Speech by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Hassan Nasrallah on October 30, 2020, on the occasion of Islamic Unity Week, commemorating the birth of the Prophet of Islam, Mohammad b. Abdallah (born on the 12th day of the month of Rabi ’al-Awal according to the Sunnis, and the 17th according to the Shiites).
See also Ramzan Kadyrov’s full reply to Macron below
Source: https://video.moqawama.org/details.php?cid=1&linkid=2182
Translation: resistancenews.org
Transcript:
The status of the Prophet in the eyes of Muslims
[…] This great Prophet is regarded by the unanimity of Muslims throughout history, until this day and until Judgment Day —it will always be like this—, as worthy of all their love, passion, respect, consideration and sanctification, more than anything they can feel for any other human being in terms of love, respect and sanctification. No other Prophet, Messenger, Close Friend of God, Imam, Righteous or Chosen one throughout history (has such a lofty status). All Muslims have an exceptional esteem, a special faith, a very unique love for this person, this man, this personality.
Muslims can differ on many things, and this has happened (many times) throughout history: they have differed on all kinds of issues, whether disputes of thought and intellect, of dogma, of jurisprudence, about what is lawful and what is forbidden, about the evaluation of events in the history of the Muslim world and the status of some personalities, etc. Today, in our time, important and major political questions can separate and oppose Muslims, even struggles and (inter-Muslim) wars, etc. But there are points and questions on which there is unanimity, on which Muslims have never been divided throughout history, and which will remain unchanged until Judgment Day. One of the most important points of convergence, which unanimously unites Muslims, is their faith in Muhammad son of Abdallah, peace and blessings of God upon him and his family, their faith in his quality as Messenger and Prophet, in his unique character, in his (supreme) status and in his (unparalleled) rank. Muslims consider him as the Seal of the Prophets —there will be no Prophet after him—, the Master of Messengers, the best of creatures, the most perfect creation, the most perfect and noblest man (of all), the creature closest to God the Most High and the Exalted, the one whom God loves and cherishes the most. This is how Muslims regard this Messenger and this Prophet.
This faith is so great, the love of Muslims for the Prophet is such that they are ready to sacrifice their blood, their flesh, their whole being to him, they are ready to sacrifice their life, their soul, their mind, their heart for him. This is not a theoretical, philosophical, cultural or intellectual faith, no. There is an emotional and sentimental relationship, an (exceptional) attachment of soul and spirit (of every Muslim) with the Messenger of God, peace and blessings of God upon him and his family, (which manifests itself) when required, and it will always be required. (All Muslims) have the greatest respect for him here on earth, and know his status and his preeminent rank in the Hereafter (alongside God). All of this should be kept in mind in the points I will now address. Because the consequence of all this is that it is impossible for Muslims to tolerate the slightest insult, the smallest offense against this greatest Prophet. Because (all) Muslims consider that defending the dignity of their Prophet is the highest priority, which takes precedence over all other calculations, over all other interests –whether political, economic, concerning means of subsistence, etc. Absolutely no concern can come before this issue. This is the highest priority for Muslims, (under all circumstances). Muslims can not (ever) tolerate or forgive attacks on the dignity of their Prophet, nor never be silent in the face of such attacks, and that is why they react (with great virulence) to any action or behavior that involves an insult, outrage or offense against the greatest of God’s Messengers, peace and blessings of God upon him and his family.
The situation in France: condemnation of the Nice attack
I now come to the first point of my speech this evening, namely the current problem… This is not a problem limited to one country, or to Muslims in a specific country, but it concerns all Muslims throughout the world. I am talking about the current problem that the highest French authorities have with Islam and with Muslims. And I will express myself in a calm, precise and rational manner, in order to dissect this problem and seek ways of resolving it. My goal is to find a solution, not to reinforce enmities or hostilities, nor to seek new enemies.
I will start by (evoking) the last event, so that the false does not mix with the truth, nor the truth with the false, which would annihilate all truth and justice. I begin with the event in the city of Nice, in France, where a Muslim man killed three people and injured others. This attack —I start from the end to go back to the beginning—, we condemn it (very) strongly, and the Muslims (clearly) condemned it, each from his position: whether they are scholars, religious dignitaries or politicians, the entire Muslim world and the Muslim authorities in France and in Europe and everywhere else (have clearly condemned it). This attack is rejected and condemned by Islam itself, and no one should attribute it to Islam. Islam and the Muslim religion reject it, because Islam (formally) prohibits killing the innocent, attacking them or inflicting any harm on them, whatever their beliefs or convictions. And any similar attack that has taken place in the past, or that will happen in the future, will always be in our eyes, Muslims, and primarily from the point of view of Islam, (strongly) rejected and condemned, wherever it occurs, whatever the target, whether in France or anywhere else in the world. This point must be clearly established, as a principle and as a basis, so that our position is quite clear thereafter.
Terrorism and Islam: the unacceptable confusion of the French authorities
My second point concerning this question is that the French authorities, and all the other authorities, do not have the right to pin the responsibility for a crime perpetrated by a single person on his religion, nor on the followers of the religion to which he belongs. To put it more clearly, if a crime is perpetrated by a Muslim, no one has the right to blame Islam for that crime, and no one has the right to blame it on Muslims in France or around the world. Because it is an incorrect, unfair, illegitimate, illegal and immoral attitude. When a person commits a crime, it is he who must be held responsible for that crime, whatever his motivations, even if that person considers himself driven by religious considerations. If, for example, and these are things that are happening in France and in Europe, and elsewhere in the world —I am going to speak only of Muslims and Christians, I will not speak of Jews—, if a Christian man commits such a crime, which has already happened in France —and in France, most crimes are not committed by Muslims, even if the media insist on Muslim crimes and hide others, but those who follow this closely and check the statistics know it—, would it be right for anyone to pin the responsibility of this crime on our Master (Jesus Christ) the Messiah, peace be upon him, God forbid? Would it be right to blame it on the Christian religion, or on Christians around the world? Or on the Christians in the country in which the crime was committed? No one would accept such a confusion. But unfortunately, this is how the French authorities behave (towards Muslims). When President Macron and other French officials speak of “Islamist terrorism”, which someone translated as “Islamic terrorism”, which is the same thing, when they speak of “Islamist terrorism” or “Islamist fascism”… There is no such thing! “Islamist terrorism”, no more than “Islamist fascism”, do not exist. If someone commits a terrorist act, he is the terrorist. If anyone commits a crime, he is the criminal. But to speak of “Islamist terrorism” or “Islamist fascism” (is misleading & unacceptable).
Today, the United States are carrying out massacres all over the world. Since 2000 alone, since September 11, 2001, the wars they have waged in Afghanistan, Iraq and the entire Middle East, not to mention the world wars, Hiroshima, etc. Let’s only talk about what the current generations have gone through. Millions of people have been killed in these wars, and Americans admit killing hundreds of thousands of people, sometimes claiming it was by mistake, like the bombing of wedding ceremonies in Afghanistan, or as a deliberate act. Does anyone claim, because the American President and his administration are of the Christian religion [and claim waging a “crusade” against “evil” in the name of God], as are the majority of American soldiers [at least culturally], is anyone claiming that American terrorism is Christian terrorism [or Christianist terrorism]? Does anyone claim that the responsible for these massacres is our Master the Messiah, God forbid, or the Christian religion, whose values and teachings (clearly) oppose these terrorist acts? Not to mention what the European armies, including the French army, did when they invaded Algeria and perpetrated atrocious crimes there, and what others have done in Libya and elsewhere in our region. No Muslim has denounced “Christian terrorism” or blamed the Christian religion [or so-called Republican, Democratic & Civilizational ideals] for these crimes, never. And if anyone made such a claim, he would be sorely mistaken. But there is no such tendency (to accuse Christianity) in the Muslim world.
Head-choppers: who is the Master, and who is the pupil? See Joseph Massad’s Assimilating French Muslims
Therefore, it is unacceptable, when a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew or a follower of any religion or thought, commits a crime, to attach the responsibility for it on his religion, or on the Prophet of his religion, or on the community that believes in this religion. To impute responsibility & liability to a whole group or religion is a (serious) mistake. And it must stop. But unfortunately, France and its officials make this confusion every day. After that, they claim that they respect the Muslim religion, but if this is really the case, they must renounce the expression “Islamist terrorism” or “Islamist fascism”, and stop following Trump, who has made his specialty of this type of expression.
ISIS and Charlie Hebdo are both despicable
Third, in the last few days, we have heard a lot of criticism that instead of being concerned about some people who insult the Prophet and Islam, Muslims had better deal first with the Muslims who smear Islam and the Prophet (by their behavior). I would like to say on this subject that it is obvious that some Muslims smear Islam, that some Muslims smear the Prophet of Islam, peace and blessings of God be upon him and his family, and that some commit very, very, very, very, very dangerous (and serious) offenses (against Islam). What we have seen in recent years in terms of terrorist acts, crimes, destruction of mosques, churches, historical remains, murders, beheadings, butchered chests, assassinations of innocent people from various peoples and various beliefs, slaughtered like sheep, so many atrocious images that the western media have also spread to the world, this is undoubtedly a very great insult that was done (by ISIS) to our religion and to our Prophet. We strongly opposed this, and clearly condemned it (in addition to having fought and defeated ISIS in Syria, Iraq, etc.).
See Nasrallah: ISIS is the biggest distortion of Islam in History, The main victims of the Islamic State are the Sunni Muslims, So-called ‘Islamic State’ is Wahhabi, every Muslim must fight it,
But even in the hypothesis —and this is not a mere hypothesis, it is a reality— where some Muslims smear our Prophet, that is no reason for you to smear our Prophet too. If some of you blaspheme what you consider holy, does that give us the right to do the same? It is completely absurd. Prophets, Messengers, religions, religious symbols and all that is holy must be respected, even if some followers of these religions sully and desecrate them.
Terrorists are the West’s creatures, not Islam’s
Fourth, and I continue to address French officials and the public opinion, instead of blaming Islam and Muslims for these terrorist acts that occur in France, Europe and elsewhere, let us rather seek together your responsibility, your own responsibility for these acts and the (existence of) these (terrorist) groups. Let’s go back (in time) a bit. Again, no need to go back 50 years, just go back ten years, to 2011. There is a takfiri and terrorist thought that supports the murder of anyone who has a difference of opinion, of thought, of dogma, of religious school, of politics or on the smallest other detail. And the followers of this thought perpetrate monstrous crimes. You are the ones who protected this thought, you Americans, the American administration, the French government, the European governments. You protected them. You gave them all the help in the world. For those who are followers of other thoughts, it is very difficult to obtain visas to come and work in your countries. But as for the followers of takfiri thought, all the doors were opened to them, and they were protected. These groups which have been formed and which are followers of this takfiri thought, it is you who facilitated their access to Syria and Iraq. You have contributed to their support, their funding and their armament, to the point that they have acquired experience, expertise, a fighting spirit, etc. And I ask you the question: after all this, are you surprised that there are slaughterings, beheadings? But where did it start? It started in our region, in our countries. Who committed these acts? The very terrorist groups that you have supported politically, financially, in the media, in terms of communication… You have granted them international protection, you have organized international conferences to support them. You opened up all the borders to them, you provided them with passports, and you made it easier for them to come to the region. So start by looking for your own responsibility. Ask yourself how responsible you are for all of this.
I invite you to consult the archives for the years 2011-2012, whether in my statements or those of other people. We have urged you many times, especially the Europeans, not to participate in this world war against Syria, against Iraq and against our region —they failed to extend it to Lebanon (thanks to Hezbollah). We have told you many times not to embrace these terrorist groups, not to support them, not to facilitate their coming (from all over the world) and their strengthening. Because you will lose this battle, and these terrorists will turn against you. This (takfiri) thought will turn against you. These groups and these fighters will return to your countries and sow terror and chaos there. And whatever they’ve done in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere, they’re going to come back to you.
And that day, we told you clearly that the United States was very far, and that Europe was the area closest to our region (and would therefore be the preferred destination of these terrorists), and that the greatest threat therefore hung over Europe. We have warned you and urged you to be cautious. But you got carried away by your arrogance and your malice, and did not accept our exhortations. You thought you were going to win this war, and we know the outcome you were hoping for.
Today, you also need to question your own responsibility, and stop blaming those who have no responsibility. What is the relation between the Prophet of Islam, Mohammad b. Abdillah, peace and blessings be upon him, and these crimes? What is the relation between his religion, his Islam and his Quran with these crimes? What is the relation between the Muslim Community of 2 billion Muslims and these crimes? Those who are responsible for these crimes are people you embraced, protected, raised, to whom you have granted all the help in the world, whom you have brought (to Syria & Irak from everywhere). And it is this policy that must be reconsidered, because until now, you persist in this direction, you still carry out the same policies.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius praises Al-Nosra’s “good job” in Syria (authentic), while Al-Baghdadi praises their good job in France
Otherwise… I repeat with the same words I used then (in 2012), when we chose our side: I said we would never be on the side of the head-cutters, the chest-rippers, the (human) liver-eaters, the cut-throats. These people were your allies, the groups that you supported, that you protected. Therefore, it is you, the French, the Europeans, the Americans and their allies in the region who must reconsider your actions and behavior, and renounce the use of these terrorist groups as instruments in the service of (your) political projects and (your) war projects. And you never learn (from your mistakes). In Afghanistan, that is what you did (against the USSR), and you paid the price on September 11 (2001). You made those mistakes, and you make them again, always the same mistakes, the same mistakes, the same mistakes. The use of these kinds of (terrorist) groups as instruments must stop, otherwise you will also pay the price for these mistakes.
When the West was praising Ben Laden
Sidebar: See also Putin’s comments on the issue: “Instead of settling conflicts, [the Western interventions] lead to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable States we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals. Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over. They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region’s countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11. During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.
In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force? We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.”
France embarks on an insane crusade against Islam
Fifth, the French authorities have launched a battle against Islam and Muslims for illusory, and sometimes incomprehensible reasons. They dragged France as a whole in this battle, and they are trying to drag all of Europe behind them. I speak with caution, and I’m not here to score points. What is the cause of the recent problem, the recent developments that we have seen in the last few weeks? So much so that it became clear that France, its President, its government, its ministers, Parliament, the media, the street, etc., are very clearly engaged in an open war (against Islam and Muslims). What’s the cause? Who started this problem? Who assaulted the other? Who insulted the other?
The problem started when this hypocritical and infamous French newspaper (Charlie Hebdo) started piblishing cartoons insulting the Prophet of Islam, peace and blessings of God upon him and his family. And now Muslims are denouncing it in many parts of the world. Then it developed into several events, up to the History Professor who was killed and beheaded. Instead of trying to solve this problem, get it under control and take a fair and measured stance, consisting in preventing the confusion of the true and the false and to mix everything, as they say in Lebanon, (by spreading confusion between Islam and terrorism, free speech and hate speech…), because there is an essential cause which led to all these developments…
In 2015, a French teenager who merely reposted the cartoon on the right was indiceted for apology of terror
Instead of acting on the causes (I will come back to this at the end of my speech), the French authorities have acted on the consequences. Unfortunately, what happened is that the French authorities, instead of solving this problem, declared war on Islam and Muslims, and stubbornly and obstinately stuck (to their error), claiming that it was all about freedom of speech, and that France would persist in exercising this freedom of speech, in protecting & publishing those outrageous cartoons, which is absolutely insane (it is a capital mistake). France wants to persist in protecting & publishing those outrageous cartoons. So what is your message to 2 billion Muslims around the world? Because we are not talking about politics, money, economy, security struggle, etc., no! We are talking about the Prophet, the Messenger, the Master of Muslims, and I explained very well at the beginning of my speech what he represents for them. So what is the thing that would deserve these sacrifices on your part (state of maximum alert, loss of human life, etc.), O French authorities? What is it that justifies you endorsing it all, justifying it and defending it, protecting it by starting such a battle, embracing it? You claim that it is in the name of your values, including freedom of speech, and that you do not want to give up those values. All right, let’s debate that then. I said from the start that I wanted to speak in a calm and rational manner.
See Norman Finkelstein: Charlie Hebdo is Sadism, Not Satire
Freedom of speech has no limits only when speaking about Muslims
The first debate is about the way (this principle) is exercised, and the confrontation of your statements (in favor of freedom of speech) with reality. If things were really as you say, if things were really that way in France or in Europe (that is to say if freedom of speech was total there), perhaps we could say that indeed, the problem should be solved differently (than by banning these cartoons). But this is not the case. You must first convince Muslims that your claims are true and sincere, which is by no means a given, because Muslims do not accept your claims as a reality. Your claim is neither true nor sincere. We have a large amount of evidence and examples in France and in Europe where official actions have prevented freedom of speech, and even suppressed freedom of speech, for things that are much less sensitive than an issue that touches a Prophet in whom 2 billion people in the world believe.
See Chomsky: Paris attacks show hypocrisy of West’s outrage
In order not to waste too much time, I will be satisfied with a single example, well known, and which does not need much explanation, namely the French philosopher Roger Garaudy. One can easily find (the details of this case) in archives, televisions, official documents, videos, statements, etc. It all exists. All this man did was write a book, a study, on the founding myths of the Israeli genocide, namely the Holocaust. He proposed a rational debate, putting forward figures and discussing them, proposing a scientific and academic reflection on this subject, and speaking of the political instrumentalisation of this event. And let us recall that to this day, Europe and in particular Germany are still victims of a racketeering of international Zionism because of this issue. This man (Garaudy) neither insulted, offended, denigrated nor caricatured anyone, nor did he mention the Jewish religion. He only discussed an important event that happened in Europe.
See Norman Finkelstein: WHY WE SHOULD REJOICE AT HOLOCAUST DENIERS, NOT SUPPRESS THEM
What did the French authorities do in the face of this French philosopher? Judicial proceedings were launched against him, he was tried, and sentenced to prison. It was perhaps his advanced age that prevented him from serving his prison sentence. This man was (severely) repressed. Is this freedom of expression? Is this the value that you (claim) to defend? Because in reality, what we can say (to accurately describe the reality) is that when a certain community is affected (the Jews), when it comes to Israel or the Zionists, there are clear limits imposed to the freedom of speech. But when it comes to another community, an entire Ummah, 2 billion people, when it comes to their holiest things, then there is total freedom of speech.
The example of Roger Garaudy, and many other examples that may be compiled on another occasion, confirms that freedom of speech in France and in Europe is not absolute, but hampered by legal, political, security limits, etc. [let us remind that in France, anything that can disturb public order, even without being illegal, can be prohibited]. This claim that freedom of speech is total (in France), and that anyone can say and do whatever they want, that any newspaper can disparagingly caricature the Prophet of Islam, or that someone could make a movie in which they make fun of the Prophet of Islam, this would not pose any problem, because freedom (of speech) is absolute, this claim is false. And if you want, some another time, we can present you with countless examples (of repression of freedom of speech in France). That is why this argument is inadmissible, and the whole battle you are waging today (against Islam) is based on non-existent and unreal foundations. The situation in France is not one of unlimited freedom of speech. We can make a whole list of your censorship of TV channels, newspapers, magazines, etc., on the pretext that they support a particular thought, or have broadcast particular programs and series (see for example the ban on the Al-Manar channel on the pretext of anti-Semitism). All of this can easily be found in the archives. So much for the first point.
On September 18, 2012, following the broadcast of excerpts from a blasphemous film about the Prophet produced in the United States, entitled Innocence of Muslims, Hezbollah called its supporters to a huge demonstration to denounce this attack on Islam and Muslims. Over a hundred thousand people took to the streets of Beirut to proclaim their attachment to the Prophet and their rejection of any attack on his dignity. To everyone’s surprise, Nasrallah participated in person (remember that the Israeli, Western and Gulf secret services have made his elimination a priority), and delivered the above speech, one of the most vocal to date. Without the ravages of the coronavirus, it is likely that Hezbollah & Iran would have expressed outrage against Charlie Hebdo and Macron in a similar fashion.
The Rational and Moral Limits of Freedom of Speech
The second aspect (of this argument), which is equally important, is that even if this value of free speech was (really) fundamental and absolute to you, can it be considered as such when it is exercised in this form? Coming back to fundamental humanitarian and ethical values, can we claim that there should be absolute freedom of speech? Should it not refrain from crossing certain limits? Why must freedom of speech stop in the face of anti-Semitism? Does freedom of speech make it possible to insult others, to humiliate them, to undermine their dignity, to defame them, to slander them, to falsely blame them for crimes for example [cf. the Charlie Hebdo cartoons representing the Prophet, and therefore all Muslims, as a terrorist, and his religion as sh***]? And would it be fair to tolerate it? [Let us remember that Charlie Hebdo has been condemned 9 times by French Courts for libel].
If a person, in the name of freedom of speech, disseminates State secrets and facts that undermine national security, how will you react? How do the United States and the West behave in these situations [cf. the martyrdom of Julian Assange, a real case of freedom of expression completely censored by the media; France rejected both Assange’s and Snowden’s application for political asylum]? If anyone is doing, declaring or announcing things, or writing about matters which can create internal strife, a civil war, a danger to national security, how will you behave in the face of it? The freedom of speech does not stop then in front of the honor of anybody [in 1970, Charlie Hebdo’s ancestor, Hara-Kiri, was forbidden by the Interior Minister after a cartoon offensive to Charles de Gaulle who had just died]? (If this is really the case), we hope and call for you to reconsider things because it is not a human value, it is against human values. It is not an ethical value, it is contrary to all ethics and to all moral values. Therefore, we have to reconsider.
A call to reason
In conclusion, I would like to address the French authorities and tell them this: you see, today, in the Muslim world, nobody is looking for new enemies, nor new battles. I do not think that the state of mind of 2 billion Muslims is belligerent, on the contrary: Muslims are working to reduce hostilities in this world, and to remove from them the specter of wars and confrontations for which they always (are the first to) pay the price. You have to think about how to correct the mistake, the huge mistake you made. I heard the French leaders say: “We will not give in to terrorism”. No one is asking you to give in to terrorism. What you are being asked to do is correct your mistake. Righting one’s faults does not mean submitting to terrorism. On the contrary, persisting in your mistakes and engaging in confrontations that are not in the interest of anyone, this is submitting to terrorism, this is playing into the hands of terrorism and terrorists who want to blow up the whole world. You have to go back to the basic principles, and fix this fault, which is not like submitting to terrorism. This idea (of free speech), first of all, you exercise it in a wrong way, so exercise it in a right way. Apply it to Muslims as you apply it to non-Muslims (and Jews in particular). Be fair, be honest. Insulting our dignity, the dignity of our Prophets, of our Prophet, this cannot be tolerated by any Muslim in the world.
And I want to tell you in all clarity: even the political regimes of the Arab-Muslim world, which can buy and sell (anything), and find pretexts in front of their people to engage in plots, concessions and betrayals (of Palestine, etc.), they cannot, in front of their people, be silent or cover up the attack on the Prophet of these people, whom they respect, sanctify and love passionately. This is why this battle (against Islam and Muslims) that you insist on waging and in which you persist is a losing battle for you. Where are the interests of France and the French people? (What will happen) to your political and economic interests, to your relations with the Muslim peoples, with the Muslim world, if the French authorities wish to persist in this direction? This issue needs to be resolved, and you are able to find a (reasonable) solution to it.
See FRANCE’S WAHABI SECULARISTS
Towards international legislation banning blasphemy
I conclude by telling you that instead of trying to resolve the consequences, to put more and more soldiers and security services on alert to prevent such terrorist acts, forget the empty pretexts and solve the root of the problem. Do not allow this denigration, this humiliation to persist, this aggression, this attack (against Islam and Muslims). Only then will the whole world be with you. Anyway, terrorist acts are (clearly) condemned, as I said at the start of my remarks. But your responsibility and everyone’s responsibility is to get to the root of the problem and solve it (once and for all). In this regard, it is possible to rely on the proposal of His Eminence the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, and his call for international legislation banning such attacks against Muslims and the Muslim community. It is possible to rely on a similar formulation, for example an international law criminalizing the attack against the Prophets and Messengers, or attack against heavenly religions, or attack against what the Communities consider sacred, for example. Anything like this would do. Of course, if such international legislation is enacted, it will constitute a legal framework for freedom of speech, and a way out (which will allow the) French government (to break the stalemate while saving face) and for all other governments who claim to protect freedom of speech and claim that it is part of their values and laws.
A way out must be found to this problem. It is not tolerable (to let it go on), the world having enough problems, confrontations and wars already. It is not tolerable, on the pretext of vain, ridiculous and doubtful claims as to their humanity, their morals and their legality, to push the world and the peoples of the world, and especially our Muslim community, as well as the countries of Europe which have this position and this status, to confrontations and wars of this type. The responsibility for solving this problem now lies with the French authorities in the first place. Everyone must cooperate to resolve this issue and put an end to this source of sedition. […]
Nasrallah concluded his speech by giving the example of Yemen, where despite the war and the catastrophic humanitarian situation, millions of people participated in the demonstrations commemorating the birth of the Prophet, denouncing France and affirming their readiness to defend the dignity of the Prophet. and the holy places of Islam, especially Palestine. He invited the Lebanese to scrupulously respect the health rules (masks, hand sanitizer, social distancing) against the coronavirus.
***
Here is how Kadyrov, President of Chechnia, replied to Macron (machine translated):
“The French authorities support the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. This was stated by President Emmanuel Macron. He calls the actions that are offensive to almost two billion Muslims of the world “freedom of speech.” Moreover, Macron decided that he would change their religion and create “enlightened Islam” in France.
I do not know what state Macron was in when he made this statement, but the consequences of such a reaction can be very tragic. The French President himself is now becoming like a terrorist. Supporting provocations, he covertly calls on Muslims to commit crimes.
Macron cannot fail to know that the cartoons of the Prophet are painfully perceived by believers. And by his actions, on the contrary, he fans the fire, and does not extinguish it, as any adequate leader should have done. Never in history has such a policy ended well. But the President of France needs such upheavals related specifically to the Muslim world.
Hiding behind a desire to restore order, he is developing some new laws, talking about the need to control mosques and religious organizations. But in fact, the whole problem lies in himself. Until he and the leaders of other European countries begin to respect concepts such as “RELIGION”, “CULTURE”, “MORALITY”, there will be no worthy future and order in their States. Mockery of religion, mockery of it, they consider all this to be an observance of freedom of speech, but at the same time they themselves encroach on the values of other people.
Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is an example for all Muslims in the world. We are all, almost two billion people, followers of his sunnah. And this, among other things, unites us. The most important thing in a Muslim’s life is religion. No one has the right to treat it in a mocking manner. Muslims will not forgive this.
Stop it, Macron, before it’s too late, stop provocations and attacks on faith. Otherwise, you will go down in history as a President who made extravagant decisions. Your absurd position on the publication of cartoons today is condemned not only by Muslims around the world, but also by any sober-minded representatives of other faiths.
You don’t even have the courage to admit that the mockery of faith and parodies of it became the reason for the tragic fate of the teacher in the suburbs of Paris. He tirelessly went to this result, defiantly provoking pupils, regardless of their indignation and requests to stop displaying offensive drawings. As a result, you elevate him to the rank of a hero of France, and the person he provoked is made a terrorist.
Well, Macron, if you call him a terrorist, then in that case, you are a hundred times worse, because you force people to terrorism, push people towards it, leave no choice, create all the conditions for nurturing extremist ideas in the minds of young people. You can safely call yourself the leader and inspirer of terrorism in your country.
Hiding behind all this time with false words about the highest human values, you by your behavior and actions are forcing people to commit crimes. And if you do not want to understand simple truths, then be prepared for the fact that Muslims around the world will not allow the name of the great Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to be insulted. You can not even doubt it!
Donate as little as you can to support this work and subscribe to the Newsletter to get around censorship.
“Any amount counts, because a little money here and there, it’s like drops of water that can become rivers, seas or oceans…” Hassan Nasrallah
It seems the author is not aware at all of the situation of Muslims in Europe, totally surrealist…
I’ll bite, which Muslims in Europe? The Saudi trained, Tel Aviv financed, or the regular everyday Muslims of which Nasrallah speaks of? Is it fair to seperate the two as Nasrallah does? Glad he doesn’t throw all ‘christians’ under the buss as some tend to do, rather distinguishing between the followers of Christ and a state, group or person doing evil things in his name.
For the lfe of me, I can’t think of any Irish person wanting to go to England to live, ever, except for the fact that they kept blowing the country up around us for over 300 years, leaving us no choice but to go there…………many Muslims are in Europe for the exactly same reasons………..do you really think they want to be there?
I also realize there are Muslims in Europe whose families have been there for hundreds of years more even, why must they suffer for the actions, staged managed (Nasrallah, the diplomat, doesn’t go that far), of a few ‘head choppers’?: the pics Nasrallah supplies are chilling.
Cheers, M
Couldn’t agree more.
But Nasrallah doesn’t supply any picture, they were obviously added by the translator.
Thank you for your comment. You misread mine as it was too vague, my fault… Best regards.
sean the leprechaun
“… many Muslims are in Europe for the exactly same reasons………..do you really think they want to be there?”.
The answer is ‘yes’, they want to be in Europe. Take a look at what they left behind. Do you think they want to return to that ? What is unfortunate is what they left behind is what they are introducing into Europe, creating no-go zones and their way of life. They refuse to assimilate, demanding that native Europeans assimilate to their ways. This will not end well.
“The answer is ‘yes’”
That’s quite bold of you. So, you speak for all Muslims now?
Can you explain how they refuse to assimilate? And how do they expect Europeans to assimilate to their ways?
What do you mean that what they left behind is what they are introducing to Europe? They left behind countries that were destroyed by war, for the most part. Please demonstrate, for example, what part of Europe has been turned into war-ravaged Syria because of the presence of Syrian refugees.
And when did the influx of refugees start? Was it before or after the West went on a killing rampage in the Middle East?
Jamshyd
Syrian refugees ? I am afraid not. Europe has been flooded by false “refugees” from Syria, Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, African countries, etc. Somebody issued them fake Syrian passports, the exception being African “refugees”. Now who issued those passports ? ISIS in Syria ? Yes. Turkey ? Yes. Turkey even issued travel instructions for “refugees”, telling them where to report upon arrival in Europe.
Europe has not been turned into “war ravaged Syria” because of false “Syrian refugees”, although it did find its self in a worse situation during World War Two. However, Europe is experiencing a silent invasion by false refugees. In Sweden you have at least 55 no go areas, where even the police dare not go alone, and where you will find Sharia Law. Similar situations in France, Belgium and other countries.
The point is that during the past 100 year the populations of Asia, Africa and the Middle East have increased by 10 times, causing severe social and economic problems for those regions. And the solution ? Send the unemployed to Europe and other developed regions of the world. To these people wars are the best thing which could possibly happen, as then they can scream about becoming “refugees” and demanding (!!) passage to Europe and other developed countries, as if they are tourists. Once they come, they become professional “refugees”, never thinking of returning.
A few years back Germany offered a group of refugees employment. They refused to accept, stating that they were Merkel’s guest’s, and therefore they did not need not work. Charming. Before that you had that famous incident when “refugees” in Germany instigated a riot, furious (!!) with their accommodation, and demanding (!!) free houses, no less.
When it comes to Syria, ISIS is a joint NATO and Saudi creation. It is financed by Saudi Arabia, which has 100.000 tents with bathrooms, kitchens and air conditioners, and which can accommodate 3 million refugees. However, it did not accept a single “refugee”, but offered Germany money for the construction of 400 mosques.
As for your question regarding refugees, namely “Can you explain how they refuse to assimilate? And how do they expect Europeans to assimilate to their ways ?”, I think you know the answer. Just look at the no go zones in Europe and the behavior of so-called “refugees”. Two small examples: In 2016 a group of “refugees” arrived in Switzerland. Immediately upon arrival, they demanded the removal of the cross from the Swiss flag, as it offended them. The second example pertains to Sweden. I have mentioned no-go zones. I will reiterate, politely, what one “refugee” stated for his reason for coming to Sweden. It was for the blond Swedish girls (he used a very vulgar phrase, which I will not repeat).
Finally, every time Muslims instigate a terror attack in Europe, the bulk of Muslims stay silent, pretending nothing happened, while a few apologists state that the perpetrator was not a true Muslim, as Muslims do “no”t do such things. That phrase is wearing out.
B.F. when a forigen State invades and starts blowing up your country, your homeland, the homeland of all your ancesters, if you have never experienced it first hand you have led a charmed life. That’s why Muslims, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus immigrate. Do you think Indians, Pakistanis, Afghanis really want to live in London, Paris, Berlin? Now I will concede, as with all peoples, there are those who are hedonistic, materialistic, their views warped and twisted by ‘popular’ things which are just more distractions that every one needs…….well, they are told and made to believe that’s what they need………and so they immigrate to get what they think they need. Are those immigrating Muslims. seeking more material gains, the ones randomly killing innocents? You and I both know the answer to that question………..lets call apples, apples, as Nasrallah does.
CHeers, M
sean the leprechaun
When in the year 711 Arab Muslims invaded Spain, butchering 480.000 Spaniards, there was no European or American power threatening them. From Spain they moved into what is present day France, where in 732 Charles Martel defeated them at the Battle of Poitiers.
When the Ottoman Turks invaded Eastern Europe in the 14th century, nobody was threatening Turkey, which by the way was created on Greek soil, the Turks arriving from Asia. In the16th and 17th centuries, the Turks layed siege to Vienna which, as you know, is in Central Europe.
If you read my above comment, you will know why Muslims came to Europe. I also propose you read the following article published by RT:
https://www.rt.com/news/505888-france-muslims-islam-radical-macron/
And how many Celts and Gauls and Germans did the Romans butcher in their conquest of Germania, Britannia, and Gallia?
Why are you conflating imperial conquest at the hands of Moors and Ottomans, with modern refugees?
And I sense a tinge of victim mentality from you, B.F.
The Europeans were butchering every people under the sun since the time of the Roman Republic, through British and Spanish and Dutch and French colonialism, all the way to modern NATO. You fail to mention any of that, but bring up Muslim conquests in Europe, to what end?
The Golden Age of Islam has passed. It died at the hands of the Mongols centuries ago. There will be no more Islamic imperialism, simply because modern Muslims aren’t fit to polish the shoes of the original Muslims. Modern Muslims are nothing more than Zionist pawns, being tossed around and used and abused in every way conceivable. (I do not include the axis of resistance with the rest of the Muslims because they are obviously an entirely different species; the resistance fighters who went from Iran and Lebanon to fight in Syria should not be lumped together with the cowardly Syrians who ran away from their own country to go be bums in Europe, or rape Swedish girls, or whatever shameful low-life idiocy they are doing there.)
I will say to you again. We have millions of Afghan refugees in Iran, who belong to a different race, different culture, and different religion. They do not assimilate here, either. They very rarely intermarry with Iranians, and they show no interest in Iranian religion, and they are not part of the flow of Iranian culture. And yet we have no problem with them.
As I’ve said to you before, we also have hundreds of thousands of Armenian Christians here. They are all our guests, and you will never find Iranians raging about Armenians or Afghans taking all the jobs or not assimilating or whatever. A lot of delis and sandwich bars in Tehran are run by Armenians. Almost all the supermarkets are run by Turks. And every garbage man and gardener in the city is an Afghan.
Why you refuse to allow for the possibility that you can all live in peace and harmony like we do, is beyond me, mate.
There have been cases where Afghans have raped Iranian girls here. The perpetrators will usually say that Iranian girls don’t wear proper hijab, so they couldn’t help themselves. Then they are executed. After a few were executed, the rest have been behaving impeccably.
You see what I mean? It is possible to make culturally-incompatible refugees behave. You just need to be firm with them.
This nonsense with the cartoons and the idiot Macron is not the way. This will only make things worse.
You either want to live together in peace, or you just don’t want them around because of racist reasons and you will not try and make it work no matter what. Be honest with yourself at least.
If there were no Afghans in Tehran, there would be no garbage collectors, because Iranians refuse to do that kind of work. Are you saying the Syrian refugees are not fit to collect garbage? A Muslim who runs away from war in his homeland to go galavanting in Europe is fit for nothing more than collecting trash, in my opinion.
I will die here in Iran before I go to Europe as a refugee. I am a Muslim, too.
Do you see why it is wrong of you to lump all Muslims together and generalize as you do?
Muslims in Europe “for hundreds of years”? Where?
Moors, in Spain! Pretty sure it’s still part of Europe, for now at least.
Cheers
There were no more Muslims in Spain since the 17th century.
Nasrallah could not fail to approve Mahatir’s injunctions and resort to the thinly veiled blaming of the ‘Crusaders’. After the usual obfuscation of the fact that the Muslims ‘offended’ by the disparaging of their prophet by an avowed atheistic torche-cul, chose to attack Churches, smash crosses and behead Christians.
Does he realize that the way Muslims regard their Messenger and their Prophet (“Seal of the Prophets —there will be no Prophet after him—, the Master of Messengers, the best of creatures, the most perfect creation, the most perfect and noblest man (of all), the creature closest to God the Most High and the Exalted, the one whom God loves and cherishes the most”) throwing this in the face of Christians, is a permanent insult to Christians?
Anonymous,
My understanding of Islamic doctrine, which I’m sure a few narrow minded fools who call themselves Muslims will disagree with, is that Jesus was also “the best of creatures, the most perfect creation, the most perfect and noblest man (of all), the creature closest to God the Most High and the Exalted, the one whom God loves and cherishes the most”, as you say.
The only difference is that Mohamad came after Jesus, and only when it was clear that the Christian institutions of the world had all become hopelessly corrupt.
And regarding the claim from 1400 years ago that Mohamad was to be the final prophet, do you dispute this? Have there been any prophets since? Joseph Smith? Baha’ullah? Timothy Leary? The Donald?
So, what I hear you saying is essentially that you, as a Christian, find it offensive that Muslim doctrine claims that Mohamad was the last prophet, which implies that you deny his prophethood outright.
If a bunch of narrow minded fools who call themselves Christians, take offense at Islamic ideology, perhaps they should begin a campaign of hate and propaganda and terrorism against Muslims and their countries, because how better to prove that they are not sincere followers of the teachings of Jesus?
What all this boils down to is insecurity. Those who know they carry the flag of a false religion, like the Catholic Church, would surely feel threatened by a true religion, and it is no surprise that they will start endless Crusades to kill Muslims.
What is very eye-opening, in my opinion, is how these so called Christians are today aligned with the Satanist-Zionists, in their mutual rabid hate for Islam and their never ending bloodshed in Muslim countries.
@Mohamad was to be the final prophet, do you dispute this?
But of course I dispute that, and I am not alone for 1400 years!
But I do not find offensive that Muslim doctrine claims that Mohamad was the last prophet, greater than Christians’ Prophet, but because it affirms that Jesus was “the best of creatures, the most perfect creation, the most perfect and noblest man (of all)…etc, and not “the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,begotten, not made;of the same essence as the Father.Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvationhe came down from heaven; he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary and was made human.He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried.The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead.His kingdom will never end”.
And that Muslims call those who believe that (i.e. the Christians) a “bunch of narrow minded fools” aligned with Satanists (nice way to endear the Muslims to Christians, thank you), that they condemn and think that their duty is to combat them because “the Christian institutions of the world had all become hopelessly corrupt”.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.
You dispute that Mohamad was the last prophet, yet you do not name any who came after him?
Jesus was a man. He was part of a gnostic sect that espoused Zoroastrian ideas of good and evil, heaven, hell, angels, demons, a Messiah, and an apocalypse to come, possibly the Essenes. There were a countless number of such gnostic sects in the Middle East, and Jesus did not invent any of the aforementioned ideas; this is a fact.
You feel like I should grovel and endear Muslims to Christians? Why?
Please prove the authenticity and veracity of the “scripture” which you are citing as some kind of evidence. (Evidence of what?)
Dear Jamshyd,
There’s no such thing as “final” in the spiritual world. The creation is cyclical and eternal; the spiritual beings had and will continue to incarnate in different parts of the world by the grace of the supreme lord.
The real message of spiritual beings to humanity is to discover the truth and don’t rely on just worshipping and fighting for books and incarnations happened in the past.
Experiential discovery of the truth that I’m that; I’m one with the supreme; that the supreme is equally, impartially present in every particle of the cosmos, will leave one with no questions and doubts. That only will set one free from the cycles of birth and death.
———————–
This conversation is off-topic. If you wish to continue please move it to the MFC. Thank you – the moderator.
The overwhelmingly majority of Lebanese Christians would vehemently disagree with you, as they love Nasrallah. He is the most pro-Christian political leader in the country and he is the strongest advocate of Christin-Muslim unity.
Final Conflict,
Do you believe Christian-Muslim unity on a global scale is possible as long as the Zionists are standing between the two?
And how can there be an understanding and accord, when a Muslim claims that they believe Jesus and Mohamad are equals, but the supposed Christian (or Zionist who speaks for the Christians) responds by basically denying that Mohamad was a prophet at all, and in turn elevates Jesus to the status of, not a god, but the God?
How wretched for Muslims that they recognize a religion that does not recognize them in return. I guess the Christians know how it feels; what with their recognition of Judaism which is not reciprocal.
On a global scale, no. On a national scale, at least in countries like Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Iran, and Russia (among a few others), absolutely. In Iran and Syria, where Zionism has no influence whatsoever and its propagation is officially proscribed, Christian-Muslim unity is strong and unbreakable. In Palestine, in spite of Zionist and Western attempts to cause division, Christian-Muslim unity in the Resistance is likewise unbreakable.
I will expand on my position.
Zionism and Christianity are inherently incompatible and no true Christian will ever accept Zionism or bend the knee to Israel and all true (mainline) Christians are zealous believers in Christ as Lord, which prohibits them from worshipping false idols like the fake state of Israel. Christian Zionists are a perversion and aberration of the highest order, but they are a fringe minority in world Christianity.
As to the issue of Christians rejecting the Prophet or that they believe Christ is God incarnate, these are theological matters that should have no bearing on political and cultural relations and solidarity. Zoroastrians and adherents of other ancient Iranic and Avestan religions also reject the Prophet. Muslims reject the divinity of Christ and the Sunni reject the authority and infallibility of the Ahl al-Bayt.
Keep in mind that Christians are a small minority in the Muslim world and they have been subject to persecution and ethnic cleansing for centuries and even to this day thanks to the Western-Zionist-Wahhabi Axis. Shia Muslims have been the greatest and most consistent defenders and protectors of the Christians. The minority must always be protected by the majority. This is emphasized as a requirement in the Qur’an.
There is a reason why Iran, under Sepah, always consistently backs Armenia against Republic of Azerbaijan and why Sepah does not want to see the annihilation of Artsakh and the genocide of its Christians. For Sepah, the protection of indigenous Christians is a religious duty.
And consider this. There was a time, some hundreds of years ago before the Safavids, when the majority of the provinces of Khuzestan, Elam, Luristan were Christian, Manichaen, Mithraic, and Avestan/Zoroastrian. There were many other parts of Iranian-speaking lands that were not only Christian, but even Buddhist among the Eastern Persians and other Iranian-speakers. Remnants of Avestan and Vedic communities exist in isolated parts of Afghanistan.
Today, most Iranian-speaking peoples are Muslim. But all those other religions are in our collective DNA and makes us who we are, a process that began many thousands of years ago before even Zarathustra was born. Ultimately, theology and faith are private subjective concerns that should not cause division and when Western-Zionist influence is proscribed, there is never any division.
It is not a coincidence that all these religions have an eschatological Messiah bearing different names, but essentially the same character and theme. When the Mahdi arrives at the end of days, all that was previously subjective will become objective and all humanity will bear witness to Truth, whatever that Truth will be. We will only know when that time arrives.
We must protect, preserve, and defend the past at all costs in order to guarantee the future existence and survival of the human race.
Tthere was a reason the Zoroastrians did not accept the prophet. The Zoroastrians believed that two great prophets would come after Zarathushtra himself; Hushidar and Hushidar-maah in Middle Persian. It was said that these two fellows, in succession will make grand attempts to bring about the true religion, (ie. God, Battle of good and evil, The Enemy, Afterlife, Apocalypse, etc, etc.) because it was expected that the enemy will have corrupted Zarathushtra’s message. It was believed that both great movements would eventually fail, until Saoshyant comes to re-establish it, hopefully for the last time.
The Saoshyant is the Mahdi of the Shia, obviously.
I agree with everything you say.
And I forgot to mention that the reason the Zoroastrians for the most part rejected Christianity was because of the acts of some Zoroastrian magi, like Azarbad Mahrspandan, who in the fourth century had molten metal poured on his chest in a very public gathering, and walked away unscathed and untouched, and by doing so he vouched for the veracity of the Zoroastrian faith.
The Zoroastrian magi, from whose name is derived magic, were still performing miracles when the Arabs invaded Iran. And the three wise men of the East who found the baby Jesus were also Zoroastrian magi, who went to Bethlehem to pay tribute to the baby Hushidar.
The most important part, in my reading:
“…Because (all) Muslims consider that defending the dignity of their Prophet is the highest priority, which takes precedence over all other calculations, over all other interests –whether political, economic, concerning means of subsistence, etc. Absolutely no concern can come before this issue.”
Really, for secular and non-Muslim folk, consider it as simple truth and let it sink in.
Liberals worship their bodies, identities, personal property. Confucians worship their families. Socialists worship the wider humanity. Capitalists worship their green numbers. Christians their Christ, God, Holy Spirit. And so on. (Taoists worship everything and nothing.)
Everyone has their sacred object of worship. Muslims worship their Prophet. From, say, a French (Land of Foucault) perspective, we cannot *fathom* that someone would worship an “immaterial” Prophet over their own body. A blasphemous comic is just another image. To us, it is totally harmless–to our bodies, our objects of worship. We project and insist it must be harmless to others as well.
Yet it is harmful to Muslims. They tell us so. And in response to our blasphemy, enraged Muslim extremists take our lives, usually spending theirs in the process. After all, what is a human life or two to the Great Prophet? This is their attitude, and it totally mirrors our Western one.
A true global order is not possible in a multicultural world without multilateral respect for the major cultures and their objects of worship. The West clamors endlessly for “human rights” (individual rights; protection for their sacred identities) yet is deaf to Nasrallah’s equivalent appeal for international anti-blasphemy laws (protection for their sacred Prophet). The last 30 years have shown the brutish Western approach to be totally futile. Multilateral compromise on the issue of multiculturalism is the only way forward.
Muslims absolutely do not under any circumstances worship the Prophet. In point of fact it is total out-and-out blasphemy to worship any human being or idol in Islam. It’s one of the very fundamental laws of Islam, expressed succinctly in the Shahada:
“There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God”
I’m a white Scottish Christian, blessed as in direct contact with God, Jesus sent me here to publish the proofs of events to come which one is taking place as I speak but was not published by the saker a man who claims to hold the Faith but my Lords words were banished.
Anyway I just want to say Nasrallah touches my heart, how he talks and thinks is how Gods word was written for all to adhear to! I wish there was a Christian as strong to guide us and keep our faith strong like Nasrallah… he will be Rewarded one day from the most high our Creator, king of Kings, Father of fathers, supreme judge the Almighty God.
And you touched heart of mine! Surely your response is how believers speak.
God bless you.
It seems you are getting caught up in semantics. I mean “worship” in very general terms, “to hold above all else”.
Or are you saying Nasrallah doesn’t understand Muslim culture?
Semantics are very important. The main and most widely understood definition of worship is: “the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.” That is the most general definition of the word.
When we talk about “worshipping God,” how do you interpret that? Do you not think that the choice of words is important, especially to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation?
Nasrallah would never use the term “worship” to describe veneration for the Prophet. Are you claiming that he has done so?
Jürgen, greetings.
A really great comment, but I am just making a small correction to your honest mistake.
“Muslims worship their Prophet.” Absolutely not, and absolutely forbidden for the Muslims.
Some Christians (not all) , have the mistaken assumption that Muslims worship Mohammad because themselves worship Jesus so they assumed Muslims worship Mohammad. Some of the Christians even call us Muslims “Mohammedans” 😄.
Prophet Mohammad peace be upon him, called people to worship Only Almighty God, and he continually emphasized his humanity so that people would not fall into, what we believe, the same errors as Christians did in regards to Jesus. In order to prevent his deification, the Prophet Mohammad always said to refer to him as “the Messenger of God and HIS Slave”
Thanks for reading.
More people need to be educated, and educate themselves, on the Koran and the exemplary life of Mohammed.
If they did, these issues would not arise.
Very easy to do. All available online.
” d the exemplary life of Mohammed. ”
How old was his youngest wife ?
Macron and most French leaders are nothing but fools.
And it would appear their motivation for these anti Shiite Islam attacks is to please the Saudis & others.
They are incompetent – failed to defend France in 1940 and lost in VietNam & had to cave in on Algeria & Morocco.
Its designed to trigger conflicts with Iran to facilitate a war the EU moneychangers want.
Their evil plans will backfire.
Unfortunately, many religious people outside of France do not understand the nature of the secular form of the state in France. Which has been around for over a century and the law of 1905.
I understand that it is difficult, maybe impossible. Understanding is not easier the other way around that is also true.
Many people in France, even some Muslims, but very few, think that religion or spirituality should not be public but private.
I myself am French atheist and secular, when I try to understand someone religious from another continent it is not easy. be it a muslim in the middle east or an american born again.
This says I must add one thing. My president Macron is a historical and cultural uneducated. Do not think that his speech is constructed and coherent, it is not.
He’s a narcissistic and bossy baby rodtshild, nothing more
Sylvain,
Greetings, I failed to connect your comment with the issues raised by NasrAllah, and the Muslims in general, and the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and State.
The main articles of 1905 law are the first two.
• Article 1 described the purpose of the act as to ensure “freedom of conscience” and to guarantee “the free exercise of religion under the provisions enacted hereafter in the interest of public order.”
• Article 2 stated “The Republic does not recognize, pay, or subsidize any religious sect. Accordingly, from 1 January following the enactment of this law, there will be removed from state budgets, departments and municipalities, all expenses related to the exercise of religion.”Exceptions are enumerated regarding “schools, colleges, hospitals, asylums and prisons” so as “to ensure the free exercise of religion in public institutions”.
Most of the rest,40+ articles are related to the budgeting, the distribution of properties, the use of state’s fund, etc…
So I am not sure what “many religious people outside of France do not understand the nature of the secular form of the state in France.” And what this has to do with NasrAllah speech and advice.
Here is an example that illustrates the situation of Muslims in france.
-Enacting muslim cemeteries is banned by french law.
-even the minimum requirement for a muslim burial(a grave in the direction of Mecca) is also impossible to request in government (laic) cemeteries.
-if you bury your loved one in a laic gov cemetery, by french law your body could be exhumed (starting after 5 years) and then cremated to make space without giving any prior notice to the family. If you are even mildly familiar with muslim doctrine then you know this is horrifying. For Muslims, Respecting the dead is burying them.
This has created a phenomenon where french Muslims are buried abroad in their an ancestral lands even after 3/4 generation.
Now a simple question : how do you expect people to assimilate when they are legally banned from even being buried in the land?
Source
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23325581
” Now a simple question : how do you expect people to assimilate when they are legally banned from even being buried in the land? ”
Is that rule applied to other religions also ?
Since there are already jewish cemeteries in france, I wouldn’t think they are as affected by this as Muslims.
Tbh I can’t speak for buddhist, hindus sikh etc because I don’t know their burial rites