander of the Faithful, Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (A), \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Ibn Tayyihan\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", as Sayyid Haydar Jamaludeen goes through some of the beautiful, honorable, and yet largely overlooked \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Unsung Heroes\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" of Islam. #IslamicPulse #UnsungHeroes #Islam #Allah #Quran #AhulBayt #Muslim #Martyrdom #Shahadat #History #Martyr #Shaheed #Honor #Valor #Sacrifice #Chivalry #Courage #IbnTayyihan #Prophet #ImamAli #Ansar #Mecca #Medina #Kufa #Siffin #Jamal

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran. JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities. The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue. The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran. AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran. Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more. Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president. AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic. Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur. JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs. We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region. AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place. A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another. But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number. So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free. JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that? AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now. PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed. AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it. Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that. But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy. AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see. Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here. I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end. It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward. I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie. AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran. Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is. JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion. Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad. But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue. AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad. ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration. AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president President Ahmadinejad was interviewed recently in New York by Democracy Now

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran. JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities. The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue. The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran. AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran. Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more. Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president. AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic. Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur. JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs. We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region. AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place. A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another. But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number. So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free. JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that? AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now. PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed. AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it. Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that. But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy. AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see. Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here. I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end. It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward. I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie. AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran. Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is. JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion. Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad. But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue. AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad. ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration. AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran. JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities. The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue. The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran. AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran. Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more. Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president. AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic. Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur. JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs. We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region. AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place. A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another. But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number. So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free. JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that? AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now. PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed. AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it. Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that. But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy. AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see. Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here. I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end. It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward. I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie. AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran. Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is. JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion. Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad. But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue. AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad. ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration. AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president

Message of Thaqalayn \"Al-Ghadir\" and its Relevance to Islamic Unity ________________________________________ Ayatullah Murtaza Mutahhari Translated by Mojgan Jalali Vol. 3, No. 1 and 2 (1417 AH/1996 CE) The distinguished book entitled \"al-Ghadir\" has raised a huge wave in the world of Islam. Islamic thinkers shed light on the book in different perspectives; in literature, history, theology, tradition, tafsir, and sociology. From the social perspective we can deal with the Islamic unity. In this review the Islamic unity has been dealt with from a social point of view. Contemporary Muslim thinkers and reformists are of the view that unity and solidarity of Muslims are the most imperative Islamic exigencies at the present juncture when the enemies have made extensive inroads upon the Islamic community and have tried to resort to different ways and means to spread the old differences and create new ones. We are aware that Islamic unity and fraternity is the focus of attention of the Holy Legislator of Islam and is actually the major objective pursued by this Divine religion as firmed by the Qur\'an, the \"Sunnah\", and the history of Islam. For this reason, some people have been faced with this question: Wouldn\'t the compilation and publication of a book such as \"al-Ghadir\" which deals with the oldest issue of differences among the Muslims- create a barrier in the way of the sublime and lofty objective of the Islamic unity? To answer this question, it is necessary first to elucidate the essence of this issue, that is, the Islamic unity, and then proceed to examine the role of the magnum opus entitled \"al-Ghadir\"and its eminent compiler \'Allamah Amini in bringing about Islamic unity. Islamic Unity What is meant by the Islamic unity? Does it mean that one Islamic school of thought should be unanimously followed and others be set aside? Or does it mean that the commonalties of all Islamic schools of thought should be taken up and their differences be put away to make up a new denomination which is not completely the same as the previous ones? Or does it mean that Islamic unity is in no way related to the unity of the different schools of Fiqh (jurisprudence) but signifies the unity of the Muslims and the unity of the followers of different schools of Fiqh, with their different religious ideas and views, vis-a-vis the aliens? To give an illogical and impractical meaning to the issue of the Islamic unity, the opponents of the issue have called it to be the formation of a single Madhhab, so as to defeat it in the very first step. Without doubt, by the term Islamic unity, the intellectual Islamic \'Ulama\' (scholars) do not mean that all denominations should give in to one denomination or that the commonalties should be taken up and the different views and ideas be set aside, as these are neither rational and logical nor favorable and practical. By the Islamic unity these scholars mean that all Muslims should unite in one line against their common enemies. These scholars slate that Muslims have many things in common, which can serve as the foundations of a firm unity. All Muslims worship the One Almighty and believe in the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet (s). The Qur\'an is the Book of all Muslims and Ka\'abah is their \"qiblah\" (direction of prayer). They go to\"hajj\" pilgrimage with each other and perform the \"hajj\" rites and rituals like one another. They say the daily prayers and fast like each other. They establish families and engage in transactions like one another. They have similar ways of bringing up their children and burying their dead. Apart from minor affairs, they share similarities in all the aforementioned cases. Muslims also share one kind of world view, one common culture, and one grand, glorious, and long-standing civilization. Unity in the world view, in culture, in the civilization, in insight and disposition, in religious beliefs, in acts of worship and prayers, in social rites and customs can well turn the Muslim into a unified nation to serve as a massive and dominant power before which the big global powers would have to bow down. This is especially true in view of the stress laid by Islam on this principle. According to the explicit wording of the Qur\'an, the Muslims are brothers, and special rights and duties link them together. So, why shouldn\'t the Muslims use all these extensive facilities accorded to them as the blessing of Islam? This group of \'Ulama\' are of the view that there is no need for the Muslims to make any compromise on the primary or secondary principles of their religion for the sake of Islamic unity. Also it is not necessary for the Muslims to avoid engaging in discussions and reasons and writing books on primary and secondary principles about which they have differences. The only consideration for Islamic unity in this case is that the Muslims- in order to avoid the emergence or accentuation of vengeance - preserve their possession, avoid insulting and accusing each other and uttering fabrications, abandon ridiculing the logic of one another, and finally abstain from hurting one another and going beyond the borders of logic and reasoning. In fact, they should, at least, observe the limits which Islam has set forth for inviting non-Muslims to embrace it: \"Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner... \"(16: 125) Some people are of the view that those schools of fiqh, such as, Shafi\'i and Hanafi which have no differences in principle should establish brotherhood and stand in one line. They believe that denominations which have differences in the principles can in no way be brothers. This group view the religious principles as an interconnected set as termed by scholars of Usul, as an interrelated and interdependent set; any damage to one principle harms all principles. As a result, those who believe in this principle are of the view that when, for instance, the principle of \"imamah\" is damaged and victimized, unity and fraternity will bear no meaning and for this reason the Shi\'ah and the Sunnis cannot shake hands as two Muslim brothers and be in the same rank, no matter who their enemy is. The first group answers this group by saying: \"There is no reason for us to consider the principles as an interrelated set and follow the principle of \"all or none\". Imam \'Ali (\'a) chose a very logical and reasonable approach. He left no stone unturned to retrieve his right. He used everything within his power to restore the principle of \"imamah\", but he never adhered to the motto of \"all or none\". \'Ali (\'a) did not rise up for his right, and that was not compulsory. On the contrary, it was a calculated and chosen approach. He did not fear death. Why didn\'t he rise up? There could have been nothing above martyrdom. Being killed for the cause of the Almighty was his ultimate desire. He was more intimate with martyrdom than a child is with his mother\'s breast. But in his sound calculations, Imam \'All (\'a) had reached the conclusion that under the existing conditions it was to the interest of Islam to foster collaboration and cooperation among the Muslims and give up revolt. He repeatedly stressed this point. In one of his letters (No.62 \"Nahj al Balaghah\") to Malik al-Ashtar, he wrote the following: \"First I pulled back my hand until I realized that a group of people converted from Islam and invited the people toward annihilating the religion of Muhammad(s). So I feared that if I did not rush to help Islam and the Muslims, I would see gaps or destruction which calamity would be far worse than the several-day-long demise of caliphate.\" In the six-man council, after appointment of \'Uthman by \'Abdul-Rahman ibn \'Awf, \'Ali (\'a) set forth his objection as well as his readiness for collaboration as follows:\" You well know that I am more deserving than others for caliphate. But now by Allah, so long as the affairs of the Muslims are in order and my rivals suffice with setting me aside and only I am alone subjected to oppression, I will not oppose (the move) and will give in (to it).\" (From Sermon 72, \"Nahj al- Balaghah\"). These indicate that in this issue \'Ali (\'a) condemned the principle of \"all or none\". There is no need to further elaborate the approach taken by \'Ali (\'a) toward this issue. There are ample historical proofs and reasons in this regard. \'Allamah Amini Now it is time to see to which group the eminent \'Allamah, Ayatullah Amini - the distinguished compiler of the \"al-Ghadir\" - belonged and how he thought. Did he approve of the unity of the Muslims only within the light of Shi\'ism? Or did he consider Islamic fraternity to be broader? Did he believe that Islam which is embraced by uttering the \"shahadatayn\" (the Muslim creed) would willy-nilly create some rights for the Muslims and that the brotherhood and fraternity set forth in the Qur\'an exists among all Muslims? \'Allamah Amini personally considered this point - i.e. the need to elucidate his viewpoint on this subject and elaborate whether\"al-Ghadir\" has a positive or a negative role in (the establishment of) Islamic unity. In order not to be subject to abuse by his opponent - be they among the pros and cons - he has repeatedly explained and elucidated his views. \'Allamah Amini supported Islamic unity and viewed an open mind and clear insight. On different occasions, he set forth this matter in various volumes of the \"al-Ghadir\'. Reference will be made to some of them below: In the preface to volume I, he briefly mentions the role of \"al-Ghadir\" in the world of Islam. He states: \"And we consider all this as service to religion, sublimation of the word of the truth, and restoration of the Islamic \'ummah\' (community).\" In volume 3 (page 77), after quoting the fabrications of Ibn Taymiyah, Alusi, and Qasimi to the effect that Shi \'ism is hostile to some of the Ahl al-Bayt (the Household of the Prophet) such as Zayd bin \'Ali bin al-Huseyn, he notes the following under the title of \"Criticism and Correction\": \"These fabrications and accusations sow the seeds of corruption, stir hostilities among the \'ummah\',create discord among the Islamic community, divide the \'ummah\', and clash with the public interests of the Muslims. Again in volume 3 (page 268), he quotes the accusation leveled on the Shi\'ahs by Sayyid Muhammad Rashid Rida to the effect that \"Shi\'ahs are pleased with any defeat incurred by Muslims, so much as they celebrated the victory of the Russians over the Muslims.\" Then he says: \"These falsehoods are fabricated by persons like Sayyid Muhammad Rashid Rida. The Shi\'ahs of Iran and Iraq against whom this accusation is leveled, as well as the orientalists, tourists, envoys of Islamic countries, and those who traveled and still travel to Iran and Iraq, have no information about this trend. Shi\'ahs, without exception, respect the lives, blood, reputation, and property of the Muslims be they Shi\'ahs or Sunnis. Whenever a calamity has befallen the Islamic community anywhere, in any region, and for any sects, the Shi\'ahs have shared their sorrow. The Shi\'ahs have never been confined to the Shi\'ah world, the (concept of) Islamic brotherhood which has been set forth in the Qur\'an and the \'sunnah\'(the Prophet\'s sayings and actions), and in this respect, no discrimination has been made between the Shi\'ahs and the Sunnis.\" Also at the close of volume 3, he criticizes several books penned by the ancients such as \"Iqd al-Farid\" by Ibn Abd al-Rabbih, \"al-Intisar\" by Abu al-Husayn Khayyat al-Mu\'tazili,\"al Farq bayn al-Firaq\" by Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi, \"al-Fasl\" by Ibn Hazm al-Andulusi, \"al-Milal wa al-Nihal\" by Muhammad ibn Abdul-Karim al-Shahristani \"Minhaj al-Sunnah\" by Ibn Taymiah and \"al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah\"by Ibn Kathir and several by the later writers such as \"Tarikh al-Umam al-Islamiyyah\" by Shaykh Muhammad Khizri, \"Fajr al Islam\" by Ahmad Amin, \"al-Jawlat fi Rubu al-Sharq al-Adna\" by Muhammad Thabit al-Mesri, \"al-Sira Bayn al-Islam wa al-Wathaniyah\" by Qasimi, and \"al- Washi\'ah\" by Musa Jarallah. Then he states the following: \"By quoting and criticizing these books, we aim at warning and awakening the Islamic \'ummah\' (to the fact) that these books create the greatest danger for the Islamic community, they destabilize the Islamic unity and scatter the Muslim lines. In fact nothing can disrupt the ranks of the Muslims, destroy their unity, and tear their Islamic fraternity more severely than these books.\" \'Allamah Amini, in the preface to volume 5, under title of\"Nazariyah Karimah\" on the occasion of a plaque of honor forwarded from Egypt for \"al-Ghadir\", clearly sets forth his view on this issue and leaves no room for any doubt. He remarks: \"People are free to express views and ideas on religion. These (views and ideas) will never tear apart the bond of Islamic brotherhood to which the holy Qur\'an has referred by stating that \'surely the believers are brethren\'; even though academic discussion and theological and religious debates reach a peak. This has been the style of the predecessors, and of the \'sahaba\' and the\'tabi\'un\', at the head of them. \"Notwithstanding all the differences that we have in the primary and secondary principles, we, the compilers and writers in nooks and corners of the world of Islam, share a common point and that is belief in the Almighty and His Prophet. A single spirit and one (form of) sentiment exists in all our bodies, and that is the spirit of Islam and the term\'ikhlas,\" \"We, the Muslim compilers, all live under the banner of truth and carry out our duties under the guidance of the Qur\'an and the Prophetic Mission of the Holy Prophet (s). The message of all of us is \'Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam ... (3:18)\' and the slogan of all of us is \'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger.\' Indeed, we are (the members of) the party of Allah and the supporters of his religion. In the preface to volume 8, under the title of \"al-Ghadir Yowahhad al-Sufuf fil-Mila al-Islami\", \'Allamah Amini directly makes researches into the role of \"Al- Ghadir\" in (the establishment of) Islamic unity. In this discussion, this great scholar categorically rejects the accusations leveled by those who said: \'Al-Ghadir\' causes greater discord among the Muslims. He proves that, on the contrary, \"Al-Ghadir\"removes many misunderstandings and brings the Muslims closer to one another. Then he brings evidence by mentioning the confessions of the non-Shi\'i Islamic scholars. At the close, he quotes the letter of Shaykh Muhammad Saeed Dahduh written in this connection. To avoid prolongation of this article, we will not quote and translate the entire statements of \'Allamah Amini in explaining the positive role of \"al-Ghadir\" in (establishing) Islamic unity, since what has already been mentioned sufficiently proves this fact. The positive role of \"al-Ghadir\" is established by the facts that it firstly clarifies the proven logic of the Shi\'ahs and proves that the inclination of Muslims to Shi\'ism - notwithstanding the poisonous publicity of some people - is not due to political, ethnic, or other trends and considerations. It also verifies that a powerful logic based on the Qur\'an and the \"sunnah\" has given rise to this tendency. Secondly, it reflects that some accusations leveled on Shi\'ism - which have made other Muslims distanced from the Shi\'ah- are totally baseless and false. Examples of these accusations are the notion that the Shi\'ites prefer the non-Muslims to the non- Shi\'i Muslims, rejoice at the defeat of non-Shi\'ite Muslims at the hands of non-Muslims, and other accusations such as the idea that instead of going to hajj pilgrimage, the Shi\'ahs go on pilgrimage to shrines of the Imams, or have particular rites in prayers and in temporary marriage. Thirdly, it introduces to the world of Islam the eminent Commander of the faithful \'Ali (\'a) who is the most oppressed and the least praised grand Islamic personality and who could be the leader of all Muslims, as well as his pure offspring. Other Comments on \"al-Ghadir\" Many unbiased non-Shia Muslims interpret the \"al-Ghadir\" in the same way that has already been mentioned. Muhammad Abdul-Ghani Hasan al-Mesri, in his foreword on\"al-Ghadir\", which has been published in the preface to volume I, second edition, states: \"I call on the Almighty to make your limpid brook (in Arabic, \'Ghadir\' means brook) the cause of peace and cordiality between the Shia and Sunni brothers to cooperate with one another in building the Islamic \"ummah.\" \'Adil Ghadban, the managing editor of the Egyptian magazine entitled \"al-Kitab\", said the following in the preface to volume 3: \"This book clarifies the Shi\'ite logic. The Sunnis can correctly learn about the Shi\'i through this book. Correct recognition of the Shi\'ahs brings the views of the Shi\'ahs and the Sunnis closer, and they can make a unified rank\". In his foreword to the \"al-Ghadir\" which was published in thepreface to volume 4, Dr. Muhammad Ghallab, professor of philosophy at the Faculty of Religious Studies al-Azhar University said: \"I got hold of your book at a very opportune time, because right now I am busy collecting and compiling a book on the lives of the Muslims from various perspectives. Therefore, I am highly avidfor obtaining sound information about \'Imamiyah\' Shi\'ism. Your book will help me. And I will not make mistakes about the Shi\'ahs as others have\". In this foreword published in the preface to volume 4 of the\"al-Ghadir\", Dr. \'Abdul-Rahman Kiali Halabi says the following after referring to the decline of the Muslims in the present age and the factors which can lead to the Muslims\' salvation, one of which is the sound recognition of the successor of the Holy Prophet (s): \"The book entitled \"al-Ghadir\" and its rich content deserves to be known by every Muslim to learn how historians have been negligent and see where the truth lies. Through this means, we should compensate for the past, and by striving to foster the unity of the Muslims, we should try to gain the due rewards\". These were the views of \'Allamah Amini about the important social issues of our age and such were his sound reflections in the world of Islam. Peace be upon him. Text Source: http://www.al-islam.org/mot/default.asp?url=ghadir-relevance.htm

(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.

In the Name of Allah, the All-beneficent, the All-merciful. الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ ٱلاوَّلِ قَبْلَ ٱلإِنْشَاءِ وَٱلإِحْيَاءِ al¦amdu lill¡hi al-awwali qabla al-insh¡\\\'i wal-i¦y¡\\\'i All praise be to Allah, the First before the bringing forth and the giving of life, وَٱلآخِرِ بَعْدَ فَنَاءِ ٱلاشْيَاءِ wal-¡khiri ba`da fan¡\\\'i al-ashy¡\\\'i and the Last after the annihilation of all things, ٱلْعَلِيمِ ٱلَّذِي لاَ يَنْسَىٰ مَنْ ذَكَرَهُ al`al¢mi alladh¢ l¡ yans¡ man dhakarah£ the All-knowing Who forgets not him who remembers Him, وَلاَ يَنْقُصُ مَنْ شَكَرَهُ wa l¡ yanqu¥u man shakarah£ decreases not him who thanks Him, وَلاَ يُخَيِّبُ مَنْ دَعَاهُ wa l¡ yukhayyibu man da`¡hu disappoints not him who supplicates Him, وَلاَ يَقْطَعُ رَجَاءَ مَنْ رَجَاهُ wa l¡ yaq§a`u raj¡\\\'a man raj¡hu and cuts not off the hope of him who hopes in Him! اَللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي اشْهِدُكَ all¡humma inn¢ ush-hiduka O Allah, I call You to witness وَكَفَىٰ بِكَ شَهيداً wa kaf¡ bika shah¢dan and You are sufficient Witness وَاشْهِدُ جَمِيعَ مَلائِكَتِكَ wa ush-hidu jam¢`a mal¡\\\'ikatika and I call to witness all Your angels, وَسُكَّانَ سَموَاتِكَ wa sukk¡na sam¡w¡tika the inhabitants of Your heavens, وَحَمَلَةَ عَرْشِكَ wa ¦amalata `arshika the bearers of Your Throne, وَمَنْ بَعَثْتَ مِنْ انْبيَائِكَ وَرُسُلِكَ wa man ba`athta min anbiy¡\\\'ika wa rusulika Your prophets and Your messengers whom You have sent out, وَ انْشَاْتَ مِنْ اصْنَافِ خَلْقِكَ wa ansha\\\'ta min a¥n¡fi khalqika and the various kinds of creatures You have brought forth, انِّي اشْهَدُ انَّكَ انْتَ ٱللَّهُ ann¢ ash-hadu annaka anta all¡hu that I bear witness that You are Allah; لاَ إِلٰهَ إِلاَّ انْتَ وَحْدَكَ l¡ il¡ha ill¡ anta wa¦daka there is no god but You, You alone, لاَ شَرِيكَ لَكَ وَلاَ عَدِيلَ l¡ shar¢ka laka wa l¡ `ad¢la Who have no associate nor any equal, وَلاَ خُلْفَ لِقَوْلِكَ وَلاَ تَبْدِيلَ wa l¡ khulfa liqawlika wa l¡ tabd¢la and Your word has no failing, nor any change; وَ انَّ مُحَمَّداً صَلَّىٰ ٱللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ عَبْدُكَ وَرَسُولُكَ wa anna mu¦ammadan ¥all¡ all¡hu `alayhi wa ¡lih¢ `abduka wa ras£luka and that Mu¦ammad, Allah bless him and his Household, is Your servant and Your messenger; ادَّىٰ مَا حَمَّلْتَهُ إِلَىٰ ٱلْعِبَادِ add¡ m¡ ¦ammaltah£ il¡ al`ib¡di he delivered to the servants that with which You charged him, وَجَاهَدَ فِي ٱللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ حَقَّ ٱلْجِهَادِ wa j¡hada f¢ all¡hi `azza wa jalla ¦aqqa aljih¡di struggled for Allah as is His due, وَ انَّهُ بَشَّرَ بِما هُوَ حَقُّ مِنَ ٱلثَّوابِ wa annah£ bashshara bim¡ huwa ¦aqqun min alththaw¡bi gave the good news of the truth of reward, وَ انْذَرَ بِما هُوَ صِدْقٌ مِنَ ٱلعِقَابِ wa andhara bim¡ huwa ¥idqun min al`iq¡bi and warned of the veracity of punishment. اَللَّهُمَّ ثَبِّتْنِي عَلَىٰ دِينِكَ مَا احْيَيْتَنِي all¡humma thabbitn¢ `al¡ d¢nika m¡ a¦yaytan¢ O Allah, make me firm in Your religion as long as You keep me alive, وَلاَ تُزِغْ قَلْبِي بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَيْتَنِي wa l¡ tuzigh qalb¢ ba`da idh hadaytan¢ make not my heart swerve after You have guided me, وَهَبْ لِي مِنْ لَدُنْكَ رَحْمَةً wa hab l¢ min ladunka ra¦matan and give me mercy from You, إِنَّكَ انْتَ ٱلْوَهَّابُ innaka anta alwahh¡bu surely, You are the All-bestower. صَلِّ عَلَىٰ مُحَمَّدٍ وآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ ¥alli `al¡ mu¦ammadin wa ¡li mu¦ammadin Bless Mu¦ammad and the Household of Mu¦ammad, وَٱجْعَلْنِي مِنْ اتْبَاعِهِ وَشِيعَتِهِ waj`aln¢ min atb¡`ih¢ wa sh¢`atih¢ make me one of his followers and his partisans, وَٱحْشُرْنِي فِي زُمْرَتِهِ wa¦shurn¢ f¢ zumratih¢ muster me in his band, وَوَفِّقْنِي لادَاءِ فَرْضِ ٱلْجُمُعَاتِ wa waffiqn¢ li-ad¡\\\'i far¤i aljumu`¡ti and give me the success of accomplishing the obligatory observance of Fridays, وَمَا اوْجَبْتَ عَلَيَّ فِيهَا مِنَ ٱلطَّاعَاتِ wa m¡ awjabta `alayya f¢h¡ min a§§¡`¡ti performing the acts of obedience which You have made incumbent upon me within it, وَقَسَمْتَ لاهْلِهَا مِنَ ٱلعَطَاءِ wa qasamta li-ahlih¡ min al`a§¡\\\'i and receiving the bestowal which You have apportioned for its people فِي يَوْمِ ٱلْجزَاءِ f¢ yawmi aljaz¡\\\'i on the Day of Recompense! إِنَّكَ انْتَ ٱلْعَزِيزُ ٱلْحَكِيمُ innaka anta al`az¢zu al¦ak¢mu Surely, You are the Almighty, the All-wise!

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.

http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=103321&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=14&s1=1 S. Nasrallah: EU Decision Means Involvement in any Israeli Aggression Eslam al-Rihani Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said on Wednesday that the latest EU decision regarding Hezbollah will only doom to failure, advising the European states to soak their paper in water and drink it, for the Resistance will remain vital and victorious by the will of Allah Almighty. Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan NasrallahDuring his speech at the annual Iftar ceremony held by the Women\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Committee of Islamic Resistance Support Association of Hezbollah, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that the resistance has its own presence and influence in the regional equations, and has been always a concern at the Lebanese, Arab, regional and international levels, whether positively or negatively. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"A positive interest from those who believe in the resistance, pin their hopes on it and consider it to be a source of pride, and negative interest from those who consider it a source of threat for their occupation and hegemony,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he said. His eminence indicated that the Resistance is not on the margin and there is always attempts to eliminate and crush it, whether militarily, politically, morally or culturally, expressing beliefs that such decisions have no more than psychological effects. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The most important for the Lebanese Resistance is to get the support of its people and to express their will, pride and view in defending their land and their sovereignty.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Resistance has gained credibility among people in Lebanon and the Arab and Islamic world and in many places of the world due to its sacrifices and steadfastness because it did not back down, retreat or get defeated and also due to its achievements and field victories.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Resistance has changed the game rules and dropped projects and liberated captives, dignity and sovereignty of Lebanon. It also imposed a leading position for Lebanon in the region and will remain a solid fork in the eye of the Zionists and those who want Lebanon to get worse,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" his eminence added. Touching on the EU member-states\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' decision that blacklisted what they dubbed \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'the military wing\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' of Hezbollah, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the decision has been announced in the media without issuing a formal statement to unfold its motives, evidence and logic. His eminence noted that the EU official statement will be issued within days, and the party will see then whether it will hold any argument or logic to be discussed, pointing out that the historical course of the European states confirms that their stance is not subjected to any values. Thanking all presidents, leaders, personalities and institutions that rejected the EU decision and condemned it, his eminence stated that the party wasn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t surprised by the decision but the leadership has expected it since the previous period. Iftar 2013Hezbollah Secretary General went on to say that the Zionists have expressed that the decision was the result of diplomatic efforts they exerted, recommending some of those who rejoiced in Lebanon to hide their joy a little bit so they wouldn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t express the same state of happiness as the Israelis. Sayyed Nasrallah reiterated that the EU countries have insulted themselves and their principles, interests and sovereignty when they submitted to the Israelis and Americans, stating that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"EU countries should know they are giving legal cover for Israel to launch any war on Lebanon because Israel can claim it is waging war on the terrorists.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"These countries make themselves a full partner in the Israeli aggression on Lebanon, on the Resistance and on any target for the resistance in Lebanon.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" The Lebanese Resistance leader asked why the military wing of Israeli army wouldn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t be put on the list of terror? While the EU \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"repeatedly admits that Israel occupies Arab land and does not implement international resolutions since tens of years, and the whole world witnessed the Israeli massacres.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" He also voiced that the EU stance is subjected to the interests and pressures, not to the values and principles, where its effects are nothing more than psychological. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"In this country, resistance fighters fought the Israeli occupation and have endured a lot of pressure and sacrificed martyrs. Then you come to those who are the sons of this people and say they are terrorists. This is a very bad abuse for the fighters, for their people, and for their successive governments that were supporting the Resistance by their ministerial statements,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he said. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This is bad for Lebanon and the Lebanese government and people and not only for Resistance fighters,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he added, stressing that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"this will not undermine our morale.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Addressing the European states, Sayyed Nasrallah said: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are nationalists even in holidays. You can retake the visas you were granting for us. We do not have money in Europe. We do not have commercial or trade projects in Lebanon or abroad. therefore, this decision has no effects in this regard.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Yesterday, European delegates in Lebanon tried to say that the decision will not affect relations with Lebanon,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" recalling that some in the March 14 bloc are working to frustrate the people and descend walls on their hopes. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This decision aims at making us bow, to force us to step back and to be afraid. But I tell you that all you will get is failure and frustration,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" his eminence told the European Union. Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan NasrallahIn the same context, Hezbollah Secretary General said that those who think that the resistance, which confronted in such days the strongest army in the region over 33 days, will be undermined by a silly decision is either will be subjugated by this decision are either delusional or ignorant. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This decision will not be able to achieve any of its goals and we invite them (EU states) to correct this mistake because it will not lead to result,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he stressed. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Dip it (the decision) in water and drink it,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he added to the EU. Touching on the local situation, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the other camp in Lebanon will not be able to exploit the decision in their domestic political calculations, or to isolate the party and form a cabinet without it. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"A government without Hezbollah will not be formed, not because we are eager for it but for other things.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" His eminence jokingly suggested that Hezbollah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s ministers in the next government will be of the military wing of the party. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"So do not bet on exploiting the decision internally,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he told the Lebanese political rivals. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We call for the formation of a political government that preserve Lebanon and play in the heart of the storms moving around us.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Resistance will remain and will be victorious by God\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Will,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah concluded.

🔴Important Points of Syed Hassan Nasrallah Speech Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: I will not be talking about any of those topics today, but only about the recent disaster that happened Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: We stand before an incident that left a huge impact on the humanitarian scale as well as a huge economic effect since this port was the economic lifeline of Lebanon. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: I send condolences to the families of the martyrs. I ask Allah to grant their families patience and tranquility. I pray the injured are healed soon and that everyone is granted patience to endure those difficult times. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: What is notable is that people from all sects were affected by this incident. Beirut is a city of all sects and religions. Millions were harmed by this incident as more than half of Lebanon\\\\\\\'s population resides in Beirut. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: This is proof of the deep humanitarian, nationalistic, and moral values that our people have, from all sects and regions in the country. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: People were quick to rush to donate blood, volunteer in cleaning the streets, saving those under the rubble, offer their homes for the ones who lost theirs... everyone was compassionate and empathetic towards each other. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: Hezbollah reassures its readiness to help in every way needed and to help in any field we are needed in.. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: Several countries have sent aid and sent delegations to Lebanon, most notably the French president\\\\\\\'s visit. We see every visit and any aid from any nation to Lebanon as positive and prefer to remain optimistic in our stance and look at the bright side. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: The first 2 scenes were positive, but the 3rd isn\\\\\\\'t so much so. In every crisis, people put their differences aside and cooperate to rise after the disaster. Political statements usually take a couple of days, but this is not what happened here. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: From the first hour after the explosion, leaders of political parties and several media outlets were quick to share their narrative. The fire in the port was still raging and people still hadn\\\\\\\'t known what happened at the time... Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: The first narration to be shared was that what caused the explosion was a warehouse containing weapons for Hezbollah. Why? To tell the people of Beirut and Lebanon that the one who killed you, hurt you, terrified your children...is Hezbollah. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: They did not even wait to be sure whether this was an accident or a planned attack. We were forced to stand in the position of accusations on top of grieving the incident that took place. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: I firmly and assertively deny that Hezbollah has a single missile, rifle, bullet or anything at the port. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: There was another narrative that Hezbollah was responsible over the Beirut port. This is not true. Some would ask, does that mean that Hezbollah knows more about the Haifa port than the Beirut port? Yes. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: The results of the investigations will reveal the truth. I ask the Lebanese people to hold accountable every media channel pushing for propaganda. Where are they taking the country with those claims they are making? What are they trying to do? Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: The results of the investigations will reveal the truth. I ask the Lebanese people to hold accountable every media channel pushing for propaganda. Where are they taking the country with those claims they are making? What are they trying to do? Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: Every party that had a problem with the president, the government, or even us, took advantage of the incident to attack. I will not address this because now is the time to heal our wounds and allow people to grieve. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: The investigations should be very transparent and objective. The truth shall prevail. The investigations should not take the route of the typical Lebanese investigations where the criminal ends up protected.. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: Every governmental institution needs to hold its responsibility in the investigations; the army, government, parliament, judiciary... The ones responsible, whether they come from a single sect or several ones, should all be held accountable. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: Is there any hope to establish a decent state in Lebanon with the current political class? I don\\\\\\\'t want to break anyone\\\\\\\'s morale, but no, there is no hope with this current class. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: Even if this was a planned attack, even if it was a missile, drone, etc., the fact that the ammonium nitrate was stored at the port in this manner for 6 years means that a huge portion of the blame is on the government and political class. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: They are all to blame, ourselves included, since we were not able to do anything to remove those substances from the port. Everyone responsible needs to be held accountable and punished! Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: This catastrophe cannot and will never be forgotten. We\\\\\\\'ve lost so many lives. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: Those who are taking advantage of this disaster for their own political gain against us, they should know that, as they\\\\\\\'ve always failed, they will fail again and again.. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: To everyone who panicked and the people of the Resistance who thought that this was a plot against us and that it would ignite any tension, nothing will happen inshallah. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: The international aid is something Lebanon needs to take advantage of so that we may prevail from this disaster stronger and more victorious. Sayyed Hassan #Nasrallah: The Resistance, in its national and regional role and its strength and people\\\\\\\'s support, is stronger than to be defeated by the liars who have always created strife and pushed for a civil war thinking they would defeat the Resistance.

In this episode of our journey through \\\"The Signs of Allah\\\", Shaykh Muhammad Husayn follows up the previous episode and continues to speak about Chapter No. 108 of the holy Qur\\\'an, Surah Kawthar, and the 2nd and 3rd verse within it. Do we ever realize Who is the One who grants us our blessings? And do we ever realize Who is the One who truly deserves our worship and our prayer? Furthermore, what is the term sacrifice connected with that appears in this verse? Finally, who were the ones who taunted the holy Messenger of Allah? It only takes a few minutes to witness \\\"The Signs of Allah\\\", but it could very well change your lives for the better, for-ever. #Allah #TheSignsofAllah #IslamicPulse #Quran #Tafsir #Islam #TheWord #Kawthar #AhlulBayt

He wants to prove to you that He is the only power. 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 want God to give us security. We want to seek refuge in God as a result of having experienced insecurity. What do we need to know to make this come about better? What is it? God\'s power. His power! I will tell you now. Read the Qur\'an a lot. God, the Almighty, seriously intends to convince everyone who reads these verses that He is the first and last power in the universe. He wants to prove to you that He is a superpower, and actually He is the only power. God is the absolute power. He does whatever He wants. He forgives, guides and grants sustenance to whomever He wants. [Qur’an 3:129, 74:31, 2:212] He attributes many things to Himself. “We [God] created heaven and earth. We said this and that.” God creates an upheaval! A person gradually accepts this. Therefore, I ask you to first look at the Qur\'an as an educational, spiritually effective, constructive book, not as a book that should be translated scientifically to take rulings and lessons from it. Let it correct you. For example, they give eggplant stew to someone in a laboratory and say, “Test this and see if it’s good or not. Check the amount of vitamins in it.” This scientist won’t eat it even if he is dying from hunger. He wants to test this food. Many of us who go toward the Qur’an act like this scientist in the laboratory does. “Let’s see what’s in it.” Eat it! Eat it! You’re weak from hunger. Consume the Qur’an! For example, one is listening to music. [Someone says,] “You’re listening to music a lot. You really enjoy it!” [He replies,] “No, I’ve been asked to write down the lyrics of these 100 songs. That’s what I’m doing. I don’t like them at all. I can’t relate to them. I don’t know their genres or anything about them.” This is a meaningless connection with music. The purpose of music is not for you to write the lyrics! A person who does this is a researcher and doesn’t understand the elements of music. He doesn’t fly with music. Does anyone fly with music? Yes, as much as a hen can fly! But with the Qur’an, one flies to God Himself. He flies through the atmosphere and through the galaxy. Once there was an art student in the university who was also a painter. As I was walking through the university campus, I saw him painting. There was a small cassette player next to him playing music. I asked him very cautiously, “Why are you listening to this music?” He said, “Music makes the soul more delicate, and I am doing something delicate now. I want this delicacy to be conveyed.” He was right. I said, “If I suggest something, will you try it? Listen to the Qur’an for a while.” He said, “Qur’an?” I remember he said this in surprise. I answered, “Yes, see if it has the same effect.” I went to that same college the next month. He came to me very upset! I asked myself, “What should I do now? It seems my suggestion wasn’t appropriate for him.” He was truly upset. He came forward and said angrily, “I’ve wasted my life! Why hadn’t I ever done this before? You don’t know what an impact this has had on me!” He was ahead of the one who had suggested this! Use the Qur’an. Recite the Qur’an a lot. God, the Almighty, seriously intends to convince everyone who reads these verses that He is the first and last power in the universe. He wants to prove to you that He is a superpower, and actually He is the only power.

We live in a world which is an ideological battlefield. A battlefield between the forces of good and the forces of evil. A battlefield in which the spoils are either the salvation of humanity or its very destruction. And one of the weapons in this ideological battlefield between good and evil is of course, a good ole\\\' book. In this context, what are the \\\"Demonstrations Of The Veracious\\\"? And what is a brief introduction about the book titled \\\"Demonstrations Of The Veracious\\\"? How can this book help both Muslims and non-Muslims? How many \\\"Demonstrations\\\" does this book have and what is a \\\"Demonstration\\\"? Who are just some of the teachers of the author of the book \\\"Demonstrations Of The Veracious\\\"? What is the overall translation process for translating a book? Who is the probable reader of this book? Why was this book translated? What kind of questions does this book answer? What role does the ideologically flawed concept of atheism play in the discussion surrounding this book? What is a piece of advice from the translator when it comes to people who are questioning the existence of God? Finally, how can you acquire this great book? The translation of this book, \\\"Demonstrations Of The Veracious\\\" was conducted by a humble student who has studied in the Islamic Seminary for well over over 20 years, having both a Masters and a Phd. in Islamic Philosophy, Sayyid Shiraz Agha, who came to speak to us about the book titled \\\"Demonstrations Of The Veracious\\\". To order a copy of this book, please send an email to [email protected] and we will get you in touch with Sayyid Shiraz Agha who will take care of the logistics of delivering the book to you. #IslamicPulse #IPTalkShow #Justice #Truth #Qom #Islamic_Seminary #Islamic_Philosophy #Philosophy #Demonstratoins #Veracious #Siddiqeen #Shia #Erfan #Spirituality #Theology #Akhlaq #PureMuhammadanIslam #Islam #AhlulBayt #Quran #Allah #God #Existence #Reality #NonExistence #Atheism

Our condolences to all the believers, all across the world, wherever they are, upon the holy months of Muharram and Safar. As many countless millions across the world already know, the 10th of Muharram is the day of the martyrdom of the 3rd divinely appointed Imam, Imam Husayn ibn Ali (A), who was martyred on the plains of Karbala in the year 61 AH of the Islamic calendar. And this year, countless millions across the world once again proudly commemorated the mission of Imam Husayn ibn Ali (A) and most eagerly mourned over the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (A), and his family members and companions, who accompanied his eminence into the divine hands of martyrdom as they stood up for Truth and Justice against the overwhelming forces of evil and falsehood. Yet, one of the most less known words of Imam Husayn (A), are the words of his eminence in Mina; also known as the Mina sermon. In this short 7 part series, Islamic Pulse has endeavored to bring forth the words of Imam Husayn (A) given by his eminence in the Mina sermon. But what does the 5th part of the Mina sermon entail? And who is primarily addressed in Imam Husayn\\\\\\\'s Mina Sermon? Who are the people that are entrusted with the affairs and ordinances of Allah? And what are these people the guardians over? Why was this status of being entrusted with the affairs and ordinances of Allah taken away from the people who were supposed to have it? Who did the above-mentioned people hand over the affairs and ordinances of Allah to? Finally, what will you do with the words of advice of Imam Husayn (A) that are entailed in the Mina sermon? Salutations be upon Husayn! Salutations be upon Ali ibne Husayn! Salutations be upon the children of Husayn! Salutations be upon the companions of Husayn! #IslamicPulse #MinaSermon #Mina #Islam #Allah #Quran #AhlulBayt #Mohammad #Ali #Fatima #Hasan #Husayn #Muharram #Safar #Ashura #Karbala #Martyrdom #Sacrifice #Shahadat #Martyr #Peace #Scholar #Scholars #Ulama #Alim #Moulana #Tabligh #TheAwaitedOne #Mahdi #Imam #Wilayah #Imamate #Truth #Justice #Rghteousness #Freedom #Independence #WhoIsHusayn #Zaynab #Arbaeen #Revolution #IslamicRevolution #IslamicAwakening #Majalis #Majlis #Masaib #Matam #Honor #Falsehood #Evil #Taghut #D2A #D2i #Zionist #Yazeed #Shimr

Who was Hujr ibn Adi? In this episode of Unsung Heroes, Sayyid Haydar Jamaludeen speaks about \"Hujr ibn Adi\". Yet, who was Hujr ibn Adi, how did he live his life, and what was his biographical background? Which Infallibles (A) was Hujr ibn Adi a contemporary companion to? When Imam Ali (A) wrote a letter to the people of Kufa asking them to join him (A) in his Jihad, leading up to the battle of Jamal, what person prevented the people of Kufa from joining him (A)? Who did Imam Ali (A) send as his representative to the people of Kufa following the abovementioned historical instance? Was Hujr ibn Adi present in the battles of Jamal and Siffin, and if so, what role did he play and on whose side was he on? And likewise, was Hujr ibn Adi present in the battle of Nahrawan, and if so, what role did he play? Who was the villain Dahhak ibn Qays, who was he sent by, and what was his evil duty? Who did Imam Ali (A) send in order to confront the evil of Dahhak ibn Qays? What was Hujr ibn Adi\'s behavior towards the wicked governors of Kufa that had been appointed by Mu\'awiyah? Why did Ziyad ibn Abih send Hujr ibn Adi towards Damascus? What is the connection between the region that Hujr ibn Adi conquered and the region where Hujr ibn Adi was martyred? And finally, how did Hujr ibn Adi attain the lofty status of martyrdom? Find out this and more in this episode about one of the most courageous, devout, and faithful companions of the Messenger of Allah (S), Imam Ali (A), Imam Hasan (A), and Imam Husayn (A), \"Hujr ibn Adi\", as Sayyid Haydar Jamaludeen goes through some of the beautiful, honorable, and yet largely overlooked \"Unsung Heroes\" of Islam. #IslamicPulse #UnsungHeroes #Islam #Allah #Quran #AhulBayt #Muslim #Martyrdom #Shahadat #History #Martyr #Shaheed #Honor #Valor #Sacrifice #Chivalry #Courage #Hujr #Adi #HujrIbnAdi #Prophet #ImamAli #ImamHasan #ImamHusayn

Who was Hashim ibn Utbah al-Mirqal? In this episode of Unsung Heroes, Sayyid Haydar Jamaludeen speaks about \"Hashim al-Mirqal\". Yet, who was Hashim al-Mirqal, how did he live his life, and what was his biographical background? Who was the famous, yet dastardly cousin of Hashim al-Mirqal; a person who was in the army of Yazeed on the plains of Karbala? What kind of a person was the father of Hashim al-Mirqal and what was he known for? What was the nickname of Hashim al-Mirqal and why was he given that name? In what battle did Hashim al-Mirqal lose one of his eyes? Before what major battle did Imam Ali (A) send a letter with Hashim al-Mirqal to the people of Kufa? What did Imam Ali (A) say to Hashim al-Mirqal when he was wearing two coats of armor in the Battle of Siffin and what did Hashim al-Mirqal say in reply? Who was the evil man who martyred Hashim al-Mirqal and in what battle did this take place? What did Imam Ali (A) say when he came to the place where Hashim al-Mirqal had attained martyrdom? And finally, how did Hashim al-Mirqal attain the lofty status of martyrdom? Find out this and more in this episode about one of the most loyal, devout, and faithful companions of the Messenger of Allah (S) and the Commander of the Faithful, Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (A), \"Hashim al-Mirqal\", as Sayyid Haydar Jamaludeen goes through some of the beautiful, honorable, and yet largely overlooked \"Unsung Heroes\" of Islam. #IslamicPulse #UnsungHeroes #Islam #Allah #Quran #AhulBayt #Muslim #Martyrdom #Shahadat #History #Martyr #Shaheed #Honor #Valor #Sacrifice #Chivalry #Courage #Hashim #al-Mirqal #HashimAlMirqal #Prophet #ImamAli #Ansar #Mecca #Medina #Kufa #Siffin #Jamal

What do the people who are truly intelligent do? Is it smarter to resist or to submit? What are the repercussions of submitting rather than resisting? What does Allah the Almighty do to people who stand up to the oppressor? What does the Messenger of Allah (S), the holy Prophet Muhammad (S) say about a person who helps the oppressor? And what does Imam Ali (A) say about a person who is silent in the face of the transgressions of the oppressor? How is the battle of Uhud applicable to this discussion at hand? Likewise, how is the historical event concerning the \'Tawwabeen\' related to the discussion at hand? What do we learn from Mukhtar al-Thaqafi\'s last stand in the face of tyrants and oppressors? What would any logical and reasonable person do when they realize that the price for surrender is much higher than the price to resist? Does the Almighty Allah help those who resist or those who submit? And finally, why is it said that \"The Intelligent Resist\"? In this Scholar Clip, Shaykh Usama Abdulghani wisely speaks about the reality of how \"The Intelligent Resist\", and the heavy cost of submission. And remember, \"The Intelligent Resist\". #IslamicPulse #ScholarClip #Islam #Allah #Quran #AhlulBayt #Islam #Shia #Unity #Mahdi #AwaitedOne #Savior #Salvation #ImamMahdi #IslamicAwareness #Strength #IslamicAwakening #Resistance #RightToResist #PeoplePower #West #Oppressor #Savior #Mahdi #HolyProphet #ImamAli #America #Silence #Revolution #Freedom #Justice #Truth #Independence #Imam #Quds #Palestine #Yemen #Uhud #Oppressed #IslamicPolitics

Movie - The Battle of Khaybar - The Victory of Ali - Arabic sub English. A short film depicting the conquest of the Fort of Khaybar by the Muslim Army, led by the Holy Prophet and Imam Ali. After the failure of Abu Bakr and Umar to succeed in conquering the fort, the banner of Islam fell to Ali, who single handedly killed Marhab, the chief of the Jews, and then went on to slay Harith, the commander of the Jews. After the death of the two "lions" of the Jewish tribe, the fortress the Jews had been hiding behind was conquered and the Muslims were victorious. It was the courage of Ali, instilled in him due to his immense and unswerving faith in Allah which brought the Muslims victory, it was in this battle that the Prophet announced that the fortress of Khaybar would be conquered by a man whom Allah and His apostle love dearly, it was in this battle that the Prophet of Islam cured the eye ailment of Ali with his own spit, it was in this battle that the Companions of the Prophet remained awake all night yearning to receive the banner of Islam from the Prophet, only to have their hopes shattered when the Prophet called out "Where is Ali, bring Ali to me". It was in this battle that Ali manifested the strength endowed upon him by Allah and tore through the ranks of the Jews, killing those who challenged him and inflicting awe into those who fled from him, leaving none with the strength to stand in front of him on the battlefield, as Ali himself says "I swear by Allah that whoever approaches me in battle shall not leave the battlefield alive, and whoever does shall not have the courage to return and face me". Read more about the battle here: http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=3046 The Hadiths from Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 520 and Number 521 prove the victory occurred at the hand of Ali, and NONE but Ali, with the power of Allah. Read the Hadiths from Sahih Bukhari here: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.520 "Narrated Salama: Ali remained behind the Prophet during the Ghazwa of Khaibar as he was suffering from eye trouble. He then said, "(How can) I remain behind the Prophet ," and followed him. So when he slept on the night of the conquest of Khaibar, the Prophet said, "I will give the flag tomorrow, or tomorrow the flag will be taken by a man who is loved by Allah and His Apostle, and (Khaibar) will be conquered through him, (with Allah's help)" While every one of us was hopeful to have the flag, it was said, "Here is 'Ali" and the Prophet gave him the flag and Khaibar was conquered through him (with Allah's Help)." "Narrated Sahl bin Sad: On the day of Khaibar, Allah's Apostle said, "Tomorrow I will give this flag to a man through whose hands Allah will give us victory. He loves Allah and His Apostle, and he is loved by Allah and His Apostle." The people remained that night, wondering as to who would be given it. In the morning the people went to Allah's Apostle and everyone of them was hopeful to receive it (i.e. the flag). The Prophet said, "Where is Ali bin Abi Talib?" It was said, "He is suffering from eye trouble O Allah's Apostle." He said, "Send for him." 'Ali was brought and Allah's Apostle spat in his eye and invoked good upon him. So 'Ali was cured as if he never had any trouble. Then the Prophet gave him the flag. 'Ali said "O Allah's Apostle! I will fight with them till they become like us." Allah's Apostle said, "Proceed and do not hurry. When you enter their territory, call them to embrace Islam and inform them of Allah's Rights which they should observe, for by Allah, even if a single man is led on the right path (of Islam) by Allah through you, then that will be better for you than the nice red camels. "

On Wednesday December 17 2008 activists staged a Shoe In demonstration in front of the White House. The rally was in solidarity with Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al Zaidi. WASHINGTON, Dec 17: About 100 people gathered outside the White House on Wednesday to protest for the release of the Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at President George W. Bush over the weekend. Muntazer al-Zaidi, who works for the Al Baghdadia Television, has been in custody since disrupting President Bush’s weekend press conference with the size-10 projectiles. If convicted, Mr Zaidi may be jailed for up to seven years. The protesters brought a giant head of President Bush, threw shoes at it and covered it with shoes before ending their protest. They also brought bags of shoes representing Iraqis and US soldiers who have died since the Bush Administration’s “illegal invasion” of Iraq. The peace activists urged the Iraqi government to release Mr Zaidi without charges and have set up a fund to support him and his family. At the White House, Press Secretary Dana Perino said the president had “no hard feelings” about the Iraqi journalist who flung shoes at him. Asked if Mr Zaidi should be forgiven, Ms Perino said Mr Bush trusted Iraq’s legal system to decide an appropriate punishment for the assault. The protesters outside the White House also displayed names of thousands of Iraqis killed in the war. The display contained their names, ages, places where they were killed and how they were killed. “These are real people,” said Gael Murphy, one of the cofounders of the Code Pink which along with three of the groups had participated in the protest. “They were killed because of the US invasion.”Later, representatives for Code Pink, Women for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and Veterans for Peace told a news conference that they had come to White House to remind the Bush administration and the American people that “Mr Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqis and 4,200 US troops”. They noted that the war also displaced more than five million Iraqis. “Bush is the real criminal, not al-Zaidi,” said one of them. “Al-Zaidi speaks for millions of people across the world.” “Arrest Bush, not Zaidi,” chanted the protesters as they marched outside the White House. “Bush is a war criminal,” shouted the protesters as they spanked a giant picture of the US president with shoes. The speakers who addressed the news conference noted that Mr Zaidi had become something of a folk-hero in the Arab world, and his shoe-throwing had become a symbol of dissatisfaction with ‘Bush’s bungled war in Iraq’