22:24
|
Sabbarin - Palestine Story - صبّارين - قصة فلسطين - Arabic
This documentary talks about how israeli forces invaded palestine after they entered the country through a small village called "Sabbareen" or "Sobbareen"
Produced by: Fajr...
This documentary talks about how israeli forces invaded palestine after they entered the country through a small village called "Sabbareen" or "Sobbareen"
Produced by: Fajr Institution for Art & Heritage.
انتاج: مؤسسة الفجر للفن والتراث
-------------------
Sabbarin is a former Palestinian Arab village located 28 kilometers south of Haifa. According to the 1931 census of Palestine, the village had a population of 1,108 inhabitants and the village's lands spanned 25,307 dunams.
* 1948, and aftermath:
Sabbarin was captured by Israeli forces on May 12, 1948 during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War in Operation Coastal Clearing. It was defended by a local militia and possibly the Arab Liberation Army. According to Benny Morris, the IZL (Irgun) encountered resistance there and the majority of the villagers fled after 20 of them were killed in a firefight, with an IZL armoured car firing on the villagers as they fled. More than one hundred people, including the elderly, women, and children, who had not fled were held behind barbed wire for a few days before being expelled to nearby Umm al-Fahm. Others who had fled earlier ended up in refugee camps in the Jenin area.
Sabbarin was described as a "large" village with about 600 inhabitants, who cultivated 55 faddans (1 faddan =100-250 dunums) of land.
An IZL officer recounted how during a search of the column of refugees, a pistol and a rifle were found. Seven men were detained and were asked who the weapons belonged to. After they refused to answer, the IZL men threatened them with death. After still refusing to answer, the IZL men carried out a "field court martial," sentenced the seven to death, and thereafter executed them on the spot.
(for more informatin, visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbarin).
-------------------
صبارين, تقع إلى الجنوب من مدينة حيفا ، وتبعد عنها حوالي 28 كم وترتفع 100م عن سطح البحر ، يرجع اسمها إلى الثمرة المعروفة باسم (الصبير) أو (التين الشوكي) وقد ذكرها الافرنج باسم (صابريم). بلغت مساحة أراضيها 25307 دونمات ، وتحيط بها أراضي قرى خبيزة، أم الشوف ,والسنديانة .
قدر عدد سكانها عام 1922 حوالي (845) نسمة ، وفي عام 1945 حوالي (1700) نسمة، تحتوي القرية على أسس وبئر أثري وتحيط بها مجموعة من الخرب التي تضم مواقع أثرية. قامت المنظمات الصهيونية المسلحة بهدم القرية وتشريد أهلها البالغ عددهم عام 1948 حوالي ( 1972) نسمة وكان ذلك في 12-5-1948 وعلى أنقاضها أقام الصهاينة مستعمرة (إميقام) عام 1950 وكانت مستعمرة "راموت مناشي" قد أنشئت على أراضي القرية عام 1948.
في سنة 1948, أنشئت مستعمرة رموت منشيه ( 155222) على أراضي القرية, إلى الشمال الشرقي من موقعها. وأنشأ الإسرائيليون مستعمرة عميكام( 152218) في سنة 1950, على أراضي القرية, على بعد كيلومتر من موقعها.
سكان صبارين كانو قد تلقوا وعدا بأنهم سيتمكنون من العودة إلى صبارين بعد 7 أيام بعد أن أمرتهم الجيوش العربية بمغادرة القرية حتى يتمكنوا من محاربة الإسرائيليين من دون أن يتضرر أهالي القرية. صبارين الآن تعد إحدى القرى التي تم طرد سكانها منها.
More...
Description:
This documentary talks about how israeli forces invaded palestine after they entered the country through a small village called "Sabbareen" or "Sobbareen"
Produced by: Fajr Institution for Art & Heritage.
انتاج: مؤسسة الفجر للفن والتراث
-------------------
Sabbarin is a former Palestinian Arab village located 28 kilometers south of Haifa. According to the 1931 census of Palestine, the village had a population of 1,108 inhabitants and the village's lands spanned 25,307 dunams.
* 1948, and aftermath:
Sabbarin was captured by Israeli forces on May 12, 1948 during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War in Operation Coastal Clearing. It was defended by a local militia and possibly the Arab Liberation Army. According to Benny Morris, the IZL (Irgun) encountered resistance there and the majority of the villagers fled after 20 of them were killed in a firefight, with an IZL armoured car firing on the villagers as they fled. More than one hundred people, including the elderly, women, and children, who had not fled were held behind barbed wire for a few days before being expelled to nearby Umm al-Fahm. Others who had fled earlier ended up in refugee camps in the Jenin area.
Sabbarin was described as a "large" village with about 600 inhabitants, who cultivated 55 faddans (1 faddan =100-250 dunums) of land.
An IZL officer recounted how during a search of the column of refugees, a pistol and a rifle were found. Seven men were detained and were asked who the weapons belonged to. After they refused to answer, the IZL men threatened them with death. After still refusing to answer, the IZL men carried out a "field court martial," sentenced the seven to death, and thereafter executed them on the spot.
(for more informatin, visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbarin).
-------------------
صبارين, تقع إلى الجنوب من مدينة حيفا ، وتبعد عنها حوالي 28 كم وترتفع 100م عن سطح البحر ، يرجع اسمها إلى الثمرة المعروفة باسم (الصبير) أو (التين الشوكي) وقد ذكرها الافرنج باسم (صابريم). بلغت مساحة أراضيها 25307 دونمات ، وتحيط بها أراضي قرى خبيزة، أم الشوف ,والسنديانة .
قدر عدد سكانها عام 1922 حوالي (845) نسمة ، وفي عام 1945 حوالي (1700) نسمة، تحتوي القرية على أسس وبئر أثري وتحيط بها مجموعة من الخرب التي تضم مواقع أثرية. قامت المنظمات الصهيونية المسلحة بهدم القرية وتشريد أهلها البالغ عددهم عام 1948 حوالي ( 1972) نسمة وكان ذلك في 12-5-1948 وعلى أنقاضها أقام الصهاينة مستعمرة (إميقام) عام 1950 وكانت مستعمرة "راموت مناشي" قد أنشئت على أراضي القرية عام 1948.
في سنة 1948, أنشئت مستعمرة رموت منشيه ( 155222) على أراضي القرية, إلى الشمال الشرقي من موقعها. وأنشأ الإسرائيليون مستعمرة عميكام( 152218) في سنة 1950, على أراضي القرية, على بعد كيلومتر من موقعها.
سكان صبارين كانو قد تلقوا وعدا بأنهم سيتمكنون من العودة إلى صبارين بعد 7 أيام بعد أن أمرتهم الجيوش العربية بمغادرة القرية حتى يتمكنوا من محاربة الإسرائيليين من دون أن يتضرر أهالي القرية. صبارين الآن تعد إحدى القرى التي تم طرد سكانها منها.
Shia Muslims mark Ashura in Nigeria - Dec 7, 2011 - English
Members of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria marched in a procession to mark the Day of Ashura.
Ashura marks the day when Imam Hussein and 72 of his companions were martyred in Karbala around...
Members of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria marched in a procession to mark the Day of Ashura.
Ashura marks the day when Imam Hussein and 72 of his companions were martyred in Karbala around 1,300 years ago. The Islamic movement of Nigeria said the Day of Ashura symbolizes the humanity\'s struggle against tyranny. The
recreation of his martyrdom through drama was performed here during this event.
The performance shows the suffering and martyrdom of Imam Hussein by the forces of the second Umayyad caliph Yazid.
The public procession also featured the ceremonial chest beating as a display of devotion to Imam Hussein, the grandson of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and remembering his suffering.
The procession ended at Kofar Doka where speeches were delivered and members were asked to stand for truth and justice at all times.
More...
Description:
Members of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria marched in a procession to mark the Day of Ashura.
Ashura marks the day when Imam Hussein and 72 of his companions were martyred in Karbala around 1,300 years ago. The Islamic movement of Nigeria said the Day of Ashura symbolizes the humanity\'s struggle against tyranny. The
recreation of his martyrdom through drama was performed here during this event.
The performance shows the suffering and martyrdom of Imam Hussein by the forces of the second Umayyad caliph Yazid.
The public procession also featured the ceremonial chest beating as a display of devotion to Imam Hussein, the grandson of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and remembering his suffering.
The procession ended at Kofar Doka where speeches were delivered and members were asked to stand for truth and justice at all times.
28:13
|
Toronto Ashura Day Procession (Marcia & Majlis) 06DEC2011 - Urdu
Toronto Ashuda Day Procession Marcia & Majlis by Qibla Aoun Muhammad Naqvi - Urdu, Tuesday December 06th, 2011 (10 Mohurram 1433 H)
"The mourning procession is the pledge of...
Toronto Ashuda Day Procession Marcia & Majlis by Qibla Aoun Muhammad Naqvi - Urdu, Tuesday December 06th, 2011 (10 Mohurram 1433 H)
"The mourning procession is the pledge of allegiance and homage to the saviour of Islam and it is among the best deeds of the day of Ashura ...."
Organised by Ashura Day Organization ,Toronto , Canada
Procession started from Mileken Park and ended at Hussainiya Passmore ave.
More...
Description:
Toronto Ashuda Day Procession Marcia & Majlis by Qibla Aoun Muhammad Naqvi - Urdu, Tuesday December 06th, 2011 (10 Mohurram 1433 H)
"The mourning procession is the pledge of allegiance and homage to the saviour of Islam and it is among the best deeds of the day of Ashura ...."
Organised by Ashura Day Organization ,Toronto , Canada
Procession started from Mileken Park and ended at Hussainiya Passmore ave.
52:19
|
Toronto Ashura Day Procession (Jaloos) 06DEC2011 - All language
Toronto (GTA Central) Ashura Day Procession
Mourning Procession started from Mileken Park and ended at Hussainiya Passmore ave Scarborough, on Tuesday December 06th, 2011 (10 Mohurram 1433 H)...
Toronto (GTA Central) Ashura Day Procession
Mourning Procession started from Mileken Park and ended at Hussainiya Passmore ave Scarborough, on Tuesday December 06th, 2011 (10 Mohurram 1433 H)
"The mourning procession is the pledge of allegiance and homage to the saviour of Islam and it is among the best deeds of the day of Ashura ...."
Organized by: Ashura Day Organization ,Toronto , Canada
More...
Description:
Toronto (GTA Central) Ashura Day Procession
Mourning Procession started from Mileken Park and ended at Hussainiya Passmore ave Scarborough, on Tuesday December 06th, 2011 (10 Mohurram 1433 H)
"The mourning procession is the pledge of allegiance and homage to the saviour of Islam and it is among the best deeds of the day of Ashura ...."
Organized by: Ashura Day Organization ,Toronto , Canada
2:28
|
Turkish police arrest youths for insulting israel - 19 Dec 2011 - English
What started as a regular basketball game between two teams, ended in the arrest of 30 Turkish youth. Police in the Turkish city of Kayseri stepped in after the crowd, waving Palestinian flags,...
What started as a regular basketball game between two teams, ended in the arrest of 30 Turkish youth. Police in the Turkish city of Kayseri stepped in after the crowd, waving Palestinian flags, began protesting against the Israeli team.
According to the indictment, they have been accused of "insulting Israel".
This is not the first time Israeli players have been forced off the court. In 2009, some 3000 Turkish fans disrupted a game in the capitol Ankara.
Soma analysts say these events shine a light on the growing rift between the long-time regional allies, who share trade, military and strategic ties.
Tensions between Turkey and Israel were at one time, reserved only for the political leaders. However that is now being seen on the streets. This is especially true since the deadly raid on the Gaza aid ship back in May of last year that saw 9 Turkish activists' killed.
Israel refuses to apologize to Turkey for the deaths saying their troops acted in self defense.
According to Hayrettin Turan, the editor of the foreign desk at Turkiye Newspaper, relations between the two countries really soured with the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip in December 2008.
While Turkey is a predominantly Muslim country, it is a secular one, leading some to believe it will make a good role model for new governments in the Middle East.
Turkey also maintains strong ties with Iran and with that growing influence across the region. The dilemma now rests with Israel and how long they feel their policies will keep them afloat.
More...
Description:
What started as a regular basketball game between two teams, ended in the arrest of 30 Turkish youth. Police in the Turkish city of Kayseri stepped in after the crowd, waving Palestinian flags, began protesting against the Israeli team.
According to the indictment, they have been accused of "insulting Israel".
This is not the first time Israeli players have been forced off the court. In 2009, some 3000 Turkish fans disrupted a game in the capitol Ankara.
Soma analysts say these events shine a light on the growing rift between the long-time regional allies, who share trade, military and strategic ties.
Tensions between Turkey and Israel were at one time, reserved only for the political leaders. However that is now being seen on the streets. This is especially true since the deadly raid on the Gaza aid ship back in May of last year that saw 9 Turkish activists' killed.
Israel refuses to apologize to Turkey for the deaths saying their troops acted in self defense.
According to Hayrettin Turan, the editor of the foreign desk at Turkiye Newspaper, relations between the two countries really soured with the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip in December 2008.
While Turkey is a predominantly Muslim country, it is a secular one, leading some to believe it will make a good role model for new governments in the Middle East.
Turkey also maintains strong ties with Iran and with that growing influence across the region. The dilemma now rests with Israel and how long they feel their policies will keep them afloat.
The Unwritten Will and The Calamity of Thursday - English
On a Thursday, just three days before the demise of Prophet (PBUH&HF), the Messenger of Allah asked for pen and paper in order to state his last will and repeat the...
On a Thursday, just three days before the demise of Prophet (PBUH&HF), the Messenger of Allah asked for pen and paper in order to state his last will and repeat the declaration/assignment of his successor for his Ummah. Major Sunni sources including Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim mentioned that an opposition group among the companions whose leader was Umar, accused prophet of talking non sense (May Allah protect us) in order to prevent this writing. They questioned the rationality of Prophet to discredit his will. Below is some of the traditions concerning this tragic episode:
It is narrated in Sahih Muslim that:
Ibn Abbas said:\"Thursday! And how tragic that Thursday was!\" Then Ibn Abbas cried severely so that his tears flowed to his cheeks. Then he added Prophet said:\"Bring me a flat bone or a sheet and an ink so that I could write (order to write) a statement that will prevent you people to go astray after me.\" They said: \"Verily the messenger of Allah is talking no sense.\" (Reference: Sahih Muslim, Chapter of \"Kitabul-Wasiyyah \" in section \"Babut-Tarkil-Wasiyyah\", 1980 Edition, Arabic version (Saudi Arabia), v3, P1259, Tradition (#1637/21).)
The other version is given by al-Bukhari and Muslim which indicates the role of Umar in that catastrophe: Sahih al-Bukhari Hadiths: 9.468 and 7.573
Narrated Ibn \'Abbas: When the time of the death of the Prophet approached while there were some men in the house, and among them was \'Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the Prophet said: \"Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray.\" \'Umar said: \"The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Quran, so Allah\'s Book is sufficient for us.\" The people in the house differed and disputed. Some of them said, \"Come near so that Allah\'s Apostle may write for you a writing after which you will not go astray,\" while the others said what \'Umar said. When they made much noise and quarreled greatly in front of the Prophet, he said to them,\"Go away and leave me.\" Ibn \'Abbas used to say,\" It was a great disaster that their quarrel and noise prevented Allah ‘s Apostle from writing a statement for them.
The above tradition can also be found in Sahih Muslim, Chapter of \"Kitabul- Wasiyyah\" in section \"Babut-Tarkil-Wasiyyah\", 1980 Edition, Arabic version (Saudi Arabia), v3, p1259, Tradition (#1637/22).
As you see in the above traditions, the Prophet (PBUH&HF) was accused of talking no sense by an opposition group among the companions whose leader was Umar. In the above tradition, Ibn Abbas mentioned Umar and his company PREVENTED Prophet from writing his will which could prevent people from going astray after him. So the conclusion from the above tradition is that the writing it did NOT take place. In the following tradition, however, Sa\'id Ibn Jubair alleged that the Prophet said three things but he has forgotten the third one which was beneficial for Muslims: Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 4.393
Narrated Said bin Jubair:
I heard Ibn \'Abbas saying, \"Thursday! And you know not what Thursday is? After that Ibn \'Abbas wept till the stones on the ground were soaked with his tears. On that I asked Ibn \'Abbas, \"What is (about) Thursday?\" He said, \"When the condition (i.e. health) of Allah\'s Apostle deteriorated, he said,\'Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go astray.\' The people differed in their opinions although it was improper to differ in front of a prophet, They said,\'What is wrong with him? Do you think he is talking no sense (delirious)? Ask him (to see if he is talking no sense). The Prophet replied,\'Leave me, for I am in a better state than what you are asking me.\'
Then the Prophet ordered them to do three things saying: \'Turn out all the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, show respect to all foreign delegates by giving them gifts as I used to do.\' The third order was something beneficial which either Ibn \'Abbas did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot!
Sa\'id Ibn Jubair claims that Prophet said three things but he has forgotten the third one which was beneficial for Muslims. It is interesting to see that the narrators who used to memorize thousands of traditions, simply forgot the last will of Prophet (PBUH&HF). Now if you look at the two things that the sub-narrator allegedly attributed to the Prophet, i.e.,
1. Expelling pagans from Arabian Peninsula 2. respecting foreign delegates
One can see that these are not the things that if Muslim do, they will NEVER go astray after Prophet. The matter should be much more important that would Guarantee the salvation of Muslims, and it could be no less important than the subject of leadership. Moreover such claim contradicts the saying of Ibn Abbas (in the early mentioned traditions) who claimed that the quarrel of the companions prevented the prophet from stating his will. Here is the last tradition I would like to mention in this regard.
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 5.716
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
Thursday! And how tragic that Thursday was! The ailment of Allah\'s Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said \"Bring me something so that I (order) to write for you something after which you will never go astray.\" The people (present there) quarreled in this matter, and it was not right to quarrel in front of prophet. They said, \"What is wrong with him? (Do you think) he is talking no sense (delirious)?\"
The above tradition is also in Sahih Muslim, Chapter of \"Kitabul-Wasiyyah\" in section \"Babut-Tarkil-Wasiyyah\", 1980 Edition, Arabic version, (Saudi Arabia), v3, pp 1257-58, Tradition (#1637/20).
More addresses for similar traditions:
Sahih al-Bukhari, in the chapter named \"The Book of Knowledge \"
(Kitabul-Ilm), also in the chapter named \"The Book of Medicine \"
(Kitabut-Tib), also in the chapter named \"Kitabul Itisam bil Kitab was-Sunnah\".
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1,pp 232,239,324f,336,355.
And much more...
Also as indicated above (Sahih al-Bukhari Hadiths: 9.468 and 7.573), Umar said: \"The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Quran, so Allah\'s Book is sufficient for us.\" Umar and those who supported him prevented prophet from writing (ordering to write) that statement, by accusing him of talking no sense. As I have mentioned in the discussion about \"Quran and Ahlul-Bayt\", prophet clearly indicated that we should follow both Quran AND Ahlul-Bayt in order not to go astray. So Quran alone is not sufficient as opposed to what Umar said above.
There is a bizarre commentary in the footnote of above traditions in Sahih Muslim (1980 Edition, Arabic version). It says: The above incident shows the high virtue of Umar, since he knew that people might not follow what prophet would write, and as a result, people would go to hell because of their disobedience of the order of prophet. So Umar prevented Prophet from writing, in order to save people from going to hell !
Also in the footnote of the same section of Sahih Muslim it is mentioned that Prophet possibly wanted to assign a Caliph on that Thursday, and the matter might have been the matter of successorship which caused such dispute.
In fact, most of the people who where present there, understood the intention of prophet, the same as what Umar did. Because prophet had previously indicated the issue when he said several times that:
\"I shall leave for you two precious Symbols: The book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my family (Itrat & Ahlul-bayt). If you follow them, you will never go astray after me.\" (Sahih al-Tirmidhi; a close version is also given in Sahih Muslim),
And also they were present in GHADIR KHUM where prophet said: \"Whoever I am his master, Ali is his master.\" (see Sahih al-Tirmidhi; Sunan Ibn Maja; Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal; al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim; Khasa\'is, by al-Nisa\'i).
So when prophet during his illness said that \"Let me write something that you never go astray after me\", those people who were present, including Umar, quickly understood that prophet wants to repeat what he had already mentioned, but this time in writing.
A few Quranic verses should also be mentioned here. Allah said in Quran:
* \"O you who believe! Do not raise your voices above the voice of prophet ... lest your deeds become null while you do not perceive.\" (Quran 49:2).
* Allah also said: \"Nor does he (prophet) speak out of his desire. (What he says) is nothing but revelation that is revealed.\" (Quran 53:3-4).
* He, Exalted, also said: \"Whatever apostle tells you accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back.\" (Quran 59:7).
* He, Exalted He is, also said: But no by thy Lord! They can have no Faith until they make thee judge in ALL disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against thy decisions but accept them with the fullest conviction. (Quran 4:65)
So when such a prophet, three days before his death, wished to write a document of his will to save the Muslims from going astray, he was accused of talking no sense (paranoid)!
The reason that prophet did not repeat his request (if it is true) was that he already was discredited by his companions and was accused of talking no sense. So even if he would say something, those people would not believe in him and would say such instruction has been given while he was talking no sense (paranoid). So Umar made it easy, and by saying that prophet is talking nonsense, ended it up.
There are few Sunni traditions which allege that prophet was confused to assign which person as his successor and finally failed to assign any body as his successor and left it to people to decide. Some even claim that prophet was willing to assign Abu Bakr, but he left it to people.
If Umar have ever heard of such sayings (that prophet was willing to assign Abu Bakr as his successor), he would never stop prophet from stating his will, and would never accuse him of talking no sense. Rather he would let prophet tell his will and assign Abu Bakr as his successor. We all know, the main support in \"Saqifah Bani Sa\'idah\" for the secret nomination of Abu Bakr for Caliphate, was Umar.
So if Umar have not heard of such traditions (the tendency of Prophet to assign Abu Bakr), there is a great possibility that those traditions were fabricated later.
Also it contradicts several authentic Sunni traditions regarding the assignment of Ali-Ibn-Abi-Talib as prophet\'s successor. As you know there are a huge number of fabricated traditions which was created by several pay-rolled scholars in support of some rulers, and mainly to justify what happened.
Finally, I would like to bring to your attention the importance and seriousness of the tragedy:
1- Notice that any person utters his most important wishes when he wants to write the statement of his will at the end of his life.
2- Notice the importance of the person who wants to write the will, who is the last Prophet of God, the best mankind ever. No human in the world was more enthusiastic than him about his community. The person who Allah has ordered us in Quran to follow him unconditionally.
3- Notice that prophet said this statement would be the key element in the destiny of Muslims according to the above traditions. They will never go astray if they abide it.
In such critical moment, people who claimed to be his sincere companions, stopped/insulted him. Those companions are responsible for misleading the Muslims throughout history and the generations to come.
=============
Side Comments
=============
Reading the article, a Sunni brother commented that: How could Umar prevent the manifestation of a Divine Commandment? If writing the will was the order of Allah to his Prophet, then how could be possible that Allah fails to manifest His own wish?
This brother has confused two different issues. Umar was able to prevent the manifestation of divine commandment since he was a human and was gifted some free will. Yet, Umar or any other human can NEVER prevent what Allah foreordained (Taqdir) and what Allah wills (Mashiyyah). Please take a note of this: There is a difference between the commandment of Allah (which people can disobey) and the will of Allah (which people have no ability to go against). It was the commandment of Allah to write that statement, yet the Will of Allah was what happened.
=========
Another brother mentioned that Prophet Muhammad never wrote a single commandment or teaching of his during his 23 years of ministry. Then how could he order people to bring pen and paper to write somthing for them?
Yes, the messenger of Allah did not write in public, because he used to dictate writing. However, this does not mean that he did not know how to write. It is also true that the Prophet was \"Ummi\", but this does not necessarily mean he did not know how to read and write. It rather means that Prophet did not have any human teacher to teach him how to read and write since the time he was born to his mother (\"Ummi\" derived from \"Umm\" meaning mother). His only teacher was Allah. And this is why Quran is a true miracle from a person who did not have a teacher and he who did not go to school. I would say, clearing doubt about the Quran as God\'s revelation was the only reason that the Messenger of Allah was not ordered attempt to write in public or claim as such.
Reading and writing not only in Arabic but also in all other languages, as well as the knowledge of language of all other creatures are not a lot to claim for the master of all messengers when we see in Quran that Prophet Sulayman and David knew the language of the animals. Again, all such knowledge could be released to the Prophet when he really needed, by the permission of Allah. But to the time it is not necessary, he would act as if he does not have such knowledge. It is like having access to the database rather than having all the knowledge within oneself.
About the Tragedy of Thursday, however, what the Prophet (PBUH&HF) meant by \"writing\" was the common sense of \"ordering to write\", and people were aware of it and was not the first time they have heard of it. Based on the traditions no body even said at that time that how he wants to write. Moreover, even we suppose that Prophet wanted to write by himself and people did not know about his ability to write, they could have given him the benefit of doubt (!!) to see if he can do such miracle (!?) beside all the miracles he has had already shown. Were they suspicious to his miracles?
This is the same Prophet that God said about him \"laa yantqu anil Hawaa\" (he does not talk of his own desires)? Never mind verses 33:36, 59:7, 4:80, 4:59, etc., and yet to justify a disobedience by some companions can we accuse him of rave? Did God know that there would be a time that His prophet could not stand to the above standard, and still going ahead and revealing such verses in his honor?
=========
Another brother mentioned that if the Prophet inteneded to appoint Ali as the Imam, why did he not do so in the presence of the whole people and not in his house few days before his demise?
The Prophet had already declared the appointment Imam Ali as Imam in many occasions from his first open preach in Mecca (see al-Tabari English, v6, pp 88-92; Ibn al-Athir, v2, p62; Ibn Asakir, v1, p85; al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v5, p97) to his last open sermon in Ghadir Khum (see Sahih Tirmidhi, v2, p298; Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,43; Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal; al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim; Khasa\'is, by al-Nisa\'i). Note that it was not Prophet who appointed him on his own, but it was rather Allah who appointed him.
What the messenger of Allah wanted to do in his last will was to write (or order to write) what he has already said. But, as quoted earlier, some people around him shamelessly reduced him to the level of insanity. What happened on that thursday is a proof by itself that the Prophet ALREADY assigned a successor, otherwise, there was no point of disobedience!
=========
Another person mentioned the verse \"Today I have perfected your religion and completed my bounty upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion (Quran 5:3)\" which was revealed 2 months before the death of the Prophet shows that there was no new religious command is going to come thereafter. Otherwise, if that important statement the prophet was going to dictate to his followers would have been somthing which was forgotten, would make the verse untrue.
Perhaps the above brother would be surprized to know that many Sunni commentators of Quran have confirmed that the above verse (5:3) was revealed in Ghadir Khum AFTER the Messenger of Allah said: \"Whoever I am his leader, Ali is his leader. O\' God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him.\" (See the ariticled titled \"Ghadir Khum\" for extensive references). This means the perfection of the religion was due announcing the successor of the Prophet (PBUH&HF).
In fact what prophet wanted to do on that Thursday (three days before his death) was just to repeat, to remind, and to emphasize the things that has been revealed before. He didn\'t want to add any thing new.
No Muslim ever claimed that the position of prophethood has been taken from Muhammad sometime before his death. We do not have such case about other prophets either. Even let\'s suppose he was not prophet any more, or he wanted to say something new. Do you think you can find any man better or more enthusiastic than him about the destiny of his community?! Do you think his last wish was against the prosperity of his people?! How much should they have been rude that even they didn\'t let him talk!!!
[Reference : Shia Encycloedia]- http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia
More...
Description:
On a Thursday, just three days before the demise of Prophet (PBUH&HF), the Messenger of Allah asked for pen and paper in order to state his last will and repeat the declaration/assignment of his successor for his Ummah. Major Sunni sources including Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim mentioned that an opposition group among the companions whose leader was Umar, accused prophet of talking non sense (May Allah protect us) in order to prevent this writing. They questioned the rationality of Prophet to discredit his will. Below is some of the traditions concerning this tragic episode:
It is narrated in Sahih Muslim that:
Ibn Abbas said:\"Thursday! And how tragic that Thursday was!\" Then Ibn Abbas cried severely so that his tears flowed to his cheeks. Then he added Prophet said:\"Bring me a flat bone or a sheet and an ink so that I could write (order to write) a statement that will prevent you people to go astray after me.\" They said: \"Verily the messenger of Allah is talking no sense.\" (Reference: Sahih Muslim, Chapter of \"Kitabul-Wasiyyah \" in section \"Babut-Tarkil-Wasiyyah\", 1980 Edition, Arabic version (Saudi Arabia), v3, P1259, Tradition (#1637/21).)
The other version is given by al-Bukhari and Muslim which indicates the role of Umar in that catastrophe: Sahih al-Bukhari Hadiths: 9.468 and 7.573
Narrated Ibn \'Abbas: When the time of the death of the Prophet approached while there were some men in the house, and among them was \'Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the Prophet said: \"Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray.\" \'Umar said: \"The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Quran, so Allah\'s Book is sufficient for us.\" The people in the house differed and disputed. Some of them said, \"Come near so that Allah\'s Apostle may write for you a writing after which you will not go astray,\" while the others said what \'Umar said. When they made much noise and quarreled greatly in front of the Prophet, he said to them,\"Go away and leave me.\" Ibn \'Abbas used to say,\" It was a great disaster that their quarrel and noise prevented Allah ‘s Apostle from writing a statement for them.
The above tradition can also be found in Sahih Muslim, Chapter of \"Kitabul- Wasiyyah\" in section \"Babut-Tarkil-Wasiyyah\", 1980 Edition, Arabic version (Saudi Arabia), v3, p1259, Tradition (#1637/22).
As you see in the above traditions, the Prophet (PBUH&HF) was accused of talking no sense by an opposition group among the companions whose leader was Umar. In the above tradition, Ibn Abbas mentioned Umar and his company PREVENTED Prophet from writing his will which could prevent people from going astray after him. So the conclusion from the above tradition is that the writing it did NOT take place. In the following tradition, however, Sa\'id Ibn Jubair alleged that the Prophet said three things but he has forgotten the third one which was beneficial for Muslims: Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 4.393
Narrated Said bin Jubair:
I heard Ibn \'Abbas saying, \"Thursday! And you know not what Thursday is? After that Ibn \'Abbas wept till the stones on the ground were soaked with his tears. On that I asked Ibn \'Abbas, \"What is (about) Thursday?\" He said, \"When the condition (i.e. health) of Allah\'s Apostle deteriorated, he said,\'Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go astray.\' The people differed in their opinions although it was improper to differ in front of a prophet, They said,\'What is wrong with him? Do you think he is talking no sense (delirious)? Ask him (to see if he is talking no sense). The Prophet replied,\'Leave me, for I am in a better state than what you are asking me.\'
Then the Prophet ordered them to do three things saying: \'Turn out all the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, show respect to all foreign delegates by giving them gifts as I used to do.\' The third order was something beneficial which either Ibn \'Abbas did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot!
Sa\'id Ibn Jubair claims that Prophet said three things but he has forgotten the third one which was beneficial for Muslims. It is interesting to see that the narrators who used to memorize thousands of traditions, simply forgot the last will of Prophet (PBUH&HF). Now if you look at the two things that the sub-narrator allegedly attributed to the Prophet, i.e.,
1. Expelling pagans from Arabian Peninsula 2. respecting foreign delegates
One can see that these are not the things that if Muslim do, they will NEVER go astray after Prophet. The matter should be much more important that would Guarantee the salvation of Muslims, and it could be no less important than the subject of leadership. Moreover such claim contradicts the saying of Ibn Abbas (in the early mentioned traditions) who claimed that the quarrel of the companions prevented the prophet from stating his will. Here is the last tradition I would like to mention in this regard.
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 5.716
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
Thursday! And how tragic that Thursday was! The ailment of Allah\'s Apostle became worse (on Thursday) and he said \"Bring me something so that I (order) to write for you something after which you will never go astray.\" The people (present there) quarreled in this matter, and it was not right to quarrel in front of prophet. They said, \"What is wrong with him? (Do you think) he is talking no sense (delirious)?\"
The above tradition is also in Sahih Muslim, Chapter of \"Kitabul-Wasiyyah\" in section \"Babut-Tarkil-Wasiyyah\", 1980 Edition, Arabic version, (Saudi Arabia), v3, pp 1257-58, Tradition (#1637/20).
More addresses for similar traditions:
Sahih al-Bukhari, in the chapter named \"The Book of Knowledge \"
(Kitabul-Ilm), also in the chapter named \"The Book of Medicine \"
(Kitabut-Tib), also in the chapter named \"Kitabul Itisam bil Kitab was-Sunnah\".
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1,pp 232,239,324f,336,355.
And much more...
Also as indicated above (Sahih al-Bukhari Hadiths: 9.468 and 7.573), Umar said: \"The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Quran, so Allah\'s Book is sufficient for us.\" Umar and those who supported him prevented prophet from writing (ordering to write) that statement, by accusing him of talking no sense. As I have mentioned in the discussion about \"Quran and Ahlul-Bayt\", prophet clearly indicated that we should follow both Quran AND Ahlul-Bayt in order not to go astray. So Quran alone is not sufficient as opposed to what Umar said above.
There is a bizarre commentary in the footnote of above traditions in Sahih Muslim (1980 Edition, Arabic version). It says: The above incident shows the high virtue of Umar, since he knew that people might not follow what prophet would write, and as a result, people would go to hell because of their disobedience of the order of prophet. So Umar prevented Prophet from writing, in order to save people from going to hell !
Also in the footnote of the same section of Sahih Muslim it is mentioned that Prophet possibly wanted to assign a Caliph on that Thursday, and the matter might have been the matter of successorship which caused such dispute.
In fact, most of the people who where present there, understood the intention of prophet, the same as what Umar did. Because prophet had previously indicated the issue when he said several times that:
\"I shall leave for you two precious Symbols: The book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my family (Itrat & Ahlul-bayt). If you follow them, you will never go astray after me.\" (Sahih al-Tirmidhi; a close version is also given in Sahih Muslim),
And also they were present in GHADIR KHUM where prophet said: \"Whoever I am his master, Ali is his master.\" (see Sahih al-Tirmidhi; Sunan Ibn Maja; Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal; al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim; Khasa\'is, by al-Nisa\'i).
So when prophet during his illness said that \"Let me write something that you never go astray after me\", those people who were present, including Umar, quickly understood that prophet wants to repeat what he had already mentioned, but this time in writing.
A few Quranic verses should also be mentioned here. Allah said in Quran:
* \"O you who believe! Do not raise your voices above the voice of prophet ... lest your deeds become null while you do not perceive.\" (Quran 49:2).
* Allah also said: \"Nor does he (prophet) speak out of his desire. (What he says) is nothing but revelation that is revealed.\" (Quran 53:3-4).
* He, Exalted, also said: \"Whatever apostle tells you accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back.\" (Quran 59:7).
* He, Exalted He is, also said: But no by thy Lord! They can have no Faith until they make thee judge in ALL disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against thy decisions but accept them with the fullest conviction. (Quran 4:65)
So when such a prophet, three days before his death, wished to write a document of his will to save the Muslims from going astray, he was accused of talking no sense (paranoid)!
The reason that prophet did not repeat his request (if it is true) was that he already was discredited by his companions and was accused of talking no sense. So even if he would say something, those people would not believe in him and would say such instruction has been given while he was talking no sense (paranoid). So Umar made it easy, and by saying that prophet is talking nonsense, ended it up.
There are few Sunni traditions which allege that prophet was confused to assign which person as his successor and finally failed to assign any body as his successor and left it to people to decide. Some even claim that prophet was willing to assign Abu Bakr, but he left it to people.
If Umar have ever heard of such sayings (that prophet was willing to assign Abu Bakr as his successor), he would never stop prophet from stating his will, and would never accuse him of talking no sense. Rather he would let prophet tell his will and assign Abu Bakr as his successor. We all know, the main support in \"Saqifah Bani Sa\'idah\" for the secret nomination of Abu Bakr for Caliphate, was Umar.
So if Umar have not heard of such traditions (the tendency of Prophet to assign Abu Bakr), there is a great possibility that those traditions were fabricated later.
Also it contradicts several authentic Sunni traditions regarding the assignment of Ali-Ibn-Abi-Talib as prophet\'s successor. As you know there are a huge number of fabricated traditions which was created by several pay-rolled scholars in support of some rulers, and mainly to justify what happened.
Finally, I would like to bring to your attention the importance and seriousness of the tragedy:
1- Notice that any person utters his most important wishes when he wants to write the statement of his will at the end of his life.
2- Notice the importance of the person who wants to write the will, who is the last Prophet of God, the best mankind ever. No human in the world was more enthusiastic than him about his community. The person who Allah has ordered us in Quran to follow him unconditionally.
3- Notice that prophet said this statement would be the key element in the destiny of Muslims according to the above traditions. They will never go astray if they abide it.
In such critical moment, people who claimed to be his sincere companions, stopped/insulted him. Those companions are responsible for misleading the Muslims throughout history and the generations to come.
=============
Side Comments
=============
Reading the article, a Sunni brother commented that: How could Umar prevent the manifestation of a Divine Commandment? If writing the will was the order of Allah to his Prophet, then how could be possible that Allah fails to manifest His own wish?
This brother has confused two different issues. Umar was able to prevent the manifestation of divine commandment since he was a human and was gifted some free will. Yet, Umar or any other human can NEVER prevent what Allah foreordained (Taqdir) and what Allah wills (Mashiyyah). Please take a note of this: There is a difference between the commandment of Allah (which people can disobey) and the will of Allah (which people have no ability to go against). It was the commandment of Allah to write that statement, yet the Will of Allah was what happened.
=========
Another brother mentioned that Prophet Muhammad never wrote a single commandment or teaching of his during his 23 years of ministry. Then how could he order people to bring pen and paper to write somthing for them?
Yes, the messenger of Allah did not write in public, because he used to dictate writing. However, this does not mean that he did not know how to write. It is also true that the Prophet was \"Ummi\", but this does not necessarily mean he did not know how to read and write. It rather means that Prophet did not have any human teacher to teach him how to read and write since the time he was born to his mother (\"Ummi\" derived from \"Umm\" meaning mother). His only teacher was Allah. And this is why Quran is a true miracle from a person who did not have a teacher and he who did not go to school. I would say, clearing doubt about the Quran as God\'s revelation was the only reason that the Messenger of Allah was not ordered attempt to write in public or claim as such.
Reading and writing not only in Arabic but also in all other languages, as well as the knowledge of language of all other creatures are not a lot to claim for the master of all messengers when we see in Quran that Prophet Sulayman and David knew the language of the animals. Again, all such knowledge could be released to the Prophet when he really needed, by the permission of Allah. But to the time it is not necessary, he would act as if he does not have such knowledge. It is like having access to the database rather than having all the knowledge within oneself.
About the Tragedy of Thursday, however, what the Prophet (PBUH&HF) meant by \"writing\" was the common sense of \"ordering to write\", and people were aware of it and was not the first time they have heard of it. Based on the traditions no body even said at that time that how he wants to write. Moreover, even we suppose that Prophet wanted to write by himself and people did not know about his ability to write, they could have given him the benefit of doubt (!!) to see if he can do such miracle (!?) beside all the miracles he has had already shown. Were they suspicious to his miracles?
This is the same Prophet that God said about him \"laa yantqu anil Hawaa\" (he does not talk of his own desires)? Never mind verses 33:36, 59:7, 4:80, 4:59, etc., and yet to justify a disobedience by some companions can we accuse him of rave? Did God know that there would be a time that His prophet could not stand to the above standard, and still going ahead and revealing such verses in his honor?
=========
Another brother mentioned that if the Prophet inteneded to appoint Ali as the Imam, why did he not do so in the presence of the whole people and not in his house few days before his demise?
The Prophet had already declared the appointment Imam Ali as Imam in many occasions from his first open preach in Mecca (see al-Tabari English, v6, pp 88-92; Ibn al-Athir, v2, p62; Ibn Asakir, v1, p85; al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v5, p97) to his last open sermon in Ghadir Khum (see Sahih Tirmidhi, v2, p298; Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,43; Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal; al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim; Khasa\'is, by al-Nisa\'i). Note that it was not Prophet who appointed him on his own, but it was rather Allah who appointed him.
What the messenger of Allah wanted to do in his last will was to write (or order to write) what he has already said. But, as quoted earlier, some people around him shamelessly reduced him to the level of insanity. What happened on that thursday is a proof by itself that the Prophet ALREADY assigned a successor, otherwise, there was no point of disobedience!
=========
Another person mentioned the verse \"Today I have perfected your religion and completed my bounty upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion (Quran 5:3)\" which was revealed 2 months before the death of the Prophet shows that there was no new religious command is going to come thereafter. Otherwise, if that important statement the prophet was going to dictate to his followers would have been somthing which was forgotten, would make the verse untrue.
Perhaps the above brother would be surprized to know that many Sunni commentators of Quran have confirmed that the above verse (5:3) was revealed in Ghadir Khum AFTER the Messenger of Allah said: \"Whoever I am his leader, Ali is his leader. O\' God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him.\" (See the ariticled titled \"Ghadir Khum\" for extensive references). This means the perfection of the religion was due announcing the successor of the Prophet (PBUH&HF).
In fact what prophet wanted to do on that Thursday (three days before his death) was just to repeat, to remind, and to emphasize the things that has been revealed before. He didn\'t want to add any thing new.
No Muslim ever claimed that the position of prophethood has been taken from Muhammad sometime before his death. We do not have such case about other prophets either. Even let\'s suppose he was not prophet any more, or he wanted to say something new. Do you think you can find any man better or more enthusiastic than him about the destiny of his community?! Do you think his last wish was against the prosperity of his people?! How much should they have been rude that even they didn\'t let him talk!!!
[Reference : Shia Encycloedia]- http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia
[Must Watch] Sean Stone converts to shia islam English Sub Arabic
sean stone converts to shia islam
TEHRAN -- The son of U.S. filmmaker Oliver Stone, Sean, who has converted to Islam and chosen the name Ali in Iran, was honored Thursday during a side section...
sean stone converts to shia islam
TEHRAN -- The son of U.S. filmmaker Oliver Stone, Sean, who has converted to Islam and chosen the name Ali in Iran, was honored Thursday during a side section program at the 30th Fajr International Film Festival.
The honoring ceremony took place at Tehran’s Azadi Cinema with Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance Mohammad Hosseini, Deputy Culture Minister for Cinematic Affairs Javad Shamaqdari and secretary of the festival Mohammad Khazaei attending.
Stone converted to Islam at the office of Shia cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Nasseri Dowlatabadi in the city of Isfahan last week.
On receiving his award, Stone expressed his thanks to Iranians and hoped to make joint films to help improve relations between Iran and the United States, the Persian service of ISNA reported on Friday.
He also explained about his reasons for accepting Islam and said that as a student of history, he had studied different religions and it was because of his personal interest that he chose Islam; adding that actually, it was Islam that had invited him.
“The conversion to Islam is not abandoning Christianity or Judaism, with which I was born. It means I have accepted Muhammad (S) and other prophets,” Stone, whose famous father is Jewish and mother is Christian, had told AFP last week.
Stone came to Iran in early February to attend the 30th Fajr International Film Festival, which ended on February 12.
The ceremony continued with a brief speech delivered by Hosseini, in which he hoped Sean Stone would be strong and steady enough to fight against any kinds of attacks or assaults.
“If Islam is introduced as a symbol of beauty to the world, all people would be attracted to it,” he said, stressing that Stone was seeking the truth and had discovered it here.
Hosseini also expressed his thanks to the filmmakers who tried harder this year to help achieve the ideals of the Islamic Revolution.
The ceremony was brought to an end by paying tribute to the managers of several film studios and theaters across Tehran.
More...
Description:
sean stone converts to shia islam
TEHRAN -- The son of U.S. filmmaker Oliver Stone, Sean, who has converted to Islam and chosen the name Ali in Iran, was honored Thursday during a side section program at the 30th Fajr International Film Festival.
The honoring ceremony took place at Tehran’s Azadi Cinema with Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance Mohammad Hosseini, Deputy Culture Minister for Cinematic Affairs Javad Shamaqdari and secretary of the festival Mohammad Khazaei attending.
Stone converted to Islam at the office of Shia cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Nasseri Dowlatabadi in the city of Isfahan last week.
On receiving his award, Stone expressed his thanks to Iranians and hoped to make joint films to help improve relations between Iran and the United States, the Persian service of ISNA reported on Friday.
He also explained about his reasons for accepting Islam and said that as a student of history, he had studied different religions and it was because of his personal interest that he chose Islam; adding that actually, it was Islam that had invited him.
“The conversion to Islam is not abandoning Christianity or Judaism, with which I was born. It means I have accepted Muhammad (S) and other prophets,” Stone, whose famous father is Jewish and mother is Christian, had told AFP last week.
Stone came to Iran in early February to attend the 30th Fajr International Film Festival, which ended on February 12.
The ceremony continued with a brief speech delivered by Hosseini, in which he hoped Sean Stone would be strong and steady enough to fight against any kinds of attacks or assaults.
“If Islam is introduced as a symbol of beauty to the world, all people would be attracted to it,” he said, stressing that Stone was seeking the truth and had discovered it here.
Hosseini also expressed his thanks to the filmmakers who tried harder this year to help achieve the ideals of the Islamic Revolution.
The ceremony was brought to an end by paying tribute to the managers of several film studios and theaters across Tehran.
[Hollywood Director] Sean Stone became Muslim says Shahada in Isfahan - Persian Sub English
sean stone converts to shia islam - TEHRAN -- The son of U.S. filmmaker Oliver Stone, Sean, who has converted to Islam and chosen the name Ali in Iran, was honored Thursday during a side section...
sean stone converts to shia islam - TEHRAN -- The son of U.S. filmmaker Oliver Stone, Sean, who has converted to Islam and chosen the name Ali in Iran, was honored Thursday during a side section program at the 30th Fajr International Film Festival.
The honoring ceremony took place at Tehran’s Azadi Cinema with Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance Mohammad Hosseini, Deputy Culture Minister for Cinematic Affairs Javad Shamaqdari and secretary of the festival Mohammad Khazaei attending.
Stone converted to Islam at the office of Shia cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Nasseri Dowlatabadi in the city of Isfahan last week.
On receiving his award, Stone expressed his thanks to Iranians and hoped to make joint films to help improve relations between Iran and the United States, the Persian service of ISNA reported on Friday.
He also explained about his reasons for accepting Islam and said that as a student of history, he had studied different religions and it was because of his personal interest that he chose Islam; adding that actually, it was Islam that had invited him.
“The conversion to Islam is not abandoning Christianity or Judaism, with which I was born. It means I have accepted Muhammad (S) and other prophets,” Stone, whose famous father is Jewish and mother is Christian, had told AFP last week.
Stone came to Iran in early February to attend the 30th Fajr International Film Festival, which ended on February 12.
The ceremony continued with a brief speech delivered by Hosseini, in which he hoped Sean Stone would be strong and steady enough to fight against any kinds of attacks or assaults.
“If Islam is introduced as a symbol of beauty to the world, all people would be attracted to it,” he said, stressing that Stone was seeking the truth and had discovered it here.
Hosseini also expressed his thanks to the filmmakers who tried harder this year to help achieve the ideals of the Islamic Revolution.
The ceremony was brought to an end by paying tribute to the managers of several film studios and theaters across Tehran.
More...
Description:
sean stone converts to shia islam - TEHRAN -- The son of U.S. filmmaker Oliver Stone, Sean, who has converted to Islam and chosen the name Ali in Iran, was honored Thursday during a side section program at the 30th Fajr International Film Festival.
The honoring ceremony took place at Tehran’s Azadi Cinema with Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance Mohammad Hosseini, Deputy Culture Minister for Cinematic Affairs Javad Shamaqdari and secretary of the festival Mohammad Khazaei attending.
Stone converted to Islam at the office of Shia cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Nasseri Dowlatabadi in the city of Isfahan last week.
On receiving his award, Stone expressed his thanks to Iranians and hoped to make joint films to help improve relations between Iran and the United States, the Persian service of ISNA reported on Friday.
He also explained about his reasons for accepting Islam and said that as a student of history, he had studied different religions and it was because of his personal interest that he chose Islam; adding that actually, it was Islam that had invited him.
“The conversion to Islam is not abandoning Christianity or Judaism, with which I was born. It means I have accepted Muhammad (S) and other prophets,” Stone, whose famous father is Jewish and mother is Christian, had told AFP last week.
Stone came to Iran in early February to attend the 30th Fajr International Film Festival, which ended on February 12.
The ceremony continued with a brief speech delivered by Hosseini, in which he hoped Sean Stone would be strong and steady enough to fight against any kinds of attacks or assaults.
“If Islam is introduced as a symbol of beauty to the world, all people would be attracted to it,” he said, stressing that Stone was seeking the truth and had discovered it here.
Hosseini also expressed his thanks to the filmmakers who tried harder this year to help achieve the ideals of the Islamic Revolution.
The ceremony was brought to an end by paying tribute to the managers of several film studios and theaters across Tehran.
24:53
|
[20 May 2012] 64th anniversary of Nakba Day - Remember Palestine - English
[20 May 2012] 64th anniversary of Nakba Day - Remember Palestine - English
15th of May will see Palestinians commemorate the 64th anniversary of Nakba Day; where over 750,000 Palestinians were...
[20 May 2012] 64th anniversary of Nakba Day - Remember Palestine - English
15th of May will see Palestinians commemorate the 64th anniversary of Nakba Day; where over 750,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed and 400 Palestinian villages destroyed to form the illegal State of Israel. The same day where Palestinians will be mourning their dead, Israeli's will celebrate their Independence Day- the formation of occupied territories that were created by force and aggression to form a land with Jewish majority. Sixty-four years have passed however; Palestine is still under the illegitimate occupation of the Israelis and their supporters- Palestinians are still faced with Zionist hostilities, daily torment and anguish. The Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe) isn't over - for the Palestinians the ethnic cleansing never ended. The refugees are still barred from their homeland; Palestinians are being forced from their land to make way for Israeli settlements, and the Israeli administration have even stated that they don't want Palestinians to exceed 30% of the population of Jerusalem.
More...
Description:
[20 May 2012] 64th anniversary of Nakba Day - Remember Palestine - English
15th of May will see Palestinians commemorate the 64th anniversary of Nakba Day; where over 750,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed and 400 Palestinian villages destroyed to form the illegal State of Israel. The same day where Palestinians will be mourning their dead, Israeli's will celebrate their Independence Day- the formation of occupied territories that were created by force and aggression to form a land with Jewish majority. Sixty-four years have passed however; Palestine is still under the illegitimate occupation of the Israelis and their supporters- Palestinians are still faced with Zionist hostilities, daily torment and anguish. The Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe) isn't over - for the Palestinians the ethnic cleansing never ended. The refugees are still barred from their homeland; Palestinians are being forced from their land to make way for Israeli settlements, and the Israeli administration have even stated that they don't want Palestinians to exceed 30% of the population of Jerusalem.
74:12
|
[25May12] Resistance & Liberation Day - [ENGLISH]
(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...
(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.
More...
Description:
(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.
2:35
|
[29 July 2012] War blockade traumatize Gaza children - English
[29 July 2012] War blockade traumatize Gaza children - English
The children of Gaza continue to bear the brunt of Israel's wanton aggression during the Gaza war and its frequent air-strikes and...
[29 July 2012] War blockade traumatize Gaza children - English
The children of Gaza continue to bear the brunt of Israel's wanton aggression during the Gaza war and its frequent air-strikes and incursions.
Israel ended its war on Gaza in 2009, an all-out war which claimed the lives of many people including innocent children and injured thousands others.
According to psychiatrists, Children who make up nearly 60 percent of Gaza population are still traumatized and psychologically scarred.Gaza children blockade war trauma Israel air-strike incursion
More...
Description:
[29 July 2012] War blockade traumatize Gaza children - English
The children of Gaza continue to bear the brunt of Israel's wanton aggression during the Gaza war and its frequent air-strikes and incursions.
Israel ended its war on Gaza in 2009, an all-out war which claimed the lives of many people including innocent children and injured thousands others.
According to psychiatrists, Children who make up nearly 60 percent of Gaza population are still traumatized and psychologically scarred.Gaza children blockade war trauma Israel air-strike incursion
3:04
|
[05 Aug 2012] Somalia draft constitution to go to referendum - English
[05 Aug 2012] Somalia draft constitution to go to referendum - English
Somalia has endorsed a draft constitution that is set to replace an eight-year old Transitional Federal Charter that governed...
[05 Aug 2012] Somalia draft constitution to go to referendum - English
Somalia has endorsed a draft constitution that is set to replace an eight-year old Transitional Federal Charter that governed Somalia since 2004.
However contrary to many developed countries where people vote for or against the document through a referendum, in Somalia, 621 elders endorsed the draft that ended the Transitional period.
More...
Description:
[05 Aug 2012] Somalia draft constitution to go to referendum - English
Somalia has endorsed a draft constitution that is set to replace an eight-year old Transitional Federal Charter that governed Somalia since 2004.
However contrary to many developed countries where people vote for or against the document through a referendum, in Somalia, 621 elders endorsed the draft that ended the Transitional period.
3:08
|
Firing around Juloos YAUM E ALI (a.s) 2012 - Karachi - Urdu
Report on YOM E ALI a.s (Imam Ali a.s martyrdom anniversary) Procession - 21 Ramzan (1433h) 2012.
Firing caused a bit of nuisance, but things were under control soon after it....
Report on YOM E ALI a.s (Imam Ali a.s martyrdom anniversary) Procession - 21 Ramzan (1433h) 2012.
Firing caused a bit of nuisance, but things were under control soon after it.
Procession ended on Hussainia Iraninaan Kharadar, Karachi.
Iltemas E Dua,
MMS
More...
Description:
Report on YOM E ALI a.s (Imam Ali a.s martyrdom anniversary) Procession - 21 Ramzan (1433h) 2012.
Firing caused a bit of nuisance, but things were under control soon after it.
Procession ended on Hussainia Iraninaan Kharadar, Karachi.
Iltemas E Dua,
MMS
1:55
|
1:32
|
74:46
|
[MSA-PSG 2012] H.I. Hamza Sodagar - Justice, A Supreme Value - English
MSA PSG’s 42nd Annual Conference in Houston, Texas. The conference began on Dec 20th and ended on Dec 23rd, 2012.
This year’s theme is based on the concept of \\\\\\\"Islam is the only...
MSA PSG’s 42nd Annual Conference in Houston, Texas. The conference began on Dec 20th and ended on Dec 23rd, 2012.
This year’s theme is based on the concept of \\\\\\\"Islam is the only Justful Solution\\\\\\\".
More...
Description:
MSA PSG’s 42nd Annual Conference in Houston, Texas. The conference began on Dec 20th and ended on Dec 23rd, 2012.
This year’s theme is based on the concept of \\\\\\\"Islam is the only Justful Solution\\\\\\\".
2:24
|
34:26
|
[MSA-PSG 2012] Stage Play - English
MSA PSG’s 42nd Annual Conference in Houston, Texas. The conference began on Dec 20th and ended on Dec 23rd, 2012.
This year’s theme is based on the concept of \\\\\\\"Islam is the only...
MSA PSG’s 42nd Annual Conference in Houston, Texas. The conference began on Dec 20th and ended on Dec 23rd, 2012.
This year’s theme is based on the concept of \\\\\\\"Islam is the only Justful Solution\\\\\\\".
More...
Description:
MSA PSG’s 42nd Annual Conference in Houston, Texas. The conference began on Dec 20th and ended on Dec 23rd, 2012.
This year’s theme is based on the concept of \\\\\\\"Islam is the only Justful Solution\\\\\\\".
[ENGLISH] Sayyed Khamenei: Speech to Baseej - 21 November 2012
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech to Basijis
21/11/2012
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on November 21, 2012 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader...
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech to Basijis
21/11/2012
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on November 21, 2012 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in a meeting with Basijis and Salehin activists.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Thankfully, an event similar to the great event of Ashura - which has been narrated for us - took place in our own times. During the Sacred Defense Era, many men, women and young people who were trying to achieve their noble goals, laid down their lives and wealth and forgot about the material aspects of their lives. Today we are benefiting from the blessings of this event. The coincidence of this event with the great event of Ashura is a lesson for us. The Islamic Ummah should never forget the event of Ashura which is a lesson and a source of guidance for us. Definitely Islam is alive because of the event of Ashura and the efforts of Hussein ibn Ali (a.s.).
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And I am from Hussein.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This narration means that Hussein (a.s.) continued the path of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) and he continued to promote Islam after him. If it had not been for the event of Ashura and if these great sacrifices had not been made in the history of Islam, this valuable experience and this practical lesson would not have been bestowed on the Islamic Ummah and Islam would have definitely deviated from its path - as many religions before Islam did - and nothing would have remained from it. The greatness of Ashura is because of this.
Of course, the pain and suffering which Imam Hussein (a.s.) and his followers endured on the day of Ashura were too agonizing and the harm which was inflicted was very serious. The life of Hussein ibn Ali (a.s.) is more valuable than everything in the world. The pure and sacred lives of those followers of Imam Hussein (a.s.), the lives of those youth and those members of Imam Hussein\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s (a.s.) household are not comparable to the life of other people. Their bodies were covered in blood and dirt. They made sacrifices and they laid down their lives. The households of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) and Imam Ali (a.s.) were imprisoned. Those events are very tragic and very difficult to tolerate. But what was achieved on the day of Ashura was so great and glorious that it made it easy for Imam Hussein (a.s.), his followers and his household to endure the sufferings. This has been narrated by prominent figures.
The late Hajj Mirza Javad Agha Maleki (may God bestow paradise on him) stressed in his book \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Muraqibaat\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" - what he has said in this book is certainly true - that the greater the sufferings grew on the day of Ashura, the brighter and more cheerful the face of Hussein ibn Ali (a.s.) would become. You should always keep in mind these important and extraordinary facts about Ashura.
In our own times, we have seen similar examples of these sacrifices. We have seen similar examples of sacrifices which we have read about in history books. One significant and remarkable example of these sacrifices is what Basij did before the start of the imposed war, during the Sacred Defense Era and after it ended. We have enormously benefited from the blessings of Basij and by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, these blessings should and will continue to benefit us.
An important point about Basij is that during the Sacred Defense Era, we could see that Basij enjoyed great purity. We should preserve this purity in Basij. The present situation is more complicated. It is dangerous to go to war, kill, fight and take on responsibilities which may result in martyrdom or disability. It is still dangerous even if nothing happens to you, but being present in a military confrontation is not complicated. The present situation in which you are faced with the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plots and attacks has certain complications. The confrontation between you and the enemy has certain complications. The dangers that our soldiers were exposed to may not exist today, but the present situation has more complications.
An advantage of the military confrontation we experienced was that whoever entered it showed great purity of intention. Entering the arena of war was a life and death situation. It was not a joke. It needed courage, selfless efforts, faith and reliance on God, but our soldiers went to war and they were martyred. Today we still need that kind of courage and faith in different arenas, but it is possible that certain people call themselves basijis without having these characteristics. You should be vigilant about this. First, we should guard ourselves against this and second, we should guard Basij against this. This is the duty of all members of Basij. You should strengthen the basiji spirit in Basij organizations including Salehin organizations which you manage. We should make sure that Basij has purity in everything it does. This is difficult to some extent. One reason why practicing self-restraint and paying attention to spiritual matters is called \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"greater jihad\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" is the difficulty of this task. In a military confrontation with the enemy, one can easily measure one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s and other people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s purity. It is easier to do this in the case of a military confrontation, but in the arena of practicing self-restraint this is not very easy. In latter case, you may make a mistake in judging how pure your actions are and others may also misjudge what kind of person you are.
Another point is that we should avoid negative qualities such as arrogance, pretension and hypocrisy. These qualities are very destructive. If we make an achievement, we should be thankful to God and we should know that our achievement has been made with the help of God and we should ask God to help us continue making these achievements. It is very important not to be arrogant and not be over-confident. We should not think that we have made achievements on our own and we should rely on God Almighty. It is a fact that there is no power except the power of God Almighty. Everything is done by God. Our achievements, our capabilities, our enthusiasm, our faith and our love all come from God. We should know this and we should be thankful to God. We should ask God Almighty to increase these qualities in our characters. This is an important issue.
I noticed an important point in the statements of the dear people who spoke in this meeting. That point is the high quality of organizations which form the basis of Basij. What is damaging is superficiality in our beliefs, our understanding of different matters and our principles. Superficiality is damaging. It is like a precarious stack of things which is easily blown down by a strong wind. We should give depth to our beliefs. Thankfully, you pay attention to these issues. Salehin organizations were created with a view to giving depth to the thoughts and the spirits of young basijis in spiritual and educational matters.
Generally, Basij is one of the miracles of the Revolution. Basij reflects the innovation of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). It shows his understanding, his wisdom and it reflects the connection between his enlightened heart and the source of divine wisdom. Basij provided a solid foundation for the Revolution. See how active Basij is in the area of scientific matters, in the area of practical matters, in the area of technological matters, in the area of spiritual matters, in the area of social services, in the area of formulating theories on different parts of social life, and in different other areas. If one day something happens which makes our people arm themselves against the enemy for the purpose of defending their country, these youth, these basijis, these brave youth of our dear nation will once more prove the courage of the Iranian nation, the resistance of the Iranian nation, the power of the Iranian nation and the invincibility of the Iranian nation to the enemy.
Other groups of people and other countries which have tried to tread the enlightened path of Islam will follow our example. We have a valuable experience in this regard. We should perform well because it will make Basij a living and dynamic role model in the world of Islam. Today this has almost happened. Therefore strengthening Basij, making all its members as pure and spiritual as possible, expanding its activities to all areas of life are among the tasks which should be carried out by the people in charge of Basij, member of Basij and everyone connected with Basij.
Islam has advised us to start from ourselves. All of us, at all levels, should start from ourselves. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"He who considers himself the leader of people should educate himself before educating others.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Nahjul Balaghah, Saying 73] This piece of advice is true at all levels. We should start from ourselves. We should establish this idea in Basij.
The Islamic view of lifestyle can be a standard for self-evaluation in Basij. I am not saying that organizations which are higher in rank should evaluate our behavior. I am saying that we should be the people who evaluate our own behavior. How is our behavior in our workplace? How is our behavior towards our wife and children? How is our behavior at home and in social environments? How is our behavior towards people who stand below us in rank? How is our behavior towards people who stand above us in rank? How is our behavior towards the enemy? In Islam, there are certain criteria for all of these. We should evaluate ourselves. This is self-evaluation. This can lay a firm foundation for our lives and for the work we should do in all areas - especially the work we should do in Basij, which is the topic of our discussion.
Anyway, our country, our nation, our Revolution and our history need Basij and Basij needs to improve itself on a daily basis in terms of quality. What you dear brothers and sisters are doing - in Salehin organizations - is very good and outstanding and it perfectly complements Basij. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, we should improve Basij on a daily basis. We should raise quality in Basij. Of course, quality should be given more significance than quantity, but increasing the quantity of work as well as the quality of work is also important. That is to say, we should both increase the volume of our work and add depth to it. Both should be taken into consideration. Today the world of Islam needs this movement by Basij.
The savage attack on Gaza over the past week, which is truly shocking, should awaken the world of Islam and it should give fresh impetus to the movement of Muslim peoples. The enemy is not sitting idle. This effort by the Zionist regime has several dimensions. First, it shows the extreme brutality of the Zionist regime. How savage these people are. They have no conscience at all. You become shocked when you see how savagely they attack innocent people and civilians. They have no human qualities. They are against the world of Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran. These creatures who have no human qualities want to challenge the Islamic Republic of Iran at international meetings. This is one aspect of the issue which is very important.
Another shocking aspect of the issue is that the leaders of global arrogance behave so shamelessly in this crisis. They not only do not frown at the brutal Zionist regime and they not only do not prevent it from doing what it is doing, but they rather support and encourage it. America explicitly supported the Zionists. England supported them. France supported them. These are the leaders of global arrogance. Muslim peoples do not have enemies who are as hated and brutal as these people. All these people explicitly supported them. The recent event shows how willing the leaders of global arrogance are to observe morality. They are very far away from human qualities. Now that they give political support to the Zionist regime for the purpose of safeguarding their corrupt political interests, why do they claim that they support human rights? Does America - which not only fails to condemn this violent and savage attack in Gaza, but also supports it - have the right to claim that it supports human rights? Does it have the right to put itself in the position of prosecutors of other nations and governments in the name of defending human rights? This is a shameless claim. The same is true of France and England. Muslim nations have not forgotten their past behavior in the world of Islam, the crimes that they committed, the killings that were carried out and the pressures that they exerted on Muslim peoples in different countries. And today they support the actions of a brutal regime, namely the Zionist regime. This is another aspect of the issue.
Another aspect of the issue is the behavior of Arab and Islamic governments regarding the event of Gaza which was not acceptable. Some of them only condemned the Zionists in words and some others did not even condemn the Zionists in words. Those who call Muslim nations to unity and claim to be the leaders of the Islamic Ummah should prove themselves in such situations. They are very outspoken on issues which suit their political agenda, but in this case - because they have to face America and England - they refuse to condemn the Zionists in an outspoken and genuine way or they merely offer verbal support, which is of little value and is not very effective. Today the world of Islam, especially Arab countries, should join hands to defend the people of Gaza and make the enemy lift the siege. They should try to help the innocent people of Gaza.
Of course, God Almighty has bestowed on the people of Gaza the blessing to resist and stand up against this violent and savage enemy. The people of Gaza saw the result of their resistance: they managed to preserve their dignity. They proved that by relying on resistance and hard work it is possible - even with a small number of people - to defeat large and heavily armed groups that are supported by the arrogant powers. Today the Zionists, who have occupied Palestine, are looking for a ceasefire more desperately than the people and the officials of Gaza. Although they committed these crimes and brutal actions, they were harmed more. This happened because of the resistance of the small number of Muslim people and youth in Gaza. There is no other way to defeat the enemies. This is a message to the world of Islam.
If the world of Islam wants to be invulnerable to the attacks, machinations and plots of the enemy, it should defend itself strongly. It should strengthen itself, both spiritually - strengthening one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s faith and determination - and materially. Material strength includes making scientific and technological progress, gaining experience and making advances in the area of building weapons and in other areas. The world of Islam and Islamic societies should equip themselves with these. If they do this, then every district even as small as Gaza can inflict as much harm on the enemy as the people of Gaza did. As I said before, what the people of Gaza did made the enemy look for a ceasefire more desperately than the people and the officials in Gaza although they went through pain and suffering and a number of them were martyred. This is a lesson for the world of Islam and of course we learned this lesson during the Sacred Defense Era. Thankfully, our people, our youth, our scientists and our experts have made progress in this regard. We have made progress in theoretical and practical areas. We have become fully aware of the fact that we should stand on our own feet which is one of the requirements for resistance.
Another point is the issue of unity among the Islamic Ummah and among the people of each country. The unity among the people and the political parties of each country is important. The same is true of our nation. The reason I repeatedly point out that political parties, our dear officials, people who can address the public - including newspapers, websites, executive and other organizations in charge of our media - writers and people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s representatives should preserve unity among themselves, is that unity is very important in essence. Fortunately our country has managed to preserve its unity and cohesion. Fortunately the recent disagreements between the officials have not shattered the unity of our nation. The fact that there are differences of opinion between the officials creates no problems as long as these differences do not result in major disputes. In the eyes of the enemy, our country has been very powerful since the start of the Revolution and this has happened because of our unity. Today they have the same opinion. Some time ago I advised the officials to preserve unity among themselves. Fortunately the esteemed officials of the three branches of government listened to my advice. This is very valuable. It is necessary to thank these people. The officials and the heads of the three branches of government listened to my advice. They stressed that they will preserve their unity in different areas although they have differences of opinion. We welcome this positive move made by these dear brothers and esteemed officials and we believe that it was a wise move and they should continue to be careful about what they say.
What the MPs are doing in the Majlis is one of the things that has certain praiseworthy aspects. You dear brothers and sisters and the honorable people of Iran should know that asking questions of our government officials, whether the President or other executive officials, is a positive move because of two reasons. One reason is that it shows the people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s representatives in the legislative branch have a sense of responsibility towards issues of the country. This is positive. Another reason is that the executive branch announced with confidence and with praiseworthy courage that it is prepared for answering the questions posed by the MPs. This is positive too. The legislative branch carries out its responsibility and our executive officials show that they have confidence in their decisions and sincerity. What else do we expect? This is the best situation. This decision has been made: the Majlis has announced that it wants to summon the President for questioning which shows their sense of responsibility, and the executive branch has announced that it is prepared to answer the questions with confidence - they said this to me too. This too is praiseworthy. These two moves made by the Majlis and the executive branch are both good. But I believe that the efforts should not be continued. They should end the issue immediately.
This was a good test for both the Majlis and the executive branch. The people are also insightful and wise. Continuing this issue is exactly what the enemies want. The enemies want to pitch the two branches against each other. The enemies want to provoke people on each side to give in to their feelings and create uproar through newspapers, websites and other such things. Our country needs tranquility. All the officials, no matter which branch of government they belong to, need tranquility to do their duties and the people also want tranquility. The Majlis did its duty and in response to the decision of the Majlis, the executive branch showed that it has the necessary self-confidence to defend its actions. What these two branches of government did is satisfactory. Now I ask the brothers who made this decision in the Majlis to end this issue and show that government officials in the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of government respect unity and tranquility more than anything else.
I thank all the brothers and sisters in Basij. I hope that Allah the Exalted bestows success on all of you. I thank all the brothers and sisters who spoke in this meeting. I hope that God Almighty bestows great rewards on them. I also thank the dear brother who gave me his medal. I have accepted this medal, but I would like to give it back to him as gift. It is better for him to keep the medal because it will evoke the memory of his championship and something to remember me by. I hope that Allah the Exalted bestows success on you.
Source : http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1727&Itemid=4
More...
Description:
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech to Basijis
21/11/2012
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on November 21, 2012 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in a meeting with Basijis and Salehin activists.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Thankfully, an event similar to the great event of Ashura - which has been narrated for us - took place in our own times. During the Sacred Defense Era, many men, women and young people who were trying to achieve their noble goals, laid down their lives and wealth and forgot about the material aspects of their lives. Today we are benefiting from the blessings of this event. The coincidence of this event with the great event of Ashura is a lesson for us. The Islamic Ummah should never forget the event of Ashura which is a lesson and a source of guidance for us. Definitely Islam is alive because of the event of Ashura and the efforts of Hussein ibn Ali (a.s.).
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"And I am from Hussein.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This narration means that Hussein (a.s.) continued the path of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) and he continued to promote Islam after him. If it had not been for the event of Ashura and if these great sacrifices had not been made in the history of Islam, this valuable experience and this practical lesson would not have been bestowed on the Islamic Ummah and Islam would have definitely deviated from its path - as many religions before Islam did - and nothing would have remained from it. The greatness of Ashura is because of this.
Of course, the pain and suffering which Imam Hussein (a.s.) and his followers endured on the day of Ashura were too agonizing and the harm which was inflicted was very serious. The life of Hussein ibn Ali (a.s.) is more valuable than everything in the world. The pure and sacred lives of those followers of Imam Hussein (a.s.), the lives of those youth and those members of Imam Hussein\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s (a.s.) household are not comparable to the life of other people. Their bodies were covered in blood and dirt. They made sacrifices and they laid down their lives. The households of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) and Imam Ali (a.s.) were imprisoned. Those events are very tragic and very difficult to tolerate. But what was achieved on the day of Ashura was so great and glorious that it made it easy for Imam Hussein (a.s.), his followers and his household to endure the sufferings. This has been narrated by prominent figures.
The late Hajj Mirza Javad Agha Maleki (may God bestow paradise on him) stressed in his book \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Muraqibaat\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" - what he has said in this book is certainly true - that the greater the sufferings grew on the day of Ashura, the brighter and more cheerful the face of Hussein ibn Ali (a.s.) would become. You should always keep in mind these important and extraordinary facts about Ashura.
In our own times, we have seen similar examples of these sacrifices. We have seen similar examples of sacrifices which we have read about in history books. One significant and remarkable example of these sacrifices is what Basij did before the start of the imposed war, during the Sacred Defense Era and after it ended. We have enormously benefited from the blessings of Basij and by Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, these blessings should and will continue to benefit us.
An important point about Basij is that during the Sacred Defense Era, we could see that Basij enjoyed great purity. We should preserve this purity in Basij. The present situation is more complicated. It is dangerous to go to war, kill, fight and take on responsibilities which may result in martyrdom or disability. It is still dangerous even if nothing happens to you, but being present in a military confrontation is not complicated. The present situation in which you are faced with the enemy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s plots and attacks has certain complications. The confrontation between you and the enemy has certain complications. The dangers that our soldiers were exposed to may not exist today, but the present situation has more complications.
An advantage of the military confrontation we experienced was that whoever entered it showed great purity of intention. Entering the arena of war was a life and death situation. It was not a joke. It needed courage, selfless efforts, faith and reliance on God, but our soldiers went to war and they were martyred. Today we still need that kind of courage and faith in different arenas, but it is possible that certain people call themselves basijis without having these characteristics. You should be vigilant about this. First, we should guard ourselves against this and second, we should guard Basij against this. This is the duty of all members of Basij. You should strengthen the basiji spirit in Basij organizations including Salehin organizations which you manage. We should make sure that Basij has purity in everything it does. This is difficult to some extent. One reason why practicing self-restraint and paying attention to spiritual matters is called \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"greater jihad\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" is the difficulty of this task. In a military confrontation with the enemy, one can easily measure one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s and other people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s purity. It is easier to do this in the case of a military confrontation, but in the arena of practicing self-restraint this is not very easy. In latter case, you may make a mistake in judging how pure your actions are and others may also misjudge what kind of person you are.
Another point is that we should avoid negative qualities such as arrogance, pretension and hypocrisy. These qualities are very destructive. If we make an achievement, we should be thankful to God and we should know that our achievement has been made with the help of God and we should ask God to help us continue making these achievements. It is very important not to be arrogant and not be over-confident. We should not think that we have made achievements on our own and we should rely on God Almighty. It is a fact that there is no power except the power of God Almighty. Everything is done by God. Our achievements, our capabilities, our enthusiasm, our faith and our love all come from God. We should know this and we should be thankful to God. We should ask God Almighty to increase these qualities in our characters. This is an important issue.
I noticed an important point in the statements of the dear people who spoke in this meeting. That point is the high quality of organizations which form the basis of Basij. What is damaging is superficiality in our beliefs, our understanding of different matters and our principles. Superficiality is damaging. It is like a precarious stack of things which is easily blown down by a strong wind. We should give depth to our beliefs. Thankfully, you pay attention to these issues. Salehin organizations were created with a view to giving depth to the thoughts and the spirits of young basijis in spiritual and educational matters.
Generally, Basij is one of the miracles of the Revolution. Basij reflects the innovation of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.). It shows his understanding, his wisdom and it reflects the connection between his enlightened heart and the source of divine wisdom. Basij provided a solid foundation for the Revolution. See how active Basij is in the area of scientific matters, in the area of practical matters, in the area of technological matters, in the area of spiritual matters, in the area of social services, in the area of formulating theories on different parts of social life, and in different other areas. If one day something happens which makes our people arm themselves against the enemy for the purpose of defending their country, these youth, these basijis, these brave youth of our dear nation will once more prove the courage of the Iranian nation, the resistance of the Iranian nation, the power of the Iranian nation and the invincibility of the Iranian nation to the enemy.
Other groups of people and other countries which have tried to tread the enlightened path of Islam will follow our example. We have a valuable experience in this regard. We should perform well because it will make Basij a living and dynamic role model in the world of Islam. Today this has almost happened. Therefore strengthening Basij, making all its members as pure and spiritual as possible, expanding its activities to all areas of life are among the tasks which should be carried out by the people in charge of Basij, member of Basij and everyone connected with Basij.
Islam has advised us to start from ourselves. All of us, at all levels, should start from ourselves. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"He who considers himself the leader of people should educate himself before educating others.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Nahjul Balaghah, Saying 73] This piece of advice is true at all levels. We should start from ourselves. We should establish this idea in Basij.
The Islamic view of lifestyle can be a standard for self-evaluation in Basij. I am not saying that organizations which are higher in rank should evaluate our behavior. I am saying that we should be the people who evaluate our own behavior. How is our behavior in our workplace? How is our behavior towards our wife and children? How is our behavior at home and in social environments? How is our behavior towards people who stand below us in rank? How is our behavior towards people who stand above us in rank? How is our behavior towards the enemy? In Islam, there are certain criteria for all of these. We should evaluate ourselves. This is self-evaluation. This can lay a firm foundation for our lives and for the work we should do in all areas - especially the work we should do in Basij, which is the topic of our discussion.
Anyway, our country, our nation, our Revolution and our history need Basij and Basij needs to improve itself on a daily basis in terms of quality. What you dear brothers and sisters are doing - in Salehin organizations - is very good and outstanding and it perfectly complements Basij. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, we should improve Basij on a daily basis. We should raise quality in Basij. Of course, quality should be given more significance than quantity, but increasing the quantity of work as well as the quality of work is also important. That is to say, we should both increase the volume of our work and add depth to it. Both should be taken into consideration. Today the world of Islam needs this movement by Basij.
The savage attack on Gaza over the past week, which is truly shocking, should awaken the world of Islam and it should give fresh impetus to the movement of Muslim peoples. The enemy is not sitting idle. This effort by the Zionist regime has several dimensions. First, it shows the extreme brutality of the Zionist regime. How savage these people are. They have no conscience at all. You become shocked when you see how savagely they attack innocent people and civilians. They have no human qualities. They are against the world of Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran. These creatures who have no human qualities want to challenge the Islamic Republic of Iran at international meetings. This is one aspect of the issue which is very important.
Another shocking aspect of the issue is that the leaders of global arrogance behave so shamelessly in this crisis. They not only do not frown at the brutal Zionist regime and they not only do not prevent it from doing what it is doing, but they rather support and encourage it. America explicitly supported the Zionists. England supported them. France supported them. These are the leaders of global arrogance. Muslim peoples do not have enemies who are as hated and brutal as these people. All these people explicitly supported them. The recent event shows how willing the leaders of global arrogance are to observe morality. They are very far away from human qualities. Now that they give political support to the Zionist regime for the purpose of safeguarding their corrupt political interests, why do they claim that they support human rights? Does America - which not only fails to condemn this violent and savage attack in Gaza, but also supports it - have the right to claim that it supports human rights? Does it have the right to put itself in the position of prosecutors of other nations and governments in the name of defending human rights? This is a shameless claim. The same is true of France and England. Muslim nations have not forgotten their past behavior in the world of Islam, the crimes that they committed, the killings that were carried out and the pressures that they exerted on Muslim peoples in different countries. And today they support the actions of a brutal regime, namely the Zionist regime. This is another aspect of the issue.
Another aspect of the issue is the behavior of Arab and Islamic governments regarding the event of Gaza which was not acceptable. Some of them only condemned the Zionists in words and some others did not even condemn the Zionists in words. Those who call Muslim nations to unity and claim to be the leaders of the Islamic Ummah should prove themselves in such situations. They are very outspoken on issues which suit their political agenda, but in this case - because they have to face America and England - they refuse to condemn the Zionists in an outspoken and genuine way or they merely offer verbal support, which is of little value and is not very effective. Today the world of Islam, especially Arab countries, should join hands to defend the people of Gaza and make the enemy lift the siege. They should try to help the innocent people of Gaza.
Of course, God Almighty has bestowed on the people of Gaza the blessing to resist and stand up against this violent and savage enemy. The people of Gaza saw the result of their resistance: they managed to preserve their dignity. They proved that by relying on resistance and hard work it is possible - even with a small number of people - to defeat large and heavily armed groups that are supported by the arrogant powers. Today the Zionists, who have occupied Palestine, are looking for a ceasefire more desperately than the people and the officials of Gaza. Although they committed these crimes and brutal actions, they were harmed more. This happened because of the resistance of the small number of Muslim people and youth in Gaza. There is no other way to defeat the enemies. This is a message to the world of Islam.
If the world of Islam wants to be invulnerable to the attacks, machinations and plots of the enemy, it should defend itself strongly. It should strengthen itself, both spiritually - strengthening one\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s faith and determination - and materially. Material strength includes making scientific and technological progress, gaining experience and making advances in the area of building weapons and in other areas. The world of Islam and Islamic societies should equip themselves with these. If they do this, then every district even as small as Gaza can inflict as much harm on the enemy as the people of Gaza did. As I said before, what the people of Gaza did made the enemy look for a ceasefire more desperately than the people and the officials in Gaza although they went through pain and suffering and a number of them were martyred. This is a lesson for the world of Islam and of course we learned this lesson during the Sacred Defense Era. Thankfully, our people, our youth, our scientists and our experts have made progress in this regard. We have made progress in theoretical and practical areas. We have become fully aware of the fact that we should stand on our own feet which is one of the requirements for resistance.
Another point is the issue of unity among the Islamic Ummah and among the people of each country. The unity among the people and the political parties of each country is important. The same is true of our nation. The reason I repeatedly point out that political parties, our dear officials, people who can address the public - including newspapers, websites, executive and other organizations in charge of our media - writers and people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s representatives should preserve unity among themselves, is that unity is very important in essence. Fortunately our country has managed to preserve its unity and cohesion. Fortunately the recent disagreements between the officials have not shattered the unity of our nation. The fact that there are differences of opinion between the officials creates no problems as long as these differences do not result in major disputes. In the eyes of the enemy, our country has been very powerful since the start of the Revolution and this has happened because of our unity. Today they have the same opinion. Some time ago I advised the officials to preserve unity among themselves. Fortunately the esteemed officials of the three branches of government listened to my advice. This is very valuable. It is necessary to thank these people. The officials and the heads of the three branches of government listened to my advice. They stressed that they will preserve their unity in different areas although they have differences of opinion. We welcome this positive move made by these dear brothers and esteemed officials and we believe that it was a wise move and they should continue to be careful about what they say.
What the MPs are doing in the Majlis is one of the things that has certain praiseworthy aspects. You dear brothers and sisters and the honorable people of Iran should know that asking questions of our government officials, whether the President or other executive officials, is a positive move because of two reasons. One reason is that it shows the people\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s representatives in the legislative branch have a sense of responsibility towards issues of the country. This is positive. Another reason is that the executive branch announced with confidence and with praiseworthy courage that it is prepared for answering the questions posed by the MPs. This is positive too. The legislative branch carries out its responsibility and our executive officials show that they have confidence in their decisions and sincerity. What else do we expect? This is the best situation. This decision has been made: the Majlis has announced that it wants to summon the President for questioning which shows their sense of responsibility, and the executive branch has announced that it is prepared to answer the questions with confidence - they said this to me too. This too is praiseworthy. These two moves made by the Majlis and the executive branch are both good. But I believe that the efforts should not be continued. They should end the issue immediately.
This was a good test for both the Majlis and the executive branch. The people are also insightful and wise. Continuing this issue is exactly what the enemies want. The enemies want to pitch the two branches against each other. The enemies want to provoke people on each side to give in to their feelings and create uproar through newspapers, websites and other such things. Our country needs tranquility. All the officials, no matter which branch of government they belong to, need tranquility to do their duties and the people also want tranquility. The Majlis did its duty and in response to the decision of the Majlis, the executive branch showed that it has the necessary self-confidence to defend its actions. What these two branches of government did is satisfactory. Now I ask the brothers who made this decision in the Majlis to end this issue and show that government officials in the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of government respect unity and tranquility more than anything else.
I thank all the brothers and sisters in Basij. I hope that Allah the Exalted bestows success on all of you. I thank all the brothers and sisters who spoke in this meeting. I hope that God Almighty bestows great rewards on them. I also thank the dear brother who gave me his medal. I have accepted this medal, but I would like to give it back to him as gift. It is better for him to keep the medal because it will evoke the memory of his championship and something to remember me by. I hope that Allah the Exalted bestows success on you.
Source : http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1727&Itemid=4
2:47
|
*Important* Full Speech by the Leader in Azerbaijan - 16 February 2013 - [ENGLISH]
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech to People of East Azerbaijan
22/02/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on February 16, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei...
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech to People of East Azerbaijan
22/02/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on February 16, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in a meeting with the people of East Azerbaijan. The meeting was held on the anniversary of the uprising by the people of Tabriz on the 29th of Bahman of 1356.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
I welcome all you dear brothers and sisters and the dear youth. In particular, I welcome the dear families of martyrs, religious scholars and government officials who have come here from distant places, brought a valuable gift of affection from the dear people of Azerbaijan on this occasion and delivered their message of resistance. I hope that Allah the Exalted bestows great blessings and infinite mercy on all of you.
I would tell you dear brothers and sisters and all the people of Azerbaijan and Tabriz including religious men and women that the presence of the people of Azerbaijan and Tabriz has truly played a determining role in the movement of the Iranian nation throughout all the eras in our history - from 100, 150 years ago until today. And today nothing has changed. It is you who have managed to protect the dignity of our country and our nation against the enemies with your firm determination, your pride and your faith. And Azerbaijan has played an increasingly significant role in different arenas.
Thirty-five years have passed since the 29th of Bahman of 1356. Today, in terms of faith, resistance and wisdom, Azerbaijan is even better than it was during those important and fateful times. There have been so many vicious plots to separate the people in different parts of the country. But these plots have backfired. It is you who have always managed to play a leading role. In fact, it is you who are the anchor of peace in this country. As you said in the poem you recited: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You are the peace in the heart of Iran.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Audience shout in the Azeri language, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are prepared to lay down our lives. We are Khamenei\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s soldiers.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"]
One can clearly see that the dear people of Azerbaijan have a specific characteristic. This characteristic exists in other parts of the country, but in Azerbaijan it is more visible. This characteristic is that the political activities and the proud movement of the people of Azerbaijan in different eras - in the case of the Constitutional Movement, the military occupation of Azerbaijan and different other issues - were based on religion and religious faith. And they played a leading role in many of these issues.
Despite the fact that the leftist intellectual movement and the movement which was dependent on the west were active in Azerbaijan since after the introduction of the unhealthy intellectual movement into our country and despite the fact that they were trying to separate the people from religion, the movement of the people was based on religion. If you take a look at the movements which were started in Azerbaijan - many of these movements were national movements, and the people of Azerbaijan were pioneers - you can see that despite the efforts of those leftist movements, the people and the leaders of these popular movements in Azerbaijan expressed their commitment to religious issues more openly than the people in other cities.
In Tabriz, Sattar Khan used to say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The fatwa of the ulama of Najaf is in my pocket\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". That is to say, this great and brave man used to coordinate with the marja taqlids of Najaf. What he did was exactly the opposite of what eastern and western intellectual movements wanted to achieve at that time in the country. Today nothing has changed and nothing will change in the future either.
The Iranian nation considers religious faith as the standard. I cited Azerbaijan as an example of this religious faith, but people throughout the country are, more or less, like this. The movement of the Iranian nation is one that is accompanied by pride, courage and a sense of responsibility. But it is based on religious teachings and religious faith. This is very valuable. That is why the dangers caused by global powers, which other nations are usually faced with and which make them waver, did not threaten the people of Iran and did not make them waver.
When the enemies wanted to impose sanctions and exert pressures they said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We want to impose crippling sanctions on the people of Iran.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" And they did this. Two, three days before the 22nd of Bahman, they put a new round of sanctions into the equation. Besides, a few months ago, in Mordad of this year, they did the same thing. That is to say, they increased their so-called pressures on the people before the 22nd of Bahman of this year.
What do they hope to achieve? They do these things in the hope of weakening the people. What was the response of the people? The people of Iran responded by participating in the rallies on the 22nd of Bahman more enthusiastically. All the people participated. People from different parts of the country participated. They participated with great spirit and with a smile on their faces. The people of Iran are such people. Each year on the 22nd of Bahman, the people of Iran deal a blow to the enemies. They strike the enemies and the opponents like an avalanche. This avalanche struck them this year too. I deem it necessary to express my gratitude again - even if one expresses his gratitude 100 times, one is not overdoing it - to the people of Iran for their glorious and impressive presence [in the rallies on the 22nd of Bahman]. One should bow before such insight. The people of Iran are such people.
I would tell you that in these conditions, the enemies have taken a passive role. Despite the fact that they pretend to be active, they are not active. The enemy has taken a passive role in the face of the Iranian nation. Enjoying firm determination, wisdom and faith, our people know what they want and they know the way to achieve their goals. They endure the hardships with great courage. Different political, military and economic weapons do not work on our nation. Therefore, the enemy has taken a passive role and for this reason, they make irrational moves.
I would tell you that American politicians are irrational people. They make irrational statements. They act in an irrational and thuggish way. They expect other countries to give in to their unreasonable demands and their bullying. Well, some people give in to their demands. Some governments and some political personalities in certain countries give in to their bullying. But the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic will not give in. The Islamic Republic of Iran has many things to say. It has logical reasons. It has power and authority. For this reason, the Islamic Republic does not give in to irrational statements and actions.
In what ways are they irrational? The sign of their irrationality is the contradictions between their words and actions. Their words are not in line with their actions. No other piece of evidence can show their irrationality more clearly. A reasonable person makes a convincing comment and then he sticks by it. These men, American politicians and their western followers, are not such people. They say a certain thing and make a certain claim, but they do exactly the opposite of what they have claimed or said. I would like to give a number of examples:
They claim that they are committed to human rights. The Americans have raised the flag of human rights. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are committed to human rights not only in our country, America, but also in the entire world.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Well, this is a claim. What have they done in practice? In practice, they inflict the most serious harm on human rights and they hurl the biggest insult at human rights in different countries. Their secret prisons throughout the world, such as their prisons in Guantanamo, in Iraq, in Abu Ghraib and their attack on civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and in different areas are examples of the Americans\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' claim to support human rights. Based on the news that is reported every day from Afghanistan and Pakistan, their drones both spy for them and pressure the people. Of course, as an American journal said a few days ago, these drones will be a source of trouble for them in the future.
They say that they are committed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Their pretext for attacking Iraq 11 years ago was that the regime of Saddam wanted to build nuclear weapons in Iraq. Of course, they went there and they did not find anything. It became clear that it was a lie. They say that they are committed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is while they support an evil government - the Zionist government - which has nuclear weapons and which threatens to use them. That is what they say and this is how they act.
They say that they are committed to establishment of democracy in the world - I do not want to speak about the kind of democracy America itself has. Under this claim, they constantly confront the Islamic Republic which has the most genuine democracy in the region. This is while they shamelessly support countries in the region which do not know the first thing about democracy and in which the people have not seen ballot boxes even once. This is their commitment to democracy. Notice how different their words and actions are.
They say that they want to resolve their issues with Iran. They have said this many times. Recently, they are speaking about it even more than before. They say that they want to negotiate and resolve their issues with Iran. This is what they say. But in practice, they resort to imposing sanctions and broadcasting negative propaganda. They publish inappropriate and false things about the Islamic Republic and the people of Iran.
A few days ago the President of America delivered a speech about the nuclear issue of Iran. He spoke as if the conflict between Iran and America is over Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s decision to build nuclear weapons. He said that they will do everything in their power to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. If we wanted to build nuclear weapons, how would you stop us? If Iran had decided to build nuclear weapons, America would not be able to stop it in any way.
We do not want to build nuclear weapons and this is not because this will upset America, rather it is because of our beliefs. We believe that building nuclear weapons is a crime against humanity and they should not be built. Besides, we believe that the existing nuclear weapons should be destroyed. This is our belief. It has nothing to do with you [Americans]. If we did not have this belief and if we decided to build nuclear weapons, no power could stop us, as they could not stop other countries. They could not do this in India, Pakistan and North Korea. The Americans were opposed to development of nuclear weapons in these countries, but they built nuclear weapons.
The Americans claim, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We will not let Iran build nuclear weapons.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This is deceptive talk. Is this an issue of nuclear weapons? Regarding Iran, the issue is not related to nuclear weapons. The issue is that you want to deny Iran its natural and inalienable right to enrich uranium and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes through using its domestic capacities. Of course, you cannot do this either and the Iranian nation will not renounce its right.
American politicians make irrational statements. One cannot use logic when he speaks to an irrational person - after all, he is irrational. Irrational means thuggish. It means somebody who speaks nonsense. This is a fact which we have become aware of through our involvement in different global issues. We understand who our opposing side is and how he should be confronted.
I have written down a few things to discuss with you dear brothers and sisters and the entire Iranian nation. Of course, these statements are addressed to the people of Iran. When they speak, when the American president speaks, when his companions and followers speak, they want to mislead public opinion -public opinion in the world, in the region or if they can, in our country. At the moment, I do not want to speak about public opinion in the world. The global media network, which is under the domination of the Zionists and the Americans, either does not reflect our statements or it reflects them in an incomplete or distorted way. Therefore, I speak to the people of Iran.
The power of the Islamic Republic has nothing to do with public opinion in the world. The Islamic Republic has not gained its power and it has not achieved dignity and glory with the help of public opinion in the world. It has achieved these things with the help of the people of Iran. The firm and solid foundation which the Iranian nation has built and the news of which is quickly spreading throughout the world is based on the Iranian nation itself. I speak to the people of Iran. I will not address other nations, but they can listen if they want to. They can reflect on my statements or not reflect on them. But the people of Iran should know about these things. Therefore, the first point is that they are unreasonable. They speak without believing in what they say and their words and actions are different.
The second point is that they have raised the issue of negotiations. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Iranian officials should come to us so that we can sit and negotiate.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" The same unreasonable behavior can be seen in their offer of negotiations. Their purpose is not to solve the problems and resolves the issues - I will explain this later. Their purpose is creating hype. They want to say to Muslim nations, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This was the Islamic Republic with all that intense determination and resistance. But finally, it had to negotiate with us. Even the Iranian nation ended up like this. What can you do?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
They need negotiations in order to suppress countries which have just gained power, in which the breeze of Islamic Awakening has blown, countries which feel they have dignity because of Islam. They want to make these countries hopeless. Since the beginning of the Revolution, this was one of their goals. Since the beginning of the Revolution, one of their goals was to drag Iran to the negotiating table and make it deal with it. One of their goals was to gain the opportunity to say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Did you see that finally Iran - which claimed to be independent and courageous and which claimed that it has stood up against us - was forced to come and sit at the negotiating table?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Today, they pursue the same goal. This is an important issue. When the purpose of negotiations is not resolving the main issues and when the purpose of negotiations is creating hype, it is clear that the opposing side, the Islamic Republic, is not naïve and it has not closed its eyes. It understands what your goal is. Therefore, it responds on the basis of your intentions.
The third point is that in the eyes of the Americans and powers which seek domination, the true meaning of negotiations is accepting what they say at the negotiating table. This is their goal of negotiations. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Let us sit and talk so that you come to the conclusion that you should accept what you would not accept before.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" They say in their propaganda about negotiations - you may have heard about it - that they should directly negotiate with Iran and they cause a stir and create hype about it. Even the statements they made today clearly conveyed the message that they want to convince Iran to stop enriching uranium and producing nuclear energy. This is their goal. They do not say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Let us sit and negotiate so that Iran can give its own reasons and so that we stop pressuring them, imposing sanctions on them and interfering in political and security issues.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Rather, they say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We should negotiate so that Iran accepts what we say.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
This kind of negotiation does not serve any purpose. It will not reach any results. Even if Iran accepts to negotiate and even if our officials sit and negotiate with the Americans, what kind of negotiations is it when their goal is this [making Iran surrender]? It is obvious that Iran will not give up its rights. During negotiations, whenever they see that the opposing side speaks reasonably and they have nothing to say against Iran, they break off negotiations. Then, they say that Iran does not want to negotiate. Political networks as well as news networks are under their control and they broadcast propaganda. We have experienced this.
During the past 15 years, two or three times the Americans sent a message about a specific issue. They insisted that there is a very important and a very critical issue and that we should sit and talk with them. Well, executive officials - usually one or two people - went to a certain place and spoke to them. As soon as these officials made their rational statements and the Americans found out that they have no response, the negotiations were broken off unilaterally. Of course, they achieved their propaganda purposes. This is our experience. Well, it is wrong to test something which has been already tested.
The fourth point is that they pretend in their propaganda that if Iran sits at the negotiating table and negotiates with America, sanctions will be lifted. This is a lie too. Their goal is to make the people of Iran become eager to negotiate with America by promising to lift sanctions. They think that the people of Iran are exhausted by the sanctions and are frustrated. They think that everything is in a mess and that they can tell us, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Well, come and negotiate with us so that we lift the sanctions.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" They think this will cause the entire Iranian nation to ask them to negotiate.
This is also one of their irrational and deceptive statements and it is a tool for bullying. First, as I said, when they ask us to negotiate with them, they do not really mean fair and rational negotiations. Negotiations mean that we should accept what they say and surrender so that they lift the sanctions. If the Iranian nation wanted to surrender, they would not have carried out a revolution. America was dominant over the issues of Iran and it did what it liked. The Iranian people carried out a revolution in order to free themselves from the yoke of America. Now should they surrender to you again? This is the first problem with their offer of negotiations.
Another problem is that the sanctions will not be lifted with negotiations. I would tell you that the purpose of sanctions is something else. The purpose of sanctions is exhausting the people of Iran and separating them from the Islamic Republic. Even if negotiations are conducted but our people stay present on the scene and stand up for their rights, sanctions will continue. What will the Iranian nation do to counter this wrong idea that the enemies have?
There is an idea in the minds of the opposing sides. Let us elaborate and analyze this idea. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The Islamic Republic relies on the people. If we manage to separate the people from the Islamic Republic, the power to resist will be taken away from the Islamic Republic.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This is how the opposing side thinks. Well, this idea has two parts. The first part, that the Islamic Republic relies on the people, is accurate. There is no source of support for the Islamic Republic except the people. The people are the fortifications that protect the country and the Islamic Revolution. The second part, that they thought they can bring the people to their knees by imposing sanctions and bullying them on international, commercial and other such issues, is false. If they think that they can take away this source of support from the Islamic Republic, they are wrong.
The Iranian nation will think of some ways to counter what the enemy wants to do. The Iranian nation is looking for economic blossoming, economic progress and complete prosperity. But it does not want to achieve this goal by being humiliated before the enemy. It wants to achieve this goal with its own capabilities, courage, advancements and with the capabilities of the youth. It does not want to achieve this with anything else. There is no doubt that sanctions exert pressures on the people and bother them. But there are two ways to approach these pressures. Weak nations surrender to the enemy when he exerts pressures and they bow and show regret before him. But a brave nation, like the Iranian nation, tries to use its own capabilities as soon as it sees that the enemy is exerting pressures and it tries to pass through the danger zone. And our nation will definitely do this. We have 30 years of experience in this regard.
There are certain countries in the region which have been under the domination of America for more than 30 years. The governments in these countries have been servants of America. They have been obedient to America and they have been taking orders from it. What is their position? The Iranian nation has been putting up a resistance against America for more than 30 years. What is the position of the Iranian nation? In the face of 30 years of pressures by America, the Iranian nation has reached such a position - in terms of scientific, economic and cultural progress and in terms of international dignity, political influence and political power - that the people and government officials during the time of Pahlavi and Qajar regimes could not even dream of.
We have experienced this. We have tested this. We have stood up against the pressures of America for 30 years. We have such a position. But there are nations which have been under the domination of America for 30 years and they are behind other countries to a great extent. We did not suffer a loss as a result of resisting. Resistance revives the inner strength of a nation. It makes it active. The sanctions which they impose will be helpful to the Iranian nation. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, sanctions will help the Iranian nation achieve growth and blossoming. This is an important point.
Well, you saw what the people did in the rallies. We cannot say that the people have no complaints about the high prices and the existing problems. Prices are high and there are certain economic problems and the people, particularly underprivileged people, feel them. But this did not make the people separate themselves from the Islamic Republic. The people know that the Islamic Republic, dear and powerful Islam and the officials who are committed to Islam, are the powerful hands which can solve the problems. They can solve the problems. Surrendering to the enemies will not solve any problems.
The last point is that unlike American politicians, we are reasonable. Our officials are reasonable. Our people are reasonable. We accept rational statements and rational actions. If the Americans show that they will not bully us any more, if they show that they will not commit evil deeds, if they show that they will not say and do irrational things, if they show that they will respect the rights of the Iranian nation, if they show that they will not fuel the fire of discord in the country, if they show that they will not interfere in the internal affairs of Iran - like the interference by supporting those who started the fitna in 1388 - then they will see that the Islamic Republic is benevolent and the people are reasonable.
In the fitna of the year 1388, they supported those who started the fitna and they put social networks at the service of these people. In those days, a social network wanted to close down in order to fix some technical problems. They asked the network not to close down so that they could exert influence over the fitna. If they stop doing these things, then they will see that the Islamic Republic is well-wishing. The only way to establish relations with the Islamic Republic is this and there is no other way. They can establish relations with the Islamic Republic in such a way. The Americans should prove that they have good will. They should prove that they are not after bullying. If they prove this, then they will see that the Iranian nation will make an appropriate response. If they do not commit evil deeds, if they do not interfere, if they do not bully and if they acknowledge the rights of the Iranian nation, then an appropriate response will be given by the Iranian nation.
I would like to say a few things about the internal issues of our country. This is an important issue. An event took place in the Majlis. It was a bad and inappropriate event. It made both the people and our elites unhappy. I became upset for two reasons. The first is the fact that the event itself happened and the second is the fact that the people are unhappy about this issue. In this event, the head of a certain branch made an accusation against the other two branches on the basis of an unproven allegation which had not even been considered by a court of law. This course of action was bad and inappropriate. These acts are against sharia and the law and they are immoral. They violate the basic rights of the people. One of the basic rights of the people is living in peace and in psychological and moral security.
If a person is accused of corruption, one cannot accuse other people on the basis of this accusation. Even if he is found guilty - let alone the current case in which the accused has not been found guilty, he has not been summoned by the court and he has not come to trial - one should not accuse others. Accusing other people, the Majlis and the judiciary branch on the basis of an accusation that has been leveled against another person is an appropriate course of action. It is a wrong course of action. For the time being, I offer a piece of advice. This behavior is not appropriate for the Islamic Republic.
On the other hand, the questioning [of the minister] in the Majlis was a wrong course of action. Questioning should serve a certain purpose. What is the purpose of questioning a minister - a few months before the end of this administration\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s term - over an issue which is not related to the minister? Why did they do this?
I have heard that inside the Majlis, a number of people said inappropriate things. This course of action was also wrong. All these events are inappropriate for the Islamic Republic. Neither that accusation, nor that behavior, nor that questioning was appropriate. The things which the honorable Speaker of the Majlis said in his own defense were excessive. It was not necessary to do that.
We are all brothers. When there is a common enemy in front of us and when we see plots, what should we do? Until today, the officials have always stayed by one another\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s side. Now, too, they should act like this. They should always act like this.
I have always supported the officials of the three branches and the officials of the country. I will continue to support each person who has a responsibility. I will help him. But I do not like these acts. This kind of behavior is not in line with the oaths they take and with the promises they make. Take a look at the greatness of the people. These people deserve to be treated in a different way. Today, the officials should focus all their efforts on solving economic problems. Three or four years ago, during a speech which I delivered in the beginning of the year, I explicitly said to the people and the officials that the plot of the enemies of the Iranian nation would be to focus - more than everything else - on our economic issues.
Well, you see that the enemies did this. Both the executive branch and the Majlis should focus all their efforts and all their attention on pursuing accurate economic policies. A few years ago, I wrote a letter to the heads of the three branches of government about combating economic corruption. You should combat economic corruption. This problem is not solved by speaking about it. You should combat economic corruption in practice. You repeatedly speak about economic corruption. When did you combat economic corruption? What was done in practice? What did you do in practice? These issues make one distressed.
Now that the enemies have increased their hostility, I expect the officials to strengthen their friendship. Piety, piety, piety! We expect the officials to focus all their efforts on solving the problems of the people by exercising patience, by suppressing unrestrained emotions and by taking the issues of the country into consideration. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, this benevolent piece of advice will draw the attention of the officials, particularly high-ranking officials. They should be committed to this issue.
I should add another point. The things that I said today and the complaints I made against a number of officials should not make some people shout slogans against such and such people. I am against this course of action. Some people label a certain person as anti-wilayat, anti-insight and anti-whatever. Then they shout slogans against him and create disruption in the Majlis. I am against these moves. I would like to speak openly about these issues. I am against the kind of events which happened in Qom. I am against the kind of events which happened at Imam Khomeini\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) holy shrine. I asked the officials many times to prevent these things. Those who do such things - if they are really hezbollahi and religious - should stop doing them. You can see that we consider these moves as harmful to the country. We do not benefit from them.
It is not helpful to set out to shout slogans against such and such people by releasing emotions. These slogans will not solve any problems. Keep this anger and these emotions for the time when it is necessary to express them. During the Sacred Defense Era, if basijis had decided to act at will, then the country would have been destroyed. Discipline and social order are necessary and it is necessary to take certain things into consideration. If these people do not pay any attention to these principles, then they should be treated in a different way. But those who pay attention to these principles and who believe they should not move against sharia, should take care not to make such moves.
Thankfully the people of Iran have insight. I would tell you dear youth that the day when we are gone and you are in charge, the situation of the Iranian nation will be much better in terms of material and spiritual prosperity. The Iranian nation is moving towards light. There are bright prospects for us. We should watch our behavior.
We should ask Allah the Exalted to help us. We should ask the immaculate souls of our martyrs and the immaculate soul of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) to help us. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, you and I will benefit from the prayers of the Imam of the Age (may our souls be sacrificed for his sake).
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings.
http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1744&Itemid=4
More...
Description:
Supreme Leader\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Speech to People of East Azerbaijan
22/02/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on February 16, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in a meeting with the people of East Azerbaijan. The meeting was held on the anniversary of the uprising by the people of Tabriz on the 29th of Bahman of 1356.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
I welcome all you dear brothers and sisters and the dear youth. In particular, I welcome the dear families of martyrs, religious scholars and government officials who have come here from distant places, brought a valuable gift of affection from the dear people of Azerbaijan on this occasion and delivered their message of resistance. I hope that Allah the Exalted bestows great blessings and infinite mercy on all of you.
I would tell you dear brothers and sisters and all the people of Azerbaijan and Tabriz including religious men and women that the presence of the people of Azerbaijan and Tabriz has truly played a determining role in the movement of the Iranian nation throughout all the eras in our history - from 100, 150 years ago until today. And today nothing has changed. It is you who have managed to protect the dignity of our country and our nation against the enemies with your firm determination, your pride and your faith. And Azerbaijan has played an increasingly significant role in different arenas.
Thirty-five years have passed since the 29th of Bahman of 1356. Today, in terms of faith, resistance and wisdom, Azerbaijan is even better than it was during those important and fateful times. There have been so many vicious plots to separate the people in different parts of the country. But these plots have backfired. It is you who have always managed to play a leading role. In fact, it is you who are the anchor of peace in this country. As you said in the poem you recited: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"You are the peace in the heart of Iran.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" [Audience shout in the Azeri language, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are prepared to lay down our lives. We are Khamenei\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s soldiers.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"]
One can clearly see that the dear people of Azerbaijan have a specific characteristic. This characteristic exists in other parts of the country, but in Azerbaijan it is more visible. This characteristic is that the political activities and the proud movement of the people of Azerbaijan in different eras - in the case of the Constitutional Movement, the military occupation of Azerbaijan and different other issues - were based on religion and religious faith. And they played a leading role in many of these issues.
Despite the fact that the leftist intellectual movement and the movement which was dependent on the west were active in Azerbaijan since after the introduction of the unhealthy intellectual movement into our country and despite the fact that they were trying to separate the people from religion, the movement of the people was based on religion. If you take a look at the movements which were started in Azerbaijan - many of these movements were national movements, and the people of Azerbaijan were pioneers - you can see that despite the efforts of those leftist movements, the people and the leaders of these popular movements in Azerbaijan expressed their commitment to religious issues more openly than the people in other cities.
In Tabriz, Sattar Khan used to say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The fatwa of the ulama of Najaf is in my pocket\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". That is to say, this great and brave man used to coordinate with the marja taqlids of Najaf. What he did was exactly the opposite of what eastern and western intellectual movements wanted to achieve at that time in the country. Today nothing has changed and nothing will change in the future either.
The Iranian nation considers religious faith as the standard. I cited Azerbaijan as an example of this religious faith, but people throughout the country are, more or less, like this. The movement of the Iranian nation is one that is accompanied by pride, courage and a sense of responsibility. But it is based on religious teachings and religious faith. This is very valuable. That is why the dangers caused by global powers, which other nations are usually faced with and which make them waver, did not threaten the people of Iran and did not make them waver.
When the enemies wanted to impose sanctions and exert pressures they said, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We want to impose crippling sanctions on the people of Iran.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" And they did this. Two, three days before the 22nd of Bahman, they put a new round of sanctions into the equation. Besides, a few months ago, in Mordad of this year, they did the same thing. That is to say, they increased their so-called pressures on the people before the 22nd of Bahman of this year.
What do they hope to achieve? They do these things in the hope of weakening the people. What was the response of the people? The people of Iran responded by participating in the rallies on the 22nd of Bahman more enthusiastically. All the people participated. People from different parts of the country participated. They participated with great spirit and with a smile on their faces. The people of Iran are such people. Each year on the 22nd of Bahman, the people of Iran deal a blow to the enemies. They strike the enemies and the opponents like an avalanche. This avalanche struck them this year too. I deem it necessary to express my gratitude again - even if one expresses his gratitude 100 times, one is not overdoing it - to the people of Iran for their glorious and impressive presence [in the rallies on the 22nd of Bahman]. One should bow before such insight. The people of Iran are such people.
I would tell you that in these conditions, the enemies have taken a passive role. Despite the fact that they pretend to be active, they are not active. The enemy has taken a passive role in the face of the Iranian nation. Enjoying firm determination, wisdom and faith, our people know what they want and they know the way to achieve their goals. They endure the hardships with great courage. Different political, military and economic weapons do not work on our nation. Therefore, the enemy has taken a passive role and for this reason, they make irrational moves.
I would tell you that American politicians are irrational people. They make irrational statements. They act in an irrational and thuggish way. They expect other countries to give in to their unreasonable demands and their bullying. Well, some people give in to their demands. Some governments and some political personalities in certain countries give in to their bullying. But the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic will not give in. The Islamic Republic of Iran has many things to say. It has logical reasons. It has power and authority. For this reason, the Islamic Republic does not give in to irrational statements and actions.
In what ways are they irrational? The sign of their irrationality is the contradictions between their words and actions. Their words are not in line with their actions. No other piece of evidence can show their irrationality more clearly. A reasonable person makes a convincing comment and then he sticks by it. These men, American politicians and their western followers, are not such people. They say a certain thing and make a certain claim, but they do exactly the opposite of what they have claimed or said. I would like to give a number of examples:
They claim that they are committed to human rights. The Americans have raised the flag of human rights. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We are committed to human rights not only in our country, America, but also in the entire world.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Well, this is a claim. What have they done in practice? In practice, they inflict the most serious harm on human rights and they hurl the biggest insult at human rights in different countries. Their secret prisons throughout the world, such as their prisons in Guantanamo, in Iraq, in Abu Ghraib and their attack on civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and in different areas are examples of the Americans\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' claim to support human rights. Based on the news that is reported every day from Afghanistan and Pakistan, their drones both spy for them and pressure the people. Of course, as an American journal said a few days ago, these drones will be a source of trouble for them in the future.
They say that they are committed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Their pretext for attacking Iraq 11 years ago was that the regime of Saddam wanted to build nuclear weapons in Iraq. Of course, they went there and they did not find anything. It became clear that it was a lie. They say that they are committed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is while they support an evil government - the Zionist government - which has nuclear weapons and which threatens to use them. That is what they say and this is how they act.
They say that they are committed to establishment of democracy in the world - I do not want to speak about the kind of democracy America itself has. Under this claim, they constantly confront the Islamic Republic which has the most genuine democracy in the region. This is while they shamelessly support countries in the region which do not know the first thing about democracy and in which the people have not seen ballot boxes even once. This is their commitment to democracy. Notice how different their words and actions are.
They say that they want to resolve their issues with Iran. They have said this many times. Recently, they are speaking about it even more than before. They say that they want to negotiate and resolve their issues with Iran. This is what they say. But in practice, they resort to imposing sanctions and broadcasting negative propaganda. They publish inappropriate and false things about the Islamic Republic and the people of Iran.
A few days ago the President of America delivered a speech about the nuclear issue of Iran. He spoke as if the conflict between Iran and America is over Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s decision to build nuclear weapons. He said that they will do everything in their power to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. If we wanted to build nuclear weapons, how would you stop us? If Iran had decided to build nuclear weapons, America would not be able to stop it in any way.
We do not want to build nuclear weapons and this is not because this will upset America, rather it is because of our beliefs. We believe that building nuclear weapons is a crime against humanity and they should not be built. Besides, we believe that the existing nuclear weapons should be destroyed. This is our belief. It has nothing to do with you [Americans]. If we did not have this belief and if we decided to build nuclear weapons, no power could stop us, as they could not stop other countries. They could not do this in India, Pakistan and North Korea. The Americans were opposed to development of nuclear weapons in these countries, but they built nuclear weapons.
The Americans claim, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We will not let Iran build nuclear weapons.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This is deceptive talk. Is this an issue of nuclear weapons? Regarding Iran, the issue is not related to nuclear weapons. The issue is that you want to deny Iran its natural and inalienable right to enrich uranium and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes through using its domestic capacities. Of course, you cannot do this either and the Iranian nation will not renounce its right.
American politicians make irrational statements. One cannot use logic when he speaks to an irrational person - after all, he is irrational. Irrational means thuggish. It means somebody who speaks nonsense. This is a fact which we have become aware of through our involvement in different global issues. We understand who our opposing side is and how he should be confronted.
I have written down a few things to discuss with you dear brothers and sisters and the entire Iranian nation. Of course, these statements are addressed to the people of Iran. When they speak, when the American president speaks, when his companions and followers speak, they want to mislead public opinion -public opinion in the world, in the region or if they can, in our country. At the moment, I do not want to speak about public opinion in the world. The global media network, which is under the domination of the Zionists and the Americans, either does not reflect our statements or it reflects them in an incomplete or distorted way. Therefore, I speak to the people of Iran.
The power of the Islamic Republic has nothing to do with public opinion in the world. The Islamic Republic has not gained its power and it has not achieved dignity and glory with the help of public opinion in the world. It has achieved these things with the help of the people of Iran. The firm and solid foundation which the Iranian nation has built and the news of which is quickly spreading throughout the world is based on the Iranian nation itself. I speak to the people of Iran. I will not address other nations, but they can listen if they want to. They can reflect on my statements or not reflect on them. But the people of Iran should know about these things. Therefore, the first point is that they are unreasonable. They speak without believing in what they say and their words and actions are different.
The second point is that they have raised the issue of negotiations. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Iranian officials should come to us so that we can sit and negotiate.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" The same unreasonable behavior can be seen in their offer of negotiations. Their purpose is not to solve the problems and resolves the issues - I will explain this later. Their purpose is creating hype. They want to say to Muslim nations, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"This was the Islamic Republic with all that intense determination and resistance. But finally, it had to negotiate with us. Even the Iranian nation ended up like this. What can you do?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
They need negotiations in order to suppress countries which have just gained power, in which the breeze of Islamic Awakening has blown, countries which feel they have dignity because of Islam. They want to make these countries hopeless. Since the beginning of the Revolution, this was one of their goals. Since the beginning of the Revolution, one of their goals was to drag Iran to the negotiating table and make it deal with it. One of their goals was to gain the opportunity to say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Did you see that finally Iran - which claimed to be independent and courageous and which claimed that it has stood up against us - was forced to come and sit at the negotiating table?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Today, they pursue the same goal. This is an important issue. When the purpose of negotiations is not resolving the main issues and when the purpose of negotiations is creating hype, it is clear that the opposing side, the Islamic Republic, is not naïve and it has not closed its eyes. It understands what your goal is. Therefore, it responds on the basis of your intentions.
The third point is that in the eyes of the Americans and powers which seek domination, the true meaning of negotiations is accepting what they say at the negotiating table. This is their goal of negotiations. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Let us sit and talk so that you come to the conclusion that you should accept what you would not accept before.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" They say in their propaganda about negotiations - you may have heard about it - that they should directly negotiate with Iran and they cause a stir and create hype about it. Even the statements they made today clearly conveyed the message that they want to convince Iran to stop enriching uranium and producing nuclear energy. This is their goal. They do not say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Let us sit and negotiate so that Iran can give its own reasons and so that we stop pressuring them, imposing sanctions on them and interfering in political and security issues.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Rather, they say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"We should negotiate so that Iran accepts what we say.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
This kind of negotiation does not serve any purpose. It will not reach any results. Even if Iran accepts to negotiate and even if our officials sit and negotiate with the Americans, what kind of negotiations is it when their goal is this [making Iran surrender]? It is obvious that Iran will not give up its rights. During negotiations, whenever they see that the opposing side speaks reasonably and they have nothing to say against Iran, they break off negotiations. Then, they say that Iran does not want to negotiate. Political networks as well as news networks are under their control and they broadcast propaganda. We have experienced this.
During the past 15 years, two or three times the Americans sent a message about a specific issue. They insisted that there is a very important and a very critical issue and that we should sit and talk with them. Well, executive officials - usually one or two people - went to a certain place and spoke to them. As soon as these officials made their rational statements and the Americans found out that they have no response, the negotiations were broken off unilaterally. Of course, they achieved their propaganda purposes. This is our experience. Well, it is wrong to test something which has been already tested.
The fourth point is that they pretend in their propaganda that if Iran sits at the negotiating table and negotiates with America, sanctions will be lifted. This is a lie too. Their goal is to make the people of Iran become eager to negotiate with America by promising to lift sanctions. They think that the people of Iran are exhausted by the sanctions and are frustrated. They think that everything is in a mess and that they can tell us, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Well, come and negotiate with us so that we lift the sanctions.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" They think this will cause the entire Iranian nation to ask them to negotiate.
This is also one of their irrational and deceptive statements and it is a tool for bullying. First, as I said, when they ask us to negotiate with them, they do not really mean fair and rational negotiations. Negotiations mean that we should accept what they say and surrender so that they lift the sanctions. If the Iranian nation wanted to surrender, they would not have carried out a revolution. America was dominant over the issues of Iran and it did what it liked. The Iranian people carried out a revolution in order to free themselves from the yoke of America. Now should they surrender to you again? This is the first problem with their offer of negotiations.
Another problem is that the sanctions will not be lifted with negotiations. I would tell you that the purpose of sanctions is something else. The purpose of sanctions is exhausting the people of Iran and separating them from the Islamic Republic. Even if negotiations are conducted but our people stay present on the scene and stand up for their rights, sanctions will continue. What will the Iranian nation do to counter this wrong idea that the enemies have?
There is an idea in the minds of the opposing sides. Let us elaborate and analyze this idea. They say, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"The Islamic Republic relies on the people. If we manage to separate the people from the Islamic Republic, the power to resist will be taken away from the Islamic Republic.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" This is how the opposing side thinks. Well, this idea has two parts. The first part, that the Islamic Republic relies on the people, is accurate. There is no source of support for the Islamic Republic except the people. The people are the fortifications that protect the country and the Islamic Revolution. The second part, that they thought they can bring the people to their knees by imposing sanctions and bullying them on international, commercial and other such issues, is false. If they think that they can take away this source of support from the Islamic Republic, they are wrong.
The Iranian nation will think of some ways to counter what the enemy wants to do. The Iranian nation is looking for economic blossoming, economic progress and complete prosperity. But it does not want to achieve this goal by being humiliated before the enemy. It wants to achieve this goal with its own capabilities, courage, advancements and with the capabilities of the youth. It does not want to achieve this with anything else. There is no doubt that sanctions exert pressures on the people and bother them. But there are two ways to approach these pressures. Weak nations surrender to the enemy when he exerts pressures and they bow and show regret before him. But a brave nation, like the Iranian nation, tries to use its own capabilities as soon as it sees that the enemy is exerting pressures and it tries to pass through the danger zone. And our nation will definitely do this. We have 30 years of experience in this regard.
There are certain countries in the region which have been under the domination of America for more than 30 years. The governments in these countries have been servants of America. They have been obedient to America and they have been taking orders from it. What is their position? The Iranian nation has been putting up a resistance against America for more than 30 years. What is the position of the Iranian nation? In the face of 30 years of pressures by America, the Iranian nation has reached such a position - in terms of scientific, economic and cultural progress and in terms of international dignity, political influence and political power - that the people and government officials during the time of Pahlavi and Qajar regimes could not even dream of.
We have experienced this. We have tested this. We have stood up against the pressures of America for 30 years. We have such a position. But there are nations which have been under the domination of America for 30 years and they are behind other countries to a great extent. We did not suffer a loss as a result of resisting. Resistance revives the inner strength of a nation. It makes it active. The sanctions which they impose will be helpful to the Iranian nation. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor and grace, sanctions will help the Iranian nation achieve growth and blossoming. This is an important point.
Well, you saw what the people did in the rallies. We cannot say that the people have no complaints about the high prices and the existing problems. Prices are high and there are certain economic problems and the people, particularly underprivileged people, feel them. But this did not make the people separate themselves from the Islamic Republic. The people know that the Islamic Republic, dear and powerful Islam and the officials who are committed to Islam, are the powerful hands which can solve the problems. They can solve the problems. Surrendering to the enemies will not solve any problems.
The last point is that unlike American politicians, we are reasonable. Our officials are reasonable. Our people are reasonable. We accept rational statements and rational actions. If the Americans show that they will not bully us any more, if they show that they will not commit evil deeds, if they show that they will not say and do irrational things, if they show that they will respect the rights of the Iranian nation, if they show that they will not fuel the fire of discord in the country, if they show that they will not interfere in the internal affairs of Iran - like the interference by supporting those who started the fitna in 1388 - then they will see that the Islamic Republic is benevolent and the people are reasonable.
In the fitna of the year 1388, they supported those who started the fitna and they put social networks at the service of these people. In those days, a social network wanted to close down in order to fix some technical problems. They asked the network not to close down so that they could exert influence over the fitna. If they stop doing these things, then they will see that the Islamic Republic is well-wishing. The only way to establish relations with the Islamic Republic is this and there is no other way. They can establish relations with the Islamic Republic in such a way. The Americans should prove that they have good will. They should prove that they are not after bullying. If they prove this, then they will see that the Iranian nation will make an appropriate response. If they do not commit evil deeds, if they do not interfere, if they do not bully and if they acknowledge the rights of the Iranian nation, then an appropriate response will be given by the Iranian nation.
I would like to say a few things about the internal issues of our country. This is an important issue. An event took place in the Majlis. It was a bad and inappropriate event. It made both the people and our elites unhappy. I became upset for two reasons. The first is the fact that the event itself happened and the second is the fact that the people are unhappy about this issue. In this event, the head of a certain branch made an accusation against the other two branches on the basis of an unproven allegation which had not even been considered by a court of law. This course of action was bad and inappropriate. These acts are against sharia and the law and they are immoral. They violate the basic rights of the people. One of the basic rights of the people is living in peace and in psychological and moral security.
If a person is accused of corruption, one cannot accuse other people on the basis of this accusation. Even if he is found guilty - let alone the current case in which the accused has not been found guilty, he has not been summoned by the court and he has not come to trial - one should not accuse others. Accusing other people, the Majlis and the judiciary branch on the basis of an accusation that has been leveled against another person is an appropriate course of action. It is a wrong course of action. For the time being, I offer a piece of advice. This behavior is not appropriate for the Islamic Republic.
On the other hand, the questioning [of the minister] in the Majlis was a wrong course of action. Questioning should serve a certain purpose. What is the purpose of questioning a minister - a few months before the end of this administration\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s term - over an issue which is not related to the minister? Why did they do this?
I have heard that inside the Majlis, a number of people said inappropriate things. This course of action was also wrong. All these events are inappropriate for the Islamic Republic. Neither that accusation, nor that behavior, nor that questioning was appropriate. The things which the honorable Speaker of the Majlis said in his own defense were excessive. It was not necessary to do that.
We are all brothers. When there is a common enemy in front of us and when we see plots, what should we do? Until today, the officials have always stayed by one another\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s side. Now, too, they should act like this. They should always act like this.
I have always supported the officials of the three branches and the officials of the country. I will continue to support each person who has a responsibility. I will help him. But I do not like these acts. This kind of behavior is not in line with the oaths they take and with the promises they make. Take a look at the greatness of the people. These people deserve to be treated in a different way. Today, the officials should focus all their efforts on solving economic problems. Three or four years ago, during a speech which I delivered in the beginning of the year, I explicitly said to the people and the officials that the plot of the enemies of the Iranian nation would be to focus - more than everything else - on our economic issues.
Well, you see that the enemies did this. Both the executive branch and the Majlis should focus all their efforts and all their attention on pursuing accurate economic policies. A few years ago, I wrote a letter to the heads of the three branches of government about combating economic corruption. You should combat economic corruption. This problem is not solved by speaking about it. You should combat economic corruption in practice. You repeatedly speak about economic corruption. When did you combat economic corruption? What was done in practice? What did you do in practice? These issues make one distressed.
Now that the enemies have increased their hostility, I expect the officials to strengthen their friendship. Piety, piety, piety! We expect the officials to focus all their efforts on solving the problems of the people by exercising patience, by suppressing unrestrained emotions and by taking the issues of the country into consideration. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, this benevolent piece of advice will draw the attention of the officials, particularly high-ranking officials. They should be committed to this issue.
I should add another point. The things that I said today and the complaints I made against a number of officials should not make some people shout slogans against such and such people. I am against this course of action. Some people label a certain person as anti-wilayat, anti-insight and anti-whatever. Then they shout slogans against him and create disruption in the Majlis. I am against these moves. I would like to speak openly about these issues. I am against the kind of events which happened in Qom. I am against the kind of events which happened at Imam Khomeini\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s (r.a.) holy shrine. I asked the officials many times to prevent these things. Those who do such things - if they are really hezbollahi and religious - should stop doing them. You can see that we consider these moves as harmful to the country. We do not benefit from them.
It is not helpful to set out to shout slogans against such and such people by releasing emotions. These slogans will not solve any problems. Keep this anger and these emotions for the time when it is necessary to express them. During the Sacred Defense Era, if basijis had decided to act at will, then the country would have been destroyed. Discipline and social order are necessary and it is necessary to take certain things into consideration. If these people do not pay any attention to these principles, then they should be treated in a different way. But those who pay attention to these principles and who believe they should not move against sharia, should take care not to make such moves.
Thankfully the people of Iran have insight. I would tell you dear youth that the day when we are gone and you are in charge, the situation of the Iranian nation will be much better in terms of material and spiritual prosperity. The Iranian nation is moving towards light. There are bright prospects for us. We should watch our behavior.
We should ask Allah the Exalted to help us. We should ask the immaculate souls of our martyrs and the immaculate soul of our magnanimous Imam (r.a.) to help us. By Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s favor, you and I will benefit from the prayers of the Imam of the Age (may our souls be sacrificed for his sake).
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings.
http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1744&Itemid=4
11:40
|
Nowruz Message : The Year of POLITICAL EPIC and ECONOMIC EPIC... Ayatollah Khamenei - 20 March 13 - Farsi sub English
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says enemies of Iran have failed to isolate the Islamic Republic despite their strenuous efforts to do so.
In a message marking...
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says enemies of Iran have failed to isolate the Islamic Republic despite their strenuous efforts to do so.
In a message marking the beginning of the Persian New Year, which was designated by the Leader as the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'Year of Political and Economic Epic\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\', Ayatollah Khamenei said the enemies were defeated in their attempts to paralyze Iran by imposing economic sanctions in the last Iranian calendar year which ended on Wednesday.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"In the political field, they sought, on the one hand, to isolate the Iranian nation, and on the other hand, to make the Iranian nation perplexed and doubtful [about pursuing its goals], and undermine their determination. But in practice, exactly the contrary has occurred,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" stated Ayatollah Khamenei.
The Leader said that in the economic field, the enemies explicitly announced that they intended to cripple the Iranian nation through sanctions.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"However, they failed to paralyze the Iranian nation and, thanks to God, we have made huge achievements in different sectors,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Ayatollah Khamenei noted.
The Leader further stated that the enemies also failed to stall Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"international and regional policies,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" adding that Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s hosting of a summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in 2012 proved that the Islamic Republic is not isolated and is respected across the world.
Ayatollah Khamenei called on people to turn out massively in the forthcoming presidential election in June to determine a \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"good future\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" for their country.
The Islamic Republic\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s eleventh presidential election will be held in June and presidential hopefuls will register from May 7 to May 11.
The president of Iran is elected for a four-year term through a national election. The country\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Guardian Council vets the candidates for qualifications.
More...
Description:
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says enemies of Iran have failed to isolate the Islamic Republic despite their strenuous efforts to do so.
In a message marking the beginning of the Persian New Year, which was designated by the Leader as the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'Year of Political and Economic Epic\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\', Ayatollah Khamenei said the enemies were defeated in their attempts to paralyze Iran by imposing economic sanctions in the last Iranian calendar year which ended on Wednesday.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"In the political field, they sought, on the one hand, to isolate the Iranian nation, and on the other hand, to make the Iranian nation perplexed and doubtful [about pursuing its goals], and undermine their determination. But in practice, exactly the contrary has occurred,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" stated Ayatollah Khamenei.
The Leader said that in the economic field, the enemies explicitly announced that they intended to cripple the Iranian nation through sanctions.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"However, they failed to paralyze the Iranian nation and, thanks to God, we have made huge achievements in different sectors,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" Ayatollah Khamenei noted.
The Leader further stated that the enemies also failed to stall Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"international and regional policies,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" adding that Iran\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s hosting of a summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in 2012 proved that the Islamic Republic is not isolated and is respected across the world.
Ayatollah Khamenei called on people to turn out massively in the forthcoming presidential election in June to determine a \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"good future\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" for their country.
The Islamic Republic\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s eleventh presidential election will be held in June and presidential hopefuls will register from May 7 to May 11.
The president of Iran is elected for a four-year term through a national election. The country\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Guardian Council vets the candidates for qualifications.
1:57
|
15:18
|
[21 May 13] Face to Face with Haddad-Adel, Principalist hopeful - English
On this episode, Press TV\'s Gisoo Misha Ahmady talks to the Iran\'s former parliament speaker and a principlist presidential hopeful, Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel.
A total of 686 individuals signed...
On this episode, Press TV\'s Gisoo Misha Ahmady talks to the Iran\'s former parliament speaker and a principlist presidential hopeful, Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel.
A total of 686 individuals signed up for the 11th presidential race during the registration period, which began on May 7 at Iran\'s Interior Ministry and ended on May 11.
The Guardian Council, the body tasked with vetting the hopefuls, has until May 21 to announce the final list of candidates. The president of Iran is elected for a four-year term in a national election.
More...
Description:
On this episode, Press TV\'s Gisoo Misha Ahmady talks to the Iran\'s former parliament speaker and a principlist presidential hopeful, Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel.
A total of 686 individuals signed up for the 11th presidential race during the registration period, which began on May 7 at Iran\'s Interior Ministry and ended on May 11.
The Guardian Council, the body tasked with vetting the hopefuls, has until May 21 to announce the final list of candidates. The president of Iran is elected for a four-year term in a national election.
33:34
|
[English Translation] Interview Bashar Al-Asad - President Syria on current situation - 30 May 2013
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...
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.
More...
Description:
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.
34:40
|
[Arabic] لقاء خاص مع الرئيس بشار الأسد - Bashar Asad Interview - 30 May 2013
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...
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.
More...
Description:
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.
2:40
|
[14 June 13] Palestinians call for reconciliation between factions - English
Friday marked the sixth year of Hamas regaining control of Gaza after routing forces loyal to acting Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas.
Hamas democratically won the Palestinian...
Friday marked the sixth year of Hamas regaining control of Gaza after routing forces loyal to acting Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas.
Hamas democratically won the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006 but in the middle of June 2007 Fatah forces tried to end Hamas\'s rule.
In the days leading to June 14th 2007 armed clashes erupted between Fatah and Hamas forces and ended with the defeat of Fatah forces.
More...
Description:
Friday marked the sixth year of Hamas regaining control of Gaza after routing forces loyal to acting Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas.
Hamas democratically won the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006 but in the middle of June 2007 Fatah forces tried to end Hamas\'s rule.
In the days leading to June 14th 2007 armed clashes erupted between Fatah and Hamas forces and ended with the defeat of Fatah forces.
2:05
|
[19 June 13] G8 leaders claim progress on Syria - English
The G8 summit of world leaders ended with the usual positive statements about so-called progress on the main agenda items such as the conflict in Syria and a US/EU trade deal.
But Russia...
The G8 summit of world leaders ended with the usual positive statements about so-called progress on the main agenda items such as the conflict in Syria and a US/EU trade deal.
But Russia blocked a joint G8 statement which would have called for President Assad to step down.
President Putin also made it clear that a political solution is the only way to stop the conflict and that the Western plan to arm the rebels would only pour fuel on the fire.
The G8 summit received a mixed reception in northern Ireland itself. Some viewed it as a positive sign of progress in a part of the world which has been blighted by sectarian violence.
Others felt that the G8 leaders were war criminals and an international financial mafia governing on behalf of the rich and powerful.
Like northern Ireland itself, views were sharply polarized.
The conflict in Syria is very unlikely to be solved by this summit. Despite a joint statement on Syria it\'s clear that the major world powers have major disagreements on this issue. And we also must remember that the G8 has a reputation of fine words that later do not translate into reality.
More...
Description:
The G8 summit of world leaders ended with the usual positive statements about so-called progress on the main agenda items such as the conflict in Syria and a US/EU trade deal.
But Russia blocked a joint G8 statement which would have called for President Assad to step down.
President Putin also made it clear that a political solution is the only way to stop the conflict and that the Western plan to arm the rebels would only pour fuel on the fire.
The G8 summit received a mixed reception in northern Ireland itself. Some viewed it as a positive sign of progress in a part of the world which has been blighted by sectarian violence.
Others felt that the G8 leaders were war criminals and an international financial mafia governing on behalf of the rich and powerful.
Like northern Ireland itself, views were sharply polarized.
The conflict in Syria is very unlikely to be solved by this summit. Despite a joint statement on Syria it\'s clear that the major world powers have major disagreements on this issue. And we also must remember that the G8 has a reputation of fine words that later do not translate into reality.