I have been studying Hezbollah since 1995 and I don’t recall Hassan Nasrallah ever delivering such a strongly worded warning as what he did today at the “Prophet Loyalty Rally”. I might be mistaken, but I see several unprecedented elements in his speech today:
1. First, he clearly and unambiguously threated the USA and its Empire by stating that the consequences for releasing the full movie “Innocence of Muslims” would be extremely severe. The Americans seem to be so afraid that they began burning classified materials in the US Embassy in Beirut.
2. Second, he demanded that all the websites which would be showing the movie be shut down by national governments.
3. Third, he demanded nothing short of a worldwide legal ban on blasphemous attacks against the major figures of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
4. Fourth, he warned any nominally “Muslim” leader who would not do their utmost to support these steps that they would be considered inadequate.
5. Fifth, he indicated that all of these demands were non-negotiable and that the Islamic world would have to choose between humiliation and martyrdom, in other words, that the price to pay for insisting on these terms did not matter.
This is, in my opinion, nothing short of amazing and even somewhat disturbing.
One one hand, in a world ruled by an Empire with no other morals than hedonism and greed, with no sense at all of right and wrong and whose arrogance and hubris has exploded beyond anything imaginable, it is deeply moving and exhilarating to see that somebody has finally dared to say that “enough is enough” and that there will be a real price to pay for such infinite arrogance. On the other hand, I am disturbed when I see a political and religious figure like Hassan Nasrallah (whom I immensely admire) take it upon himself to set demands about what should be done not only inside the Islamic world, but globally, world-wide.
For all my numerous and recent articles condemning what I call “modern blasphemies as a quintessential hate crime”, it is unclear to me by what authority Hassan Nasrallah would have the right to decree that, say, Papua New Guinea or Paraguay would have to ban a movie or shutdown a website. I would have felt more comfortable if Sayyed Hassan had invited all the countries of the world to ban insults to the religious figures central to any major faith, but what I heard today sounded less as an invitation than as an ultimatum and that is problematic to say the least.
Finally, I profoundly believe in the right to freely choose between right and wrong. That right, as far as I am concerned, was granted to mankind by God in the Garden of Eden already, and I am therefore fundamentally opposed to censorship. I find any attempts at censoring the Internet as particularly dangerous because if/when the technological tools to do so are developed with the express purpose of fighting that which is fundamentally bad, the very same tools can then be used to suppress what which is fundamentally good.
I have to stress here that I am basing all of the above on the on-the-fly interpretation of Nasrallah’s speech by Press TV, which one can hardly consider an official position of Hezbollah. I also am not sure as to whether Hassan Nasrallah has the rank and authority to make such global statement in the name of his followers or whether he should have waited for an official position on this matter by his spiritual guide Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Whatever may be the case, it sure looks like there is going to be hell to pay for the US Empire for is systematic lack of even minimal respect for that which other nations or religious hold for sacred. In that sense, what is happening today is a much needed wake-up call for the rest of the planet indeed.
What I see here is what I would call a “return of the sacred” and I welcome it with all my heart. That sense of sacred is, I strongly believe, a central characteristic of the truly civilized human being (as opposed to the only technologically advanced one but with the conscience and morals of an amoeba) and while the Western world, terminally brainwashed by secularism and Masonic propaganda, thinks that it can “de-sacralize” the rest of humanity it appears that these attempts are resulting into some rather nasty blowback.
If the translation by Press TV is correct and if, indeed, Nasrallah’s reaction is a bit over the top and raises all sorts of delicate issues with its “planetary scope”, I still can’t say that I feel very sorry for those who, by design or by crass ignorance, never bothered to contemplate the potential consequences of their actions or their allegiance.
The issue of freedom of thought versus blasphemy is an important and complex one and, at least so far, the utter lack of anything worthy of being called “thought” in the imbecile movie which triggered it all does not quite call for a discussion of it. However, Hassan Nasrallah’s speech might provide an excellent opportunity to ask the right questions about how to deal with true thought which might still be perceived as blasphemous by some.
Your thoughts?
The Saker
Saker Message:
Have to say I fundamentally disagree with Nasrallah here. I believe in national sovereignty and what Nasrallah is calling for is another example of imperialism. The Muslim world has no more right to suppress free speech in the West than the US Empire has to impose its values on the Muslim world.
The Blair government not only participated in the criminal attack on Iraq but at the same time tried to pass an Act that would have created a new criminal offence of inducing religious hatred in another. So far so good. Inducing hatred of anyone else, for whatever reason, is undesirable human behaviour and might easily be criminal if it is intended to cause violence or social unrest. The Bill however required no such criminal intention. The offence would have been committed if the inducement to hatred was reckless or careless. Thus the unintentional creation of racial hatred in some (unspecified) third party, however dysfunctional, bigoted or irrational that third party might be, would have become a serious criminal offence. This would include comedies or sketches debunking or vilifying religious orthodoxy or holding it up to ridicule.
Since the Age of Reason the Anglosphere has set its face against the protection of faith by statute. After a 200 year history of religious intolerance which led to nothing but bigotry and death we came to understand perfectly that one cannot protect the faith without protecting the fundamentalist and the bigot who lie within it. Legislation passed ostensibly to protect religion has precisely the reverse effect, as the people most protected are those who come closest to committing the offence that Blair was attempting to place on the statute book. A loathing of bigotry and those who preach it would render me liable to prosecution under the very legislation passed to protect religious sensibilities. We would not create a tolerant society but a legislative and cultural bearpit.
What’s more recklessness is the bastard part of intention and has caused more trouble in English criminal law than any other concept.
As far as the US is concerned it cannot comply with Nasrallah’s demands even if it wanted to because of the First Amendment. As you rightly point out if you give the authorities authoritarian powers to suppress the bad there is no guarantee they will not use it to suppress the good.
As far as hate crimes in the UK are concerned I would rely on the law against incitement and the public order offences which already exist which seem to me sufficient.
BLOW BACK and piece of mind on your next flight …… Finally, it seems worth mentioning that every single of the approximatly 20.000 SAM-7 surface-to-air missiles that “went missing” in Libya, many of which are now distributed among everything between Muslim Brothers to Al-Qaeda associated ragtag rebels from throughout the world is capable of bringing down a civilian airliner. Happy Journey next time you book a flight.
Christof Lehmann – nsnbc …. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/largest-shipload-of-libyan-weapons-heading-to-armed-groups-in-syria/
@Saker;
I want to drill down a bit more deeply into this paragraph from you last post:
“The reality is that the vast majority of Christians and the vast majority of Muslims are aware, to some degree or another, that their respective religions have deep disagreements. Likewise educated Muslims and educated Christians are fully aware of the fact that their religions have many fundamental and irreconcilable differences. And yet, the history of the Middle-East clearly proves that these two religions can, and have, lived in peace as neighbors. Yes, at times, both religions have committed appalling acts of violence against each other, but these were the exception, not the rule, and such actions where typically the actions of rather vicious rulers inclined to violence against any opponents, not just one religious group (Ivan the Terrible and his massacre of Muslims in Kazan is a good example of that). What is certain is that the reality of the fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity did not result in an endless cycle of war, hatred, violence or even outrage. If Christianity and Islam are mutually exclusive – they are – this does not mean that Christians and Muslims cannot live together – they can and the have.“
This is often countered by Srdja Trifković and magazines like Chronicles, by the assertion that the only times when Christians, Muslims and Jews have lived together in peace, have been times when Muslims were the political masters (such as Moorish Spain or the Ottoman Empire). Thomas Fleming has baldly stated that Muslims have repeatedly made it clear throughout history, that they cannot live peacefully among Christians except as our masters.
This thesis seems to be borne out by recent history. The only countries in the Middle east where Christian communities have lived in security and peace have been in places ruled by the likes of irreligious rulers Assad, Mubarak or Saddam Hussein, who suppressed their Sunni or Shi’a majorities in order to allow other communities the space to breathe and live.
Hassan Nasrallah’s speech appears to confirm the thesis of Fleming, Trifković, et al. I don’t like such confirmations, but I cannot ignore them.
Am I missing anything important here?
@Michael: I know the Trifcovic argument and I think that he is hopelessly biased in his analysis. His anti-Islamism even made him get into bed with Zionists circles in the search of a ally against a common foe. This being said, here is my take on that:
a) Islam does not treat Christians as equals. That is a fact and, as Christians, we do not have to like it or kid ourselves about it.
b) Islam only grants us 2nd rate status but, and this is important, this 2nd rate status does grant us, Orthodox Christians, right which the Papacy never granted us. This is why Saint Alexander Nevsky “chose the [Mongol] hordes” over the Papist “civilized West” because he thought that is was preferable to “give your body away to slavery rather then let your soul be corrupted” and this is why Loukas Notaras – last Grand Duke of Byzantium – said “Better the Turkish turban than the Papal tiara.”
c) To my knowledge, the Ottomans were – by far – the worst Islamic rulers and the Persians came second, but in both cases the purpose of the religious violence was to subdue Christian regions they wanted to conquer. As far as I know, in Arab lands the Muslims were more tolerant of Christians, if only because before being Islamic most of the Mashriq was Christian.
d) The Quran does contain all sorts of anti-Christian teachings which can, and have, been used against Christians. When zealots and extremists become involved, these then become the “pious” reasons to abuse and massacre Kuffars.
And yet,
The history of Islam in pre-1917 Russia shows to me that Muslims and Christians *did* live together, and not only because the Russian state would not let Muslims massacre of abuse Christians. After all, Jews *also* were prevented to act on their anti-Christian feelings and teachings, but that did not prevent them from nurture viciously anti-Christian feelings, which the Muslims never did.
Furthermore, if you look at the history of Shia Muslims under Sunni Islam, you will find plenty of horrible example of Sunni persecutions and massacres very similar to the ones conducted against Christians. This is, I think, a reason why Shia Islam is far more tolerant of other minorities and sects than Sunni Islam: the Shia have been on the receiving end of Sunni violence and they are far more understanding of the plight of minorities.
To say that “Muslims have repeatedly made it clear throughout history, that they cannot live peacefully among Christians except as our masters.” is a gross distortion. That is what the Papacy has always done, the Muslim world is far more complex and more diverse. Judging by the Islamic Republic of Iran or Hezbollah’s policies, I would say that at least these two entities do not display any over signs of wanting to assimilate all Christians.
Speaking of which: take the example of Lebanon. This was a country in which the masters where certainly not Muslims, but rather very nasty and ugly Christian Fascists. And yet the Muslims never fought a religious war against Christians there. So much for the “in peace only as our masters” argument, no?
Look, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a really nasty streak in Sunni Islam which we, as Christians, need to be aware of and keep an eye on. Likewise, there is a much *MORE* nasty streak in the Papacy which we, Orthodox Christians and they, Muslims, also need to keep an eye on. Some of us, Orthodox Christians and Shia Muslims, are probably less ideologically inclined towards religious intolerance and general nastiness, but we can still display it on account of our sinful nature and bad inclinations. Fair enough. But to claim that we cannot live side by side is total overkill in my mind.
Now, with the Wahabis, I would agree wholeheartedly. To them our message should be exactly the one Putin delivered on national TV: desist or die. There really are no other options here. But that, in turn, makes non-Wahabi Islam our natural ally, does it not?
What do you think?
The Sayyid is under a lot of pressure because of the ongoing anti-Shi’i campaign in the Arab world, one which has cost him and Hizbullah a lot of their popularity. I think the Sayyid is reacting in a way that is over the top in order to reclaim some of that lost influence and relevance in the larger Arab world. In other words: This is just politics, and I would not take it _too_ seriously.
But that said: This is the wrong way to do it. It’s good crowd-pleaser material but does not rise to the high standards of rational discourse that generally mark his speeches. The line between sublime rhetoric and demagoguery is very thin, and it appears the Sayyid has come dangerously close to it this time. And it will do him little good in the Arab world at large, where he is already nearly a week late to the table.
Peace
@Ishamid: when I read your comments I went “ouch!” because – believe it or not – I had some hopes that you might have a different take on this and that maybe I was being too critical. But if even such sincere admirers of Hassan Nasrallah as you and I both see that there is a problem with this speech, then that shows that he did really slip today. I imagine that he will get a call from Tehran very soon…
As for what you call the “ongoing anti-Shi’i campaign in the Arab world”, I also clearly see it and, as you can imagine, find it *extremely* dangerous.
These are very dangerous times..
Peace to you and your loved ones too
@Saker: “What do you think?”
I am not sure what I think, as I don’t have a complete enough understanding of the region to say with any certainty. I surely HOPE your analysis is the correct one, and I usually PREFER more nuanced analyses to black-and-white, ideological screeds.
Black-and-white analyses, in my experience, usually have two sources. Most commonly, such analyses come from people (like Trifković) who have had a lot of bad personal history with the opponents in question. In other words, their biases, regrettable as they are, are nonetheless human and understandable.
The other, and far more insidious, source is from pathological individuals. Psychopaths, like Hitler, use black-and-white pronouncements as tools for political manipulation. Schizoid fanatics (like Marx and Engels among secularists, and like any number of religious “fundamentalists” of any religion one cares to name) are the other pathological source.
The influence of schizoid intellectuals is particularly problematic. These people often have high IQ’s and are well educated. Unfortunately, they are lacking in terms of what Lobaczewski calls the “human instinctive substratum.” Their evaluations of people and psychological situations lack color and nuance, and they look for mechanistic explanations for human behavior (what can be more mechanistic, for example, than John Calvin’s doctrine of “irresistible grace”?).
The writings of such intellectuals often contain what Lobaczewski calls a “schizoid declaration.” This is a statement in the following general form:
“Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.”
In the West, the names Marx, Engels, John Calvin, Thomas Hobbes, Leo Strauss and Ayn Rand roll off my tongue, and I am sure you can add many other people to the list. Interestingly, Lobaczewski estimates that Ashkenazic Jews have the highest per capita rate of schizoidia (3 percent) of all known races, whereas African Blacks have the lowest rates.
The problem is, that the ideas of schizoid intellectuals have a strongly suggestive power among people who are traumatized or who have suffered from major injustice, or who are pathological themselves to begin with. This is because these ideas are both intellectually sophisticated and emotionally primitive at the same time.
Among psychologically healthy people, there are generally two reactions to the writings of schizoids. Either the reader is repelled and put off by the edgy, vindictive, nasty quality of these writings, OR they tend to downplay the obviously pathological elements, and try to extract the more valuable portions of their writings, while adding their own richer psychological understanding to the material. A lot of people have done the latter with the writings of Marx.
SO (!), whenever I hear grandiose, black-and-white pronouncements on the airwaves, I tend to immediately suspect that I am either being manipulated by a psychopath, or that I am being “instructed” well-meaning, but clueless schizoid.
So, as I say, I much prefer your nuanced views, to those who try to foment conflict via fear-based promotions. However, just because I prefer this, doesn’t mean it is correct. So, that is why I always like to double-check.
@Michael: what you say make perfect sense, if only because human nature is complex and religions with billions of followers diverse. I will tell you honestly that from my point of view, Islam does not look anything like a “the religion of peace” (as shown the life of its founder and its subsequent geographical spread), at least not by my standards. When the Internet is flooded with atrocities filmed to the screams of “God is Greater” it is hard not to see that a big segment of Islam is much more a “religion of the sword” than one of peace.
And yet.
I often remember conversations which I had with a good friend of mine (a convert to Islam who actually worked at an Iranian Embassy) who told me many times over that the biggest problem of Islam is the lack of educations of many of its followers. I recall how he was explaining to me that a lot of the atrocities which were committed by Muslims in the world were mostly the acts of people whose level of education was extremely low and whose understanding of Islam and its extremely rich and often complex teachings was totally superficial. And if I look at the Chechen Wahabis, they are almost always ex petty criminal, thugs really, with only a very minimal level of education, whose Islam was extremist for sure, but very superficial, and who really were a source of immense frustration to the highly educated Iranians with whom my friend was working. So the question becomes whether it is logical and fair to blame Islam as a whole for the actions of semi-literate (and often very recent) converts who instead of studying their new religion go on on committing atrocities in the name of God? I don’t think so. I know that at one point another friend of mine was in Tehran speaking to a group of Shia clerics about the Chechens and the horrors they were committing when one of the clerics bluntly said that “these people are savages who know nothing of Islam, we don’t even really consider them Muslims”. And I won’t even go into the topic of the lack of education of most Talibans in Afghanistan (another horror story told to me by a – very religious – Pakistani Colonel).
I admit that everything I say above is highly subjective and personal. And yet, in my life I have met *many* Muslims, often very religious ones, and not once was I treated rudely or in any way in a hostile matter. I even once spend 5 days with a Saudi Colonel whose piety was nothing short of remarkable and admirable and who clearly was a loving husband (of a highly educated wife with an MA in English) and father and who showed none of the crude extremism we so often associate with Wahabis. True, I have *consistently* observed that as soon as I was not mistaken for a Westerner but identified for being a “Roman” (Orthodox Christian) the degree of friendliness rose immediately.
So it all boils down to this for me: if I, as an individual, can happily coexist with Muslims and even become very good friends with some of them, why would I accept Mr. Trifcovic’s statement that this is impossible. I am now 49 years old and all I have seen from Muslims myself was a great deal of friendly respect and sincere friendship. This personal experience counts for a lot for me, and it is consistent with my admittedly superficial, understanding of history.
What about you – have you ever had personal interactions with Muslims?
@Saker: “What about you – have you ever had personal interactions with Muslims?”
Yes I have.
When I was an undergraduate at American University, several Iranians were my classmates. These were either military officers under the Shah, or other children of Westernized elites. This was before the Iranian Revolution, and these students were very worried about the “mullahs.” I often have wondered what happened to them after they went back to Iran (as I assume most of them did).
These students were always very friendly and civilized. Indeed, I think that many of them were of the type who were capable of “true friendship” of the David-and-Jonathan type. At the time, I did not know how much of that came from an urbane understanding based upon a Western style education, or how much of that came from the underlying Muslim culture. I suspect more of the latter than the former, but I really can’t say for sure.
The other encounter was with a pair of Muslim fellow workers at a company I worked for about a decade ago here in Auckland, where I live. Again, very civilized. Again, as with you, they were quite friendly when they understood that I was an Orthodox Christian.
Now, all my interactions were with Muslims in English countries, where (a) I had the “home ground advantage,” so to speak and (b) the Muslims involved all had a university education. I have never visited a Muslim country myself, so I don’t know how indicative any of this is.
That is why I double- and cross-check all my “opinions” about Islam or Muslim countries before I say anything definitive.
Although I would not go quite as far as Saker in his analyses of this speech. I have to say I think the Sayyed may have gotten carried away…
I don’t want care to do too much psychologizing political figures, because I think they don’t add much… But in the context of Islamic figures it does serve some purpose (because of the nature of spiritual-politics in Islam – the question of nafs (ego) can be helpful) …
The greatness of true leaderships in Islam (the most contemporary example I can think of is that of Imam Khomeini) is that they had, through spiritual practice, brought their ego under control… And so even though Imam Khomeini was such a massive political figure, he did not change… and remained who he was…
There are a couple of things to notice in this context of Nasrallah – which suggested to me that he slipped… And this is not to blame him, or to judge him… I could never handle what he does without losing all perspective.
Nevertheless; we saw a huge, massive turnout, perhaps one of the largest ever in South Beirut today… and they turned out in basically just one or two days of Nasrallah’s asking them to turn out!
Nasrallah rarely, if ever, speaks live … not only did he speak live … if you look at the Arabic video – he asked his bodyguard (think literal bodyguard) to stand aside – while he greeted the people.
God may well be pleased with Nasrallah, but the taking of security is not only about his own life – but also to recognize that he is not invincible – it is to recognize his own mortality. Today, I saw something different…
I hope that for all of our sakes, that the wonderful Sayyed has a spiritual advisor – who will encourage him to be humble, make him aware of his own ego, and bring him back on track. Inshallah, the direction of political events are only partly made by humans, we can only try and do our best, and the rest God will take care off…and we’ll pray for the Sayyed, so that he may make decisions that are wise and not ego-based.
Arabic version of speech here:
http://youtu.be/fT3UZqVaAdU
@Saker: “What about you – have you ever had personal interactions with Muslims?”
Yes I have.
When I was an undergraduate at American University, several Iranians were my classmates. These were either military officers under the Shah, or other children of Westernized elites. This was before the Iranian Revolution, and these students were very worried about the “mullahs.” I often have wondered what happened to them after they went back to Iran (as I assume most of them did).
These students were always very friendly and civilized. Indeed, I think that many of them were of the type who were capable of “true friendship” of the David-and-Jonathan type. At the time, I did not know how much of that came from an urbane understanding based upon a Western style education, or how much of that came from the underlying Muslim culture. I suspect more of the latter than the former, but I really can’t say for sure.
The other encounter was with a pair of Muslim fellow workers at a company I worked for about a decade ago here in Auckland, where I live. Again, very civilized. Again, as with you, they were quite friendly when they understood that I was an Orthodox Christian.
Now, all my interactions were with Muslims in English countries, where (a) I had the “home ground advantage,” so to speak and (b) the Muslims involved all had a university education. I have never visited a Muslim country myself, so I don’t know how indicative any of this is.
That is why I double- and cross-check all my “opinions” about Islam or Muslim countries before I say anything definitive.
Dear Saker,
There are two paramount and profound reasons why Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah took such a strong/powerful position on the issue of the insults to the Prophet Mohammed (PBU).
1- Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is a very strong believer and a genuine one at that, I might add, unlike so many who make-believe when it comes to faith. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is a very genuine admirer of the accomplishments of the Prophet Mohammed, given the time, environment and place he lived in…, and given the incredibly difficult circumstances that he had to overcome to propagate his faith during those times, and he is a great admirer of the message as well as the messenger. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah made these points repeatedly in many of his speeches over the last few years, about his awe about the personality of Mohammed.
2-This insult to the prophet and to Islam gave an incredible opportunity to Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah to break the cycle of instigated hate between Sunnis and SHIA in a decisive and lasting way, by refocusing all the energies of the UMMA against the amoral Americans/westerners and their double standards when it comes to Blasphemy and hate crimes legislation around the world. He spoke extensively about laws passed in the US against Antisemitism and the institutions created to enforce such laws…, with a Global perspective…, and demanded similar laws to protect Blasphemy against ALL Prophets and faiths.
This attitude and position makes a very strong case against the artificial divisions within the Muslim world and Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah saw the tremendous benefits from such a case and made his demands of the international community, without referring to anyone. He has the moral authority to do that without having to go back to anyone in Lebanon, Iraq or Tehran.
Lastly, I would like everyone to know that an overwhelming majority of Lebanese and others fully support Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s positions here, including myself. I remember very vividly how in the 80s or early 90s in NEW YORK CITY, some idiotic artist chose to display CHRIST and the CROSS in URINE… and called that ART, and it was on full display in an art gallery for months…many people, including myself were utterly disgusted by that and especially by the utterly weak reaction to that disgusting insult by the Church, the clergy and the Christians at large…and I felt ashamed of myself for not doing more…, and I still do today!!!
Best,
Joe
As one teacher said there are things which are right but not true, and true but not right.
Way too often people mistake the sense of identification with a particular religion for the spirituality itself. People get a strong feeling that they are right, that they stand for the truth (of course, there is “other side” charged with negativity in opposite direction). A grave insult has been done, but the Truth itself can not be offended.
This burning feeling of being right produces murdering and destruction, but doesn’t bring any justice in. It comes from hatred and delusion and as such will always result in more hatred, more delusion, more blood and suffering. This feeling is one of an animal in the pack, not of the human with understanding and divine principles. Read the quote of Mahatma Gandhi for a real manifestation of the spirituality.
Spiritual leaders who have influence ought to fully understand this and lead people in direction of developing more goodness within themselves, not in more confrontation with others.
Otherwise the shizoid declaration will stand completely and utterly true until the nuclear apocalypse happens.
rfopost12cantsBayWhile I am far from being able to express myself as intelligently as the rest of you, I believe that Sayed Hassan’s intent in his speech was meant to be directed to all sincere believers of the three Abrahamic faiths, and even beyond; who believe in the sanctity of their religious beliefs and in living at peace with each other…The last thing I believe sincere religious followers want, of a One God Creator for all mankind belief, is for what is going on in the region to be turned into religious wars for the sake of what are nonreligious and inhumane imperial forces …And I agree, these are very dangerous times indeed… Just my humble take on it…Mari
Mari,
I fully agree with you and I think that you are as thoughtful and as eloquent as any of the very best.
Thanks,
Joe
@Michael:When I was an undergraduate at American University
You are a fellow AU grad!!! Howdi fellow “Eagle” :-) I was at AU from 1986-1988 and got a BA from SIS. Later, I also got an MA from SAIS (aka “Neocon U”), but I always felt closer to the spirit of AU and the beautiful diversity of our campus. What years were you at AU? Maybe we know each other ;-)
@Everybody: FYI – Joe is a Lebanese Christian (who very kindly and patiently puts up with my undeniable anti-Papist streak) and yet judging by his words, his admiration for Nasrallah is immense and he feels totally safe and even “at home” in a country with a Muslim majority. Is that not a proof that even without a “home turf advantage” Christians can leave in peace with Muslims and even strongly support their leaders?
@Joe: what is your take on Michael’s question on peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Christians? I guess I know the answer, but if you could say a few words about your personal experience and views I would appreciate that.
@Mari: I believe that Sayed Hassan’s intent in his speech was meant to be directed to all sincere believers of the three Abrahamic faiths, and even beyond; who believe in the sanctity of their religious beliefs and in living at peace with each other
Yes, this is exactly my reading of it too. But that is actually very typical Nasrallah. Re-listen to his beautiful “Divine Victory Speech” (which often brings tears to my eyes) and how he explains that the divine victory is not the victory of one sect, or one religion, but of every single decent and honorable person on the planet. I really think that Nasrallah is totally sincere in his desire to include others (Sunni, Christians, etc.) in his struggle against evil (political, moral and spiritual) and I see absolutely no anti-Christian streak in him at all. While his latest speech was a little over the top in scope – but not in substance – it is still fully consistent with his record.
The actions of 0.2% of Muslims who are Violent Takfiri, Jihadi Thugs and Killers, based on stupid egotistical Fatwas of Stupid Imams somewhere in the World, do not represent in any way shape or form ALL Islam. Muslims in general anywhere have desires, problems and aspirations like everyone else anywhere, and that is to live in peace and harmony and have a fulfilling family life and a good future for their kids and good economic opportunities and a good education… etc etc. We have lived in peace and harmony with Muslims for 1400 years, give or take some incidents, that is prior to the creation of the Zionist entity in 1948 by the corrupt and criminal Empire.
Best,
Joe
@Joe:We have lived in peace and harmony with Muslims for 1400 years, give or take some incidents, that is prior to the creation of the Zionist entity in 1948 by the corrupt and criminal Empire.
I am delighted to hear that from you, thanks!
@Saker:”You are a fellow AU grad!!! Howdi fellow “Eagle” :-) I was at AU from 1986-1988 and got a BA from SIS. Later, I also got an MA from SAIS (aka “Neocon U”), but I always felt closer to the spirit of AU and the beautiful diversity of our campus. What years were you at AU? Maybe we know each other ;-)”
Sorry. no chance. I was there from 1976-1979, and I got a combination computer science/business admin degree (a “Bachelor of Science in Technology of Management” if you can imagine such a chimera! – that degree is no longer offered). I subsequently went on to a 30+ year career in IT. So, I was there way before your time.
When I was there, Richard Berendzen was Provost, and I and all the others respected him very much at that time. He later became President, until he was felled by a sexual scandal. A real shame, as he was otherwise a very gifted man.
Michael:When I was there, Richard Berendzen was Provost, and I and all the others respected him very much at that time. He later became President, until he was felled by a sexual scandal.
Yup. That scandal happened when I was there…
went on to a 30+ year career in IT
I turned to IT after loosing my original career as a miltiary analyst to the war in Bosnia which was a huge eye opener for me. But as any latecomer, I became a very militant one and I still am a card carrying member of the FSF and EFF :-)