عند وقوع أزمات كبرى، يظهر الحجم الفعلي لبلد كلبنان. حتى لقاء باريس الخماسي، أول من أمس، الذي كان مخصصاً لمناقشة الملف اللبناني، تحوّل في جانب منه إلى البحث في التطورات العاجلة في المنطقة جرّاء الزلزال المدمّر الذي ضرب سوريا وتركيا فجر الاثنين، بعدما أظهرت عمليات الإنقاذ هول الكارثة. تركيا، الدولة التي يتعامل معها العالم كقوة إقليمية كبرى، تحتاج أمام هذه المأساة إلى المساعدات التي تتدفق عليها، فيما يعي العالم جيداً أن سوريا المنهكة والمحاصرة أكثر احتياجاً إلى دعم شامل ومستدام.
في لبنان، لم يكن متوقعاً من مسؤولين لا يهتمون لأحوال شعبهم أن يبادروا إلى خطوات نوعية تجاه الشعب السوري. فهؤلاء، كالعادة، يعملون تحت الضغط الخارجي، الأميركي تحديداً. وليس متوقعاً ممن لم يخض معركة الحصول على استثناء من العقوبات الأميركية لاستجرار الغاز المصري أو يجرؤ على قبول هبة إيرانية غير مشروطة، أن يبادر إلى خطوات واضحة لمساندة بلد شقيق، قدم الكثير لنا إنسانياً وسياسياً.
الجاحدون والفاشيون فقط هم من يسيّسون أي خطوة إزاء كارثة إنسانية كالتي أصابت الشعب السوري. هؤلاء، ممن يعيشون بيننا أو ينتشرون في العالم، لا يمكن إلا احتقار من يتحدث منهم عن نظام وشعب وعن موالاة ومعارضة، عندما يقارب مسألة الدعم الذي تحتاجه سوريا في هذه المحنة. احتاجت حكومة الرئيس نجيب ميقاتي إلى صوت مرتفع حتى تقوّي «ركابها» وتقرر إرسال وفود أو مساعدات، علماً أن لهذا الأمر رمزيته. فيما القرار الذي يمكن أن يتخذه لبنان، ويشكّل فارقاً بالفعل، هو فتح المعابر اللبنانية أمام كل أشكال الدعم المتوجهة صوب سوريا، ورفض الإذعان لكل أنواع الضغط والترهيب والعقوبات التي يرفعها الغرب الأميركي – الأوروبي. مثل هذه الخطوة من شأنها المساعدة على تسهيل تقديم مساعدات كبيرة لسوريا، من قبل أشخاص أو جهات أو مؤسسات لا تريد الخضوع للعقوبات الأميركية، ومستعدة لتقديم الدعم عبر لبنان.
عربياً، يبدو أن تطوراً ما حصل، تمظهر في الحركة السياسية التي بدأها رئيس دولة الإمارات محمد بن زايد، بإبلاغه الجانب الأميركي قراره إرسال مساعدات مباشرة عبر مطار دمشق، قبل أن يتبعه قرار ولي العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان إطلاق حملة تبرعات يذهب قسم منها إلى سوريا، إضافة إلى برنامج دعم من الحكومة السعودية نفسها.
وبحسب المعطيات، يناقش بن زايد مع الجانب الفرنسي المبادرة إلى استعادة التواصل مع سوريا من الباب الإنساني تمهيداً لما هو أكثر. وهو أثار ذلك في اتصال مع الرئيس إيمانويل ماكرون، ونُقل أن الأخير لم يرفض الفكرة من حيث المبدأ، وهو وإن حاول إعطاء الأمر بعده الأخلاقي والإنساني، إلا أن القرار النهائي يبقى رهن أمور كثيرة، تبدأ بالموقف الأميركي ولا تنتهي عند صقور الفاشيين في الإدارة الفرنسية. فيما المهم الآن مراقبة نشاط عواصم عربية كالجزائر والقاهرة وأبو ظبي والرياض، للبحث في إمكانية اختراق الجمود بما خص الملف السوري عبر مدخل المساعدات الإنسانية لمواجهة أعباء الكارثة، وفتح الباب أمام مراجعة تعيد ربط سوريا بالعالم العربي بشكل طبيعي، وإنهاء القطيعة التي قامت من قبل متآمرين دمروا سوريا وهجروا أهلها.
مساع عربية لإقناع فرنسا بتغيير موقفها وفتح الأبواب أمام مساعدة سوريا من دون شروط
طبعاً، لا يجب توقع الكثير من النتائج. لكن من المهم أن يتصرف العرب بقليل من الشهامة والأخلاق الإنسانية. ومن يعتقد أنه يمكن ترك سوريا تموت بعد كل ما أصابها، يقوم بفعل سياسي واضح ينم عن حقارة غير مسبوقة. فيما الأبواب مفتوحة اليوم أمام من دعموا مؤامرة تدمير سوريا للتصرف بمسؤولية ولو من الباب الإنساني. والتحدي نفسه يواجه دولاً قادرة مادياً مثل قطر، إضافة إلى عواصم غربية لا يمكنها الاختباء خلف مليون يورو قرّرت ألمانيا دفعها للمتضررين من الزلزال أو قدر هزيل من المساعدات قدمتها فرنسا عبر منظمة أطباء بلا حدود. بينما تشير معطيات واردة من العاصمة الفرنسية إلى أن عملاء الغرب من المعارضين السوريين يحذرون السلطات الأوروبية من تقديم الدعم إلى مناطق تقع تحت سيطرة النظام، ويطالبون بإحياء «الخوذات البيض» التي لا تعدو كونها مجموعة من المرتزقة تعمل لدى الاستخبارات الغربية وتمدها بمعطيات ذات طابع أمني، أو عبر منظمات غير حكومية أقامها أرباب المعارضة السورية ويعيشون على حسابها.
ولعل من «حسنات» الكارثة أنها كشفت المزيد من العنصرية التي تتحكّم بالغرب تجاه منطقتنا كلها، وليس سوريا فقط، وبما يتخطى كل الحدود، إلى درجة نشر صحيفة «شارلي إيبدو» الفرنسية رسماً كاريكاتورياً للدمار في تركيا، مع تعليق: «لسنا بحاجة حتى إلى إرسال دبابة»، ما يعبّر عما يتمناه هؤلاء لكل الدول العربية والإسلامية والفقيرة في العالم، وعن عقلية فاشية واستعمارية لا تفارق أذهان هؤلاء ومخيلاتهم.
وإذا كان أحد يتوهّم باستخدام الكارثة لابتزاز الدولة السورية من أجل تقديم تنازلات سياسية مقابل الدعم، فإن الأخبار الواردة من دمشق تؤكد أن على من ينتظرون من الرئيس بشار الأسد أن يخرج إلى المنابر مستجدياً أو ليتلو فعل الندامة، استعادة سنوات انتظار استسلام الأسد يوم وصل مرتزقتهم إلى مشارف دمشق!
Hezbollah firmly condemned on Tuesday as a “hideous offense” Charlie Hebdo’s defamatory cartoons of Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei, calling on France not to be part of the aggression.
“Once again, the Charlie Hebdo ominous magazine attacks our sanctities and honored figures,” Hezbollah’s Media Relations Office said in a statement, pointing to previous offences by the French magazine against Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), Prophet Issa (Jesus) and other religious figures.
“The magazine targets today the supreme Islamic figure in the world, Imam Khamenei, who is not only a leader of a great country, but also an Imam and religious reference for tens of millions of Muslims and an icon of humanity, freedom, dignity, resistance and pride.”
“We, in Hezbollah, firmly denounce the hideous act committed by this magazine, as we call on free people around the globe to do so.”
The Lebanese resistance party, meanwhile, urged French authorities to take “decisive measures in a bid to hold the offenders accountable.”
“Justifying the offense by attributing it to the so-called ‘freedom of expression’ is now exposed and futile,” Hezbollah’s statement read.
It lashed out at the West for adopting double standards, saying: “We have all witnessed the West’s double standards when the cause opposes with its major political interests.”
“The French government has to avoid being part of this offense and to dissociate its political disagreement with Iran from allowing impudent magazines like Charlie Hebdo to attack sanctities and dignified figures of Muslims.”
[ Last Update: Thursday, 05 January 2023 7:44 PM ]
Extremist Israeli minister Itamar Ben-Gvir alongside fanatic settlers raid the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound with the accompany of Israeli forces in al-Quds. (Photo by Getty Images)
Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian has censured the Israeli regime’s recent desecration of al-Aqsa Mosque, warning that the occupying entity will face “heavy consequences” for incursion into the holy site.
Amir-Abdollahian raised the alarm in a telephone conversation on Thursday with Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Hussein Ibrahim Taha as the two discussed the latest developments in the region and the Muslim world, including a contentious visit by far-right Israeli minister Itamar Ben-Gvir to the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in the occupied Old City of al-Quds.
Expressing gratitude for Taha’s immediate condemnation of the recent Zionist desecration of al-Aqsa Mosque, the top Iranian diplomat said, “The consequences of this action will be heavy for the fake Israeli regime.”
Pointing to Israel’s provocative measures against al-Aqsa Mosque, Amir-Abdollahian proposed the establishment of an “effective legal and international mechanism to stop offensive measures against religious authority and holy sites.”
On Tuesday, Ben-Gvir entered the holy site of al-Aqsa Mosque through the Moroccan Gate, also known as the Mughrabi Gate, in what was described by Palestinians as an “unprecedented provocation.”
During the phone conversation, Amir-Abdollahian also appreciated the secretary general of the Islamic Cooperation Organization for his stance in condemning the latest sacrilegious move by the French weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo to insult the top religious authority of the Islamic Republic.
He held the French government responsible over the cartoons, and underlined that the role and the Zionists can be seen beyond the repeated acts of the notorious French magazine against the religious sanctities.
The Iranian foreign minister also reiterated the Islamic Republic’s stance on the need to end the war and conflict in Yemen, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.
Taha, for his part, condemned the recent Israeli desecration of al-Aqsa Mosque and voiced concerns about the entrance of the occupying regime’s minister into the holy site.
“This action has hurt the feelings of the Islamic Ummah,” he added.
Stressing that such provocative moves by the Zionists disturb peace and stability in the region, Taha said he is in talks with various bodies to pressure the Israeli regime to stop such measures.
He condemned the sacrilegious move by the notorious French magazine, underlining that the matter is being investigated to give a “proportionate” response to the move.
The two sides expressed deep concern over the Taliban’s decision to ban girls and women from studying in Afghanistan, calling the measure inconsistent with the precepts and teachings of Islam.
FM underscores legal mechanism to stop insulting holy sites
In another development on Thursday, Amir-Abdollahian called for the establishment of a legal mechanism to stop desecration of Islamic sanctities.
Amir-Abdollahian made the plea in a telephone conversation with his Kuwaiti counterpart Sheikh Salem Abdullah Al Jaber Al Sabah as the two diplomats discussed bilateral relations as well as regional and international issues, including the recent desecration of al-Aqsa Mosque and the sacrilegious move by the notorious French magazine.
Rebuking the recent desecration of al-Aqsa Mosque by the illegal entity, Amir-Abdollahian called for coordination and joint efforts by the Muslim countries to preserve the historical and legal status of al-Aqsa Mosque and stressed the establishment of legal mechanisms in this regard to stop insulting Islamic sanctities.
The top Iranian diplomat also reiterated the need to strengthen regional cooperation towards peace and stability in the region.
Al Sabah, for his part, underlined the Kuwaiti government’s unwavering stance on the Palestinian issue and vehemently censured the Israeli regime’s recent desecration of al-Aqsa Mosque.
He also welcomed Iran’s initiative on coordinated action by the OIC to halt the occupying regime’s insulting actions endangering peace and stability in the region.
Referring to the black record of the notorious French magazine in insulting the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the Kuwaiti diplomat condemned its sacrilegious move against the Islamic Republic and stressed that insulting religious authorities and leaders is an insult to all Muslims.
Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:
So this is what it’s like being outside of Europe during the repression of their long-running, bi-annual (spring and fall) violent anti-government and anti-EU protests? There’s barely a sound in the mainstream media about them.
Every year since the pan-European project went fully online, 2009, it’s only during the two-year Covid era when Europe has failed to be ablaze with social chaos during their two mild seasons. I assumed the non-European West had been aware, but now I see that their media couldn’t care less.
In France, Italy, Czechia, Germany and elsewhere anti-NATO (i.e. anti-war), anti-capitalism (i.e. anti-austerity/right-wing economics) and anti-government (i.e. anti-liberalism) activism has virulently returned. But anyone remotely paying attention to continental politics realizes this autumn’s protests are not an exception but a return to the norm.
So, of course they are protesting NATO, austerity and police brutality in Europe right now – that’s what they do every autumn, and to no real effect.
What is interesting is to compare the protests in Europe with the current protests against the laws on modesty in public dress in Iran.
In 2019 France, amid the brutal and unprecedented Yellow Vest crackdown, a crowd chanted for despised riot cops to commit suicide – the mainstream media vented their indignation on behalf of the cops but remained silent on the dozen dead and scores of permanently crippled protesters. In 2022 Iran viral videos (all absent in the Western media) have shown a suspected plainclothes cop being horrifically set on fire; madmen shooting blindly into crowds; people falsely posing as policemen (and then enacting who knows what carnage in an effort to discredit the government). Like many in Iran, I don’t even attribute these obvious acts of armed, anti-revolution rebellion to legitimate protesters but to foreign spy agencies. The point must be underlined: Western protesters have nothing like this to contend with, and it’s even hard for them to comprehend the existence of such obstacles.
In 2015 France after the Charlie Hebdo attack Paris expected the world to mourn for their instigating cartoonists. Just this week Daesh has just accepted responsibility for over 50 casualties at a mosque, but the massacre of Iranian faithful gets ignored or diminished by Western media (France24 headline: “Several people killed as gunmen open fire at shrine in Iran’s Shiraz”). I doubt any “Je suis Shirazi” (I am from Shiraz) campaigns will be demanded by Western NGO executives.
At last month’s United Nations general assembly I took a photo of a book put on display by Iran’s delegation, titled “The Encyclopedia of Iranian Terror Victims”. It contains 17,000 names of those killed since 1979 by the Western-supported MKO, Daesh, the Israelis, the House of Saud and others. A victim of the United States, the renowned anti-terror hero General Qassem Soleimani, was recently included. When terrorists killed 3,000 Americans in 2001 the retribution was the destruction of two entire countries.
Certainly this is the coup de grâce: The protests in support of the Iranian government and revolution continue to be (and have been since 1979) exponentially larger than the anti-government protests, whereas the only pro-government protests in France since 2009 were the rather comical, one-time “Red Scarves” of 2019.
Nobody is protesting in favor of what we can term the “pan-European revolution” because it continues to only gut the quality of life for the average European citizen. Contrarily, and much like those I have reported on from Cuba, the pro-government protests in Iran exist in such numbers and tenacity because the Iranian Islamic Revolution has created so much improvement, redistributed so much wealth and redistributed so much political & cultural power to the average Iranian.
The laws for modesty in dress – a demand made on both men and women, it must be said – is actually an excellent example of that last fact.
In the name of openness I am willing to discuss the worth of Iranian mores with Westerners who cannot even name five cities in Iran, but all discussions of the modesty laws should start with – as far as I am concerned – this main point: The 1979 revolution elevated the mores and culture (and dress style) of the average Iranian (the working class) for the first time in Iranian history. The mores and styles of Iran’s Western-aping elite minority – which in 1979 was 5% of the country, at the very most – ceased to be elevated. Without grasping this realization – which is never related in Western media – a Westerner’s opinion on the anti-modesty law protest amounts to them telling Iranians to be less Iranian and more like them.
Europe is not concerned with modesty in dress – and this is their sovereign right – so the differences in the issues being protested in Europe and Iran are obviously quite different.
One has had its elite cut off their source of oil and energy – and to hell with the consequences on the average person – whereas the other is forced to nurture its people despite a “zero dollars in oil sales” blockade/war.
One has given up any semblance of military sovereignty – France gave in and joined NATO in that fateful year of 2009 – whereas the other is an island of sovereignty surrounded by a sea of US military bases.
One, France, has been routinely condemned by human rights groups for police brutality whereas the last time I was in Iran – July of this year – it was impossible for me (as I was coming from cop-filled Paris) to not remark on the lack of anything but traffic cops on the streets of Tehran. I asked multiple Iranians if they believed plainclothes police were lurking around, and I can truly report that not one person believed that there were.
So it’s not that the current protests, strikes and police brutality in Europe are uninteresting, it’s that they are so routine that Westerners are apparently immune to them; or are denied the truth about them.
Exceptionally brave groups like the Yellow Vests prove how historically high anti-government sentiment is in Europe, but if they cannot break through Western arrogance (or apathy) about the failures of Western Liberal Democracy then who can, I wonder?
What the politicians and mainstream media of Western Liberal Democracies rely on is constant demonization, finger-pointing and war hysteria in order to deflect from their own regular turmoil. Too bad for them that this not enough to stop their own citizens from protesting them.
Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His latest book is ‘France’s Yellow Vests: Western Repression of the West’s Best Values’. He is also the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’.
Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:
Mainstream media reporting on Islam, and especially on “security threats” linked to Muslim actors, are often criticized for their bias and the way they promote Islamophobia.
All studies on media reports on Muslims and Islam show, to a greater or lesser extent, that the mainstream media across Europe are often biased against Muslims and involved in spreading Islamophobic ideas, especially the alleged relationship between Muslims and extremism and radicalization.
Why are the media racist?
But what causes this? The new report of which I am a co-author analyzes in detail the factors that cause the widespread dissemination of anti-Muslim reports in the media. In general, academic studies agree that reports are influenced by the pressures of advertising and marketing, the political orientation of publishers, and especially, from the owners of the media. Another key influence on reporting is journalists’ dependence on a narrow range of apparently authoritative sources.
Mastery of “official” sources
Research shows that these “official” definitions of the “problem” of “radicalization” and “extremism” dominate the media. Actors who enact these views can be called “primary definitions” of problems. The phrase was coined by Stuart Hall and his colleagues in the 1970s. He sees the media as “secondary” definers, who are in “structured subordination” to “primary definitions.
But who are these “primary” definers in the case of Muslims? First, the state anti-terrorist apparatus; police, intelligence services, and a wide range of other “counterterrorism” officials. They are supported by neoconservative and anti-extremism pressure groups and expert groups.
The report examines how Islam is treated in the press in five European countries: the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy. A long sample period of twenty years was able to detect changes in the reports and if they were related to policy changes, to verify/falsify the thesis that official sources were the most important influence.
The evolution of anti-terrorism policy
The United Kingdom adopted a “Prevention” policy on the fight against terrorism in 2003. This was quickly followed by the EU and the Netherlands in 2005. France ( 2014 ) and Spain ( 2015 ) took another decade to introduce similar policies. Only Italy did not adopt a “prevent” style policy at the time of the study. One was almost approved in 2016 / 7, but the government collapsed before it was enacted.
Coverage of “extremism” and “radicalization” in Europe
The first significant spike in coverage of “extremism” in the UK occurred in 2005 – 2006. 2005 was the year of the London bombings on 7 July, after which Prime Minister Tony Blair said “the rules of the game are changing” and at that time the “Prevention” policy was already in force . A second peak from 2011 corresponded to a later iteration of “Prevenir”, which was a significant movement in a neoconservative direction.
French reports show an increase in attention to “radicalization” from 2012 when a political debate on radicalization began to emerge, followed by an exponential increase in 2016. This process preceded the attack in France against Charlie Hebdo ( January 2015 ) and the Bataclan ( November 2015 ). ) and is more obviously related to the launch of the new anti-terrorism strategy in April 2014.
Spanish data shows that coverage started later and peaked in 2017, one year after France. The beginnings of the increase go back to the discussion and subsequent launch of the new anti-terrorism strategy in January 2015.
Italian data shows the inverted relationship, with reports of “extremism” always higher than those of “radicalization. Given that the term “radicalization” is particularly associated with official anti-terrorism policy, this trend possibly reflects the relative lack of such a policy in Italy. The start of the “radicalization” increase in 2014 coincides with the publication of reports by neo-conservative expert groups, with an exponential increase during the attempt to approve the “Prevent” bill.
What official sources are cited in the media
But what sources were cited in the twenty-year sample? In the UK, the data showed the prominence of intelligence agencies. MI5, the national intelligence agency, and MI6, the foreign agency, stood out. Together they totaled almost six percent of the total appointments of the top one hundred.
The think tanks they were prominent in the UK, with the Quilliam Foundation, often criticized for its proximity to the British state, and the Henry Jackson Society, often described as “Islamophobic, that was presented regularly.
Civil rights organizations such as the Islamic Commission on Human Rights, ranked 96, or Cage, which is not among the top 100, were cited very little. This reflects his critical position on anti-terrorism policy and the UK government’s “radicalization” approach.
France – Intelligence-led coverage with Muslim groups captured by the state
In France, the Direction Générale de la Sécurité Intérieure ( DGSI ), the national intelligence agency, was the most cited. Its external equivalent, the Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure ( DGSE ), was presented at 28. Government ministries obtained a relatively high ranking and generally, ( were cited more widely with 26 percent of citations ) than the EU ( 17 percent ) or the UN ( eight percent ).
Muslim civil society groups were relatively prominent with six percent of the appointments in total. On closer inspection, each of them was effectively a government spokesperson. By contrast, genuine Muslim civil rights organizations such as “Le Collectif Contre l’islamophobie” in France were not among the hundred most cited groups.
Spain – Official sources and think tanks neoconservatives
In Spain, the Ministry of the Interior is the second most cited body. It should be noted that the neoconservative think tank Fundación Real Instituto Elcano was one of the most cited organizations, standing above the think tanks of the rest of the countries. The Neo-Conservative Foundation for Social Analysis and Studies ( FAES ) also featured prominently, receiving more appointments than any Muslim civil rights organization in Spain. The president of FAES is José María Aznar, former president of the Government of Spain. Aznar is also NewsCorp director for Rupert Murdoch, responsible for a number of Islamophobic news media around the world, as well as being involved with various Zionist groups.
Italy: lack of official Italian sources
In Italy, unlike the other countries, the highest Italian ministry cited was the Ministry of Economy and Finance ( 11o ). He was cited less frequently than six international government organizations: the European Union, the United Nations, NATO, Europol and the European Commission. This shows that if the Italian state did not promote the perspective of “radicalization”, the Italian media would resort to other official international sources. US intelligence agencies – the CIA and the FBI – were more cited than the Italian national intelligence agency, Dipartimento delle Informazioni per la Sicurezza ( DIS ), not listed at all in the sample. Italian data also included some quotes from neoconservative organizations.
Official sources as holders of power
In general, the role of the security state is absolutely central to the way the media operates on issues related to Muslims and security. In each case, we examine what this was, unlike media factors such as ownership, editorial control, or “reality” ( world events ), which provided the main impetus for the direction and tone of the coverage.
Changes in anti-Muslim reporting date back to the adoption of “Prevent” style policies. This reflects the crucial role of official sources, specifically government institutions associated with the anti-terrorist apparatus and intelligence agencies, in determining what is being reported and how. This was particularly key in the dominance of intelligence sources in the French and British reports. The role of neoconservative think tanks and against extremism was also significant as defenders of the security state, for example in Spain and the United Kingdom.
The “primary definitions” of Islamophobic news media coverage are, therefore, the central institutions of the security state in relation to which the media are in structured subordination as “secondary” defining.
In terms of politics, the bottom line is that problems of racism or media bias cannot be solved only at the level of media reform. Reform of the State and anti-terrorism policy is also necessary.
France has thrown a hypocritical hissy fit over a satirical cartoon, ”L’Europe en 2022.” So exceptionally exquisite are the decent sensibilities of the French Foreign Ministry, that the Office summoned Russia’s ambassador to France, to whine that the tweeted caricature was “unacceptable,” in its reputed mockery of Europe.
Per Reuters, France’s European Affairs Minister Clement Beaune described the cartoon as a “disgrace,” apparently particularly painful once given that “We [France] are trying to maintain a demanding channel of dialogue with Russia and these actions are completely inappropriate,” according to the Reuters report.
France’s Macron had a much more liberal view of free speech during his second trip in less than one month, to soothe “traumatized Lebanon” after the massive and deadly explosion which destroyed the Beirut Harbor.
France’s Macron took a different stance on “free speech” when in Lebanon.
France’s Macron took a different stance on “free speech” when in Lebanon.
In a speech during his 1 September 2020 visit — related to Charlie Hebdo, and to a Muslim-majority audience — he stated: “It’s never the place of a president of the Republic to pass judgment on the editorial choice of a journalist or newsroom, never. Because we have freedom of the press…[T]here is in France a freedom to blaspheme which is attached to the freedom of conscience. I am here to protect all these freedoms. In France, one can criticize a president, governors, blaspheme.”
He did not explain how he was in Lebanon to protect Lebanese freedoms (though there remains a sulfuric stench Sykes-Picot residual).
Perhaps an entitled, imperialist mindset is required to consider a series of humorless, baseless, and vile caricatures which seem to have the intention of inciting anger decent and proper free speech, while one based in accuracy demands universal condemnation.
According to Macron in Lebanon, politicians can be criticized, and the rudest blasphemy is doubleplusgood.
Also according to Macron in NATO Brussels, an honest cartoon is ‘false propaganda,’ and completely “unacceptable.”
Reuters did not include the ‘mocking’ caricature of NATO and the US destroying Europe in its report, maybe fearing it would be sanctioned by the regime that selectively promotes freedom of speech.
France’s hypocritical hissy fit over Russia’s concise polemic is a call to political cartoonists to up the ante.
Syria News is a collaborative effort by two authors only, we end up most of the months paying from our pockets to maintain the site’s presence online, if you like our work and want us to remain online you can help by chipping in a couple of Euros/ Dollars or any other currency so we can meet our site’s costs on time; you can also donate with Cryptocurrencies through our donate page. Thank you in advance.
In this photo from the Twitter page of the Nashville Fire Department, damage is seen on a street after an explosion in Nashville, Tennessee on December 25, 2020.
(Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV’s.)
Ramin Mazaheri (@RaminMazaheri2) is currently covering the US elections. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.
The entire world breathed a sigh of relief when it turned out that the alleged Nashville, Tennessee, bomber was not a Muslim – now nobody can get dragooned into supporting yet another war on a Muslim-majority country.
Isn’t it spectacular how after 9/11 the US impressed almost the entire West into never-ending military service? Western piracy in Afghanistan continues today; Iraq was reduced to shambles; France used the ruse to invade Mali, the Central African Republic and to create a roving “anti-terrorist” force across the entire Sahel; Libya is no longer really a nation; Syria stands despite all the money, guns, terrorists and concrete fortifications the West could muster. I am probably missing some others.
It was true that in the years after 9/11 Muslims silently held their breath when they heard about a terrorist attack, but after 20 years and so many bombs, drones and assassinations it’s abundantly clear that Muslims are not the aggressor nor the transgressor: The pointed finger alleging cultural failure was clearly a false accusation.
The question Muslims now often feel confident enough to ask non-Muslims in public is, “What did Islam ever have to do with terrorism, anyway?” The answer is the same as it was on 9/12/01: “Nothing”.
The Nashville bombing occurred on Christmas day – maybe this was an act of “Christian terrorism”?
The sad irony is that many Christians will flinch at such a term because they view “Christianity” and “terrorism” as being total opposites. Do such persons realise that Muslims view joining “Islam” to “terrorism” also creates an oxymoron? Muslims and Christians should permanently unite around this concept: the sadness of feeling totally misunderstood when the word “terrorism” is affixed to either religion. The only barrier to this is the Islamophobic nonsense which pours out of the West’s chattering classes.
Terrorism is always defined as violence which has a political motive. Was the Nashville bombing, allegedly caused by Anthony Warner, terrorism? We don’t know at this point, so it’s wrong to call it terrorism.
Some report that Warner was paranoid about the effects of the new 5G technology – that seems rather more social than political.
There are unproven accusations that Warner was bombing storage facilities used by the voting machine company Dominion, which is being sued for allegations of vote tampering – if proven to be true then it’s possible this was a political act. It’s looking like Joe Biden will prevail in the still-disputed US presidential election, but is Warner the advance scout of a battalion of right-wing, pro-Trump terrorists which the US media warned about so hysterically in 2020? Considering how insistently they promoted anti-Trumpism and the fear of right-wing violence, it’s surprising that US media hasn’t immediately called Warner a “post-Trumpian terrorist”?
Maybe they will get there, but what this unfortunate episode can teach us is that the West rushes to demonise Muslim citizens and the teachings of Islam whenever they think they have an opportunity to do so. If Warner had been a Muslim there would have been an unjournalistic rush to judgment by Western media that Nashville was undoubtedly an act of – ugh – “Islamic terrorism”.
It’s unfortunate that Islam is so easily slandered in the West, but the problem to discuss here is not religious misunderstanding but reactionary political thought: Islam is slandered so easily precisely in order to create false justifications for the West’s endless imperialist wars in the oil-rich, Israel-surrounding Muslim World.
In the Western world talking of “imperialism” is (incredibly, to me) denigrated as anachronistic, eccentric and unrealistic. It’s not even taken seriously – if I was writing about transgender bathrooms I would be taken infinitely more seriously, and that is no exaggeration. And yet, doesn’t using the lens of imperialism explain the very different US media treatment for Anthony Warner as opposed to “Omar” Warner?
After all, who can the US media suggest we invade as a result of Warner’s alleged act? Which culture can be insulted and ordered to change at the point of a spear? How can Americans feel a misguided sense of superiority – which helps deflect from their ever-increasing inequality, poverty and socioeconomic instability – when Warner’s culture is their own?
And thus Warner is getting treated far more sympathetically than any Muslim menace to society, even though Warner is no more human.
I do not begrudge sympathy for Warner: The unpredictable actions of severely mentally ill people often have devastating consequences on people, and this is an unfortunate part of life and must be discussed.
What I do point out is that, for example, in the majority of France’s terror attacks following Charlie Hebdo’s publication of pornographic pictures of Prophet Mohammad the attacker was also just another mentally-ill person, and not some political mastermind and zealot. I covered these attacks year after year and the perpetrators always fell into one of two categories: the largest was mental illness, while the smaller grouping were political (not religious) terrorists who – without fail – expressly said their attacks were retribution for France’s many imperialist attacks on Muslim countries.
The problem in the world today is not religious – as the West and Israel asserts – but political, as the developing world asserts.
But – as the four-year “daily cultural insanity” of the Trump era proves – the US is incapable of discussing political nuance intelligently and without resorting to hyperbolic slander or wild-eyed absurdities. This explains why if Anthony Warner had been a Muslim the violence would have undoubtedly been declared “terrorism”, immediately – I am referring to endemic American political hysteria of the “other”.
I am not here to complain – as a professional wordsmith often pedantically does – about the misuse of words and the confusion caused by refusing to abide by established definitions. Instead, I am suggesting that non-Muslims in the West should wake up to just how easily they are intellectually manipulated when it comes to any violence which employs something more brutal than a handgun: Had Warner been a Muslim Americans and Westerners would have shouted at to maintain their awful, destructive and immoral two-decade long war posture towards Muslims and Islam.
When there are acts of political terrorism, the West needs to examine the politics behind it and make sure their politics are just. When there are acts of violence, just because a Muslim was the perpetrator doesn’t make it political. However, in the identity politics-obsessed West, it seems one is always defined solely by his or her tribe and is never just another son or daughter of Adam.
“Anthony” or “Omar” shouldn’t make a difference to you but it certainly does, depending on where you live: manipulative Islamophobia may have sent your children off to die in hopeless wars, gutted your individual political rights and caused you to see anyone with a different political view as your lifelong enemy.
Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:
Syrian President Assad just slaughtered neoliberalism’s four sacred cows of gay marriage, radical secularism, marijuana legalization, and gender theory in a short video of his latest speech that recently went viral on social media where he condemned these examples of “total moral degeneracy” that he very passionately believes “target our humanity”.
The “Great Social/Civilizational Reset”
The increasingly sharp contrast between the West’s extreme neoliberal social values and most of the rest of the world’s embrace of conservative traditionalism was brought to the fore of global attention after October’s terrorist beheading of a French schoolteacher for sharing satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The author published an analysis at the time asking “Is A ‘Great Social/Civilizational Reset Upon Us?”, which predicted that each value system’s proponents will become more vocal in the future but that this doesn’t necessarily imply that the fearmongered “Clash of Civilizations” scenario is inevitable. Rather, what’s likely to unfold is that each side more proudly reasserts their identity as time goes on, defending that which they hold dearest against what they regard as the threat represented by the other system. This is precisely what recently happened after a short video of Syrian President Assad’s latest speech went viral on social media where he slaughtered the four sacred cows of neoliberalism.
Syrian Girl Made The Syrian Leader Go Viral
Mimi Al Laham, also known as Syrian Girl on Twitter, translated the most important part into English. Her work was then shared by Infowars as part of their article titled “Bashar Al-Assad: Neoliberalism is Based on ‘Total Moral Degeneracy’”, which in turn brought it to the attention of countless people across the world. President Assad is known for his solid support of secularism in the face of fundamentalist religious threats to his country’s society, yet casual observers would have been mistaken if they assumed that this means that he’s sympathetic to neoliberalism. The reality couldn’t be more different since the Syrian leader showed that it’s possible to be a secular anti-liberal unlike what many people might have naively thought. Some of his own supporters abroad might even be a bit surprised by what he said since they probably didn’t expect him to group gay marriage, radical secularism, marijuana legalization, and gender theory together as examples of “total moral degeneracy” which he very passionately believes “target our humanity.”
Slaughtering The Four Sacred Cows
For the reader’s convenience, the author is sharing Syrian Girl’s translation of President Assad’s speech below:
“Neoliberalism is based on promoting a total moral degeneracy and separating individuals from any principles or values and affiliations and beliefs in order to reach this moral degeneracy. Neoliberalism promoted gay marriage. They started in the 1970s and now gay marriage is legal. And now they have children but it’s different from adopting because how can they have children?
Neoliberalism promoted that a child does not choose his own religion and this is against the child’s freedom of expression. A child is born without any religion and later choose his own religion when he’s grown up. This is against human nature. Ever since human made their own idols and Gods, a child would instinctively belong to his family’s religion. They contradict humanity itself.
It has recently promoted that marijuana is not harmful and now it’s sold in shops legally. They started claiming that drugs are not harmful, and later they will find something more harmful. Now in some places you can buy marijuana-flavored bread. This is neoliberalism. It (neoliberalism) now claims that a child is born and does not have a gender, that the child chooses later to be a male or a female. Very strange indeed!
So what do we understand from this? Neoliberalism targets our humanity, and by doing so, it collides with religions because religions serve humanity while neoliberalism separates individuals from their values.”
From the above, there’s no doubt that President Assad slaughtered all four of neoliberalism’s sacred cows.
Reviewing President Assad’s Principled Views
Gay marriage, as he noted, has been pushed by neoliberals onto society for nearly the past half-century, after which it finally succeeded to such a wild extent that sex change surgeries can now even lead to so-called “male pregnancies”. According to President Assad, the radical neoliberal ideology of forcibly secularizing children “contradicts humanity itself”. Legalizing drugs, and especially Western society’s normalization of marijuana, is harmful in his eyes, and he also regards gender theory as “very strange indeed”. Taken together, it can unambiguously be said that President Assad sees little difference between “impregnating” sex-changed males, forcing children to accept secularism despite their parents’ wishes, eating a marijuana “brownie”, and convincing children that gender is a choice. These are all similar expressions of neoliberalism’s “moral degeneracy” and “targeting of humanity”, hence why they’re equally condemned. All four of these are like a cancer eating Western society from within, something that he wants to avoid having happen in Syria.
The Syrian Model Stands To Inspire The World
President Assad’s very principled defense of traditional values despite his vehement support for secularism challenges the assumption that the only ones who support the former are religious fundamentalists. As proven by none other than himself and his millions of supporters across the world, it’s entirely possible to simultaneously support secularism and traditional values while being strongly against both neoliberalism and religious fundamentalism. It’s not an either-or choice like those who want to provoke a so-called “Clash of Civilizations” dishonestly try to make everyone think. The world is so complex that not every society neatly falls into one or the other category as Syria shows. For this reason, the Syrian model might eventually be replicated by other countries that are striving to strike a balance between those two social extremes. In hindsight, the nearly decade-long HybridWar of Terror that was launched against his country in 2011 might have even been partially predicated on erasing Syria’s unique social system from the face of the earth in order to prevent that.
In mid October 2020 a French schoolteacher, 47-year-old Samuel Paty, decided to show his Freedom of Speech class cartoons demeaning Islam’s founding prophet, Mohammed. The cartoons were the same ones originally published by the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo (Charlie Weekly) in 2014-2015. At that time, the magazine’s actions resulted in the murder of twelve of its staff, including the editor, Stephane Charbonnier. The murders were committed by Muslim extremists associated with al-Qaeda. Samuel Paty’s fate turned out to be similar. Shortly after having shown the caricatures of the founder of Islam, the teacher was murdered by an 18-year-old Muslim immigrant. Other attacks have followed.
In all of these cases, the killings were provoked as well as indefensible. The cartoons in question are all too easy to interpret as gratuitous insults against Islam and therefore against the almost 9% of the French population that are Muslim. Nonetheless, murder is incompatible with stable society. The latter being prima facie true, the next question is, What alternatives were available to those who were/are disgusted by the Charlie Hebdo caricatures? Lawsuits for defamation have been repeatedly filed. Some are still ongoing. However, to date, none have stopped the magazine’s demeaning ways. Well-organized public protests combined with steady political pressure might work in the long run. It was perhaps because such an effort was not forthcoming, at least not consistently, that action defaulted to emotionally driven individual fanatics.
By the way, Charlie Hebdo, with its own brand of fanaticism, is what you might call an equal opportunity defamer. Topics ranging from the Catholic Church to Italians killed in earthquakes have been depicted in distasteful, sometimes semi-pornographic fashion. As it stands, the right to publish gratuitously insulting cartoons is not only legal in France but, because of all the related violence, also now defended as an important expression of French national culture. To make this point clear, French officials have announced the publication of a booklet to include the Charlie Hebdo images. This will be “handed out to high school students as a commitment to defend the values of the Republic.”
Part II—A Trap
The value referred to in the booklet is freedom of expression. As Charbonnier said in a 2012 interview, “We can’t live in a country without freedom of speech. I prefer to die than to live like a rat.” Of course, it is now obvious that Charbonnier’s ardent determination to avoid a rodent’s fate, and his nation’s embrace of the man’s grossness as a symbol of free speech, has led France into a trap. Here is how the Sorbonne Professor Pierre-Henri Tavoillot puts it: “what is at stake now is France’s laicite—the secularism that underlies its culture. If the nation compromises on laicite in this instance, this cultural principle may well unravel.” Refusal to consider a balanced way out of the situation paints the French into a corner while explicitly tying the culture to often semi-pornographic cartoons.
The trap has many other dimensions. French enthusiasm for Charlie Hebdohas fueled Islamophobia and led others to use the situation to argue for the restriction of civil rights. France’s interior minister believes that the country is “at war against an enemy who is both inside and outside.” While it is true that the country’s 5.7 million Muslims (the highest number in any Western country) are increasingly alienated and fearful, the vast majority are peaceful. Yet they all have now been placed under suspicion of being terrorists. Now, the mayor of Nice is calling for a “modification of the Constitution” so that the nation can “properly wage war against Islamic extremists.” President Macron has announced a widespread crackdown on “Islamist individuals and organizations.” This includes closing French Muslim civil rights organizations and Arabic language schools.
The whole affair has also brought France into conflict with Muslim populations and governments around the world. Presently, the French and Turkish governments are now trading insults. In Bangladesh, 40,000 people took part in an anti-French demonstration and called for the boycott of French goods. French goods were removed from shelves in shops in Qatar and Kuwait.
Part III—Rationalizations
The French will tell you that their take on free expression was born in violence: in “eradicating the power of the monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church” during the French Revolution. Later, a 1905 French law made faith a strictly private matter and secularism the rule for the public sphere. There is nothing wrong with this arrangement. However, over the years the French have generally lost common sense relative to the subject and failed to be consistent in their approach to religion. On the one hand, laicite has caused some French men and women to see religion as a belief system that need not be taken seriously. Criticism of religion is seen as a “dear right.” On the other hand, recent history has led French governments to be very sensitive to even the slightest suggestion of anti-Semitism (which is illegal in France). Except in this case, the stipulation that one should not be critical of someone simply because he is observant is often forgotten.
Against this backdrop, French Muslims, the most religious of French residents, have been held at arm’s length. Those who retain their traditional dress and ways stand out as outsiders and assimilation has not been made easy even for those Muslims who desire it.
The French will also tell you that the art of caricature “is an old tradition that is part of our democracy.” French Muslims make the argument that “there should be limits to offensive satire [in the form of demeaning caricature] when it comes to religious beliefs.” They say that this is so because such satire “fuels extremism.” For millions of French Muslims, this suggests that “cartoons putting a prophet who is fundamental to millions of believers in suggestive and degrading postures” should not fall within the right to be satirical.
One can, of course, argue the issue of censorship. Free speech/expression rights are explicitly meant to protect speech we may not approve of. On the other hand, all societies impose some limits on speech—you can’t cry fire in a crowded theater. Who decides when, or if, there should be a legitimate restriction to free speech/expression? How about when there is a present atmosphere that leads to multiple murder and the breakdown of otherwise friendly foreign relations? Under such circumstances, can such competing issues be finessed by the application of common sense? The flamboyant display of such “art” as practiced by Charlie Hebdo, much less its presentation as a cornerstone of French culture, might be such a case.*
Part IV—Conclusion
How many cultures make rudeness a symbol of cultural excellence? It doesn’t seem to be a common practice. Yet, the French have done so in this case. It has gotten them nothing but trouble at home and abroad.
The problem with the present French position is that it gives wide latitude to people who care little or nothing for cultural awareness. Stephane Charbonnier, the murdered editor of Charlie Hebdo, seemed uninterested in the real cultural consequences of his personal practice of freedom. In truth, he was an extremist who persisted on insulting a religion of 1.8 billion adherents, the vast majority of whom are peaceful folks. As he knew no bounds to his freedom to be brutally insulting, so his behavior activated a small number of Muslim extremists willing to be even more brutal than Charbonnier. This led to his violent death. In death he has become a French cultural icon—in total disregard of the extremist nature of his behavior and the counter-extremism it triggered.
TEHRAN – Shaikh Ghazi Honainah, a member of the leadership of the Islamic Action Front in Lebanon, believes that the motive that drove the French president to back the sacrilegious cartoons against the Prophet of Islam by the Charlie Hebdo magazine is that he wants to “identify himself with the American Zionism.”
Shaikh Honainah tells the Tehran Times that Emanuel Macron endorsed insulting Islam and its Prophet Muhammad to “identify himself with the American Zionism, which bears arrogant hostility to Mohammad as the Messenger of God and his message.” “The message of Prophet Mohammad has become today worldwide despite all efforts to distort the true image of the Messenger and Islam,” the Lebanese cleric emphasizes. The following is the text of the interview:
Q: Last month, French President Emanuel Macron publicly attacked Islam in defense of the publication of the derogatory cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) under the pretext of freedom of speech. What do you think of his remarks?
A: Regarding the recent remarks of the French president, in which he endorsed the aggressive approach of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo towards Islam and the Messenger of Islam, I should say that this is a president of a country that claims civilization, advancement, enlightenment, human rights, and addresses freedom, equality, and justice.
This president takes this stance as if he is an ordinary person in the street. I think the motive that drove him to make such a remark is that he wants to identify himself with the American Zionism, which bears arrogant hostility to Mohammad as the Messenger of God and his message.
The message of Prophet Mohammad has become today worldwide despite all attempts to distort the true image of the Messenger and Islam.
Macron wants to show his loyalty to global Zionism and the new Freemasonry to gain their green light for his second presidential bid.
Otherwise, why should someone on the level of the president of the French Republic, who represents France in the world, take such a position?
France is an important member of the (UN) Security Council and has a key role in resolving disputes in the region, especially in Lebanon.
Therefore, he wants to make propaganda against Islam and its Prophet in order to use it as a trump card in the upcoming French election.
Q: What are the definitions and limits of freedom in Islam?
A: Islamic education came to found basic principles of human societies’ lives; tolerant religion focuses on permanent principles, namely freedom, justice, and equality that never change, whether for Muslims or non-Muslims. Perhaps these principles are consistent with the slogans of the French Revolution. For example, about “freedom,” God said, “There shall be no compulsion in religion” (Al-Baqarah -256), and in Surah Yunus Ayah 99, it is said that “Had your Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Will you compel people to become believers?” God also said, “The truth is from your Lord. Whoever wills—let him believe. And whoever wills—let him disbelieve.” (Al-Kahf -30).
That is why Almighty God said in his holy book, “You have no control over them.” (Al-Ghashiyah – 22)
Hence we understand that Islamic educations endorse the concept of freedom: freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of belief, freedom of worship, and freedom of thought. Therefore, the Islamic source mentioned the second caliphate asked person, “Why did you enslave people when their mothers gave birth to them free?”
The Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said, “All of you are Adam’s sons, and Adam was created out of the dust of the ground. Therefore, from the standpoint of equality in Islamic educations, all people have equal rights, and duties at all levels, the rich and the poor, men and women, young and old, Arab and non-Arab, all people in the eyes of Islam are equal.
This freedom, which Islam affirmed, does not give the right to attack others and violate others’ rights. Therefore, according to Islamic law, our freedom ends when the rights of others begin. In Islam, we do not have the right to assault the beliefs of others. God asks us, “Do not insult those they call upon besides God, lest they insult God out of hostility and ignorance” (Al-An’am -108).
That is why the Messenger of God forbade us from humiliating others’ dignity or insulting them, even in times of war. Prophet asked us not to scorn people who believe in a different way and those who are out of Islam. Therefore, freedom in this peaceful religion has limits, and we have not right to assault the sanctities and beliefs of others.
Q: What is the right way to respond to the West’s provocative moves against Islam?
A: First of all, I emphasize that calling Islam and spreading its message among people needs a peaceful atmosphere as societies should be open to each other and cherish dialogue and communication.
The first step is to open doors and bridge divides so that people will be aware of their bonds, gather them, and communicate and debate for what is beneficial for humanity and human society.
Therefore, these provocative moves and actions in France undoubtedly lead to undermining relations between people, cutting off communication, and further strife, and this does not serve the interests of peace and Muslims.
In our relations with people, we need to address them calmly, within a reasonable argument, and with sound logic.
Our position should be strong, and with a bright thought, we can defend Islam. Therefore, the repercussions of the attack on others’ sanctities and beliefs will trigger the hatred and reaction of others against all Muslims as a whole.
This is harmful to Islam and Muslims as the number of Muslims is increasing drastically in the West. This is what worries Muslims’ enemies in those societies and frightens those who see that the spread of Islam as a threat to their future.
Violent reactions do not serve the relationships between people and also the peaceful coexistence between Muslims and others.
Q: How do you assess the reaction of Islamic countries and their leaders to Macron’s statements?
A: What we noticed in the recent period after re-infusion of the poisons of insulting the Messenger of God and supported by the French president, showed that the Islamic states and regimes, except a few of them, went into a deep coma or took sleeping pills as if what happened does not concern them, especially those who consider themselves the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
We have not heard a position or condemnation from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, neither at the official level nor from its nation. Unfortunately, this is what hurts us and grieves us and makes us feel that the Arab regimes do not care about Islamic causes and issues: peace, mercy, and blessings of God.
Q: Do you confirm violence in response to insult to the Prophet of Islam?
A: As Muslims, we have our way of defending Islamic sanctity; we have to deal with this issue differently. As long as the issue was in this context, we avoid insulting others’ sanctuaries, greatness, and prophets, whether he is Jesus, peace be upon him, or his mother Virgin Mary, peace be upon her, or Prophet Moses, peace be upon him.
If others offend Muslims, we are forbidden from insulting any prophet on earth. God says, “The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, as did the believers. They all have believed in God and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers. The believers make no distinction between any of His messengers” (Al-Baqarah- 285).
Therefore our reaction is to argue with them in the best manner as God said, “Do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in the best manner possible, except those who do wrong among them. And say, ‘We believe in what was revealed to us, and in what was revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him we are submissive.'”
We have in Quran that God made a covenant with the Children of Israel to worship none but God and be good to parents, and relatives, and orphans, and the needy; and speak nicely to people.
But beheading of a teacher in France in response to insulting Islam and its Prophet is not acceptable. Any attack against Christians and churches is condemned in Islam, according to Prophet Muhammad’s educations.
Speech of His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on the occasion of the birth of Prophet Muhammad 10-30-2020
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and prayers and peace be upon our Master and Prophet, the Seal of Prophets, Abi al-Qassem Muhammad Bin Abdullah and his good and pure household and his good and chosen companions and all the prophets and messengers.
Peace and God’s mercy and blessings be upon you all. God Almighty said in his glorified book:
{In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. O Prophet, indeed We have sent you as a witness and a bringer of good tidings and a warner. And one who invites to Allah, by His permission, and an illuminating lamp. And give good tidings to the believers that they will have from Allah great bounty. Almighty God has spoken truly.}
To start with, I congratulate all Muslims in the world as well as all the Lebanese who are one people and partners in happiness and sorrow.
I congratulate Muslims and everyone else on the birth of the greatest Messenger, our Master, and Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah [PBUH], as well as on the birth of his great grandson, Imam Jaafar bin Muhammad Al-Sadiq [PBUH].
I’ll begin by talking about the occasion a little. From there, I’ll talk about some files and topics relevant to the current stage.
Our Master Muhammad bin Abdullah [PBUH] was born approximately 1495 years ago, in what was known as the Year of the Elephant [Am Al-Fil], in the month of Rabi ‘al-Awwal – this month. Some say he was born on 12 Rabi al-Awwal, others say 17 Rabi al-Awwal.
This blessed birth was the natural introduction to the birth and proclamation of the final divine message, after which there is no abrogation, modification, or alteration. Hence, ‘what is permissible [halal] during Muhammad’s era is permissible until the Day of Judgement, and what is forbidden [haram] during Muhammad’s era is forbidden until the Day of Judgement.’
It was also an introduction to rebirth of the true human life, for generations that would emerge from darkness into light, through this newborn child, and also the birth of a nation that would remain immortal until the Day of Resurrection.
We all know that the prophets and messengers performed miracles and accomplishments, especially when we are talking about great prophets like Ibrahim, Musa, and Isa [PBUT]. They all had miracles that were witnessed by the era they lived in and the generation that lived there.
These accounts were told to us. They were preserved in holy books, especially the Holy Quran, as well as history books. These accounts reached all the people – Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
The Messenger of Allah Muhammad [PBUH] performed various miracles as well. The people of his time bore witness to them. Now his time has passed, and accounts were passed on to us through stories and history books. We, however, did not witness these miracles. The Messenger of God Muhammad [may God bless him and his family and grant them peace] had various miracles as well, as is the case with the miracles of the previous prophets.
However, the Messenger of Allah Muhammad [PBUH] possesses an immortal miracle that will continue to live on until the Day of Resurrection and will be witnessed by all generations in all times and in all places. This miracle is His sacred book that God sent down to him – the Holy Quran.
One of the miracles of this great book is that its words, verses, and surahs have not been subject to any distortion, forgery, or modification for more than 1450 years. This means that despite the reasons, factors, and motives – among Muslims and non-Muslims, from within Islam and otherwise – to distort this religious book, its verses and surahs, it remained preserved form 1450 years.
This holy book remaining in this accurate and wondrous form is in itself a miracle. It is the fulfillment and validation of the divine promise: {Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.}
A religious book so important to the lives of millions and hundreds of millions, and now nearly two billion people cannot be preserved in this manner without being touched despite the existence of all reasons, doctrinal reasons, and political reasons to distort, falsify, or amend it.
This is evidence of divine preservation of this Prophet’s book. This Qur’an has been challenging humanity for the last 1450 years. And this challenge will remain until the coming of the Hour – if they all gathered to produce the like of this, to bring forth ten surahs like it, or produce a surah of the like.
And this Qur’an, which is still vibrant and brings people out of the darkness and into the light, is its immortal miracle. The prophets and messengers also have their accomplishments, and the greatest achievement of our Prophet and our Master, the Messenger of God Muhammad is this human achievement that has been achieved by his hands. It is in itself it the closest thing to a miracle – this deep and tremendous transformation that has been achieved in the society of the Arabian Peninsula by his hands and thanks to his vocation, efforts and jihad.
If we go back in history, the Arabian Peninsula was made up of Mecca, Yathrib [it was not called Medina yet], the city of Taif, a group of large towns, tribes, and clans, all the way to Yemen including its cities, civilization, and former kings. This entire region that we now refer to as the Arabian Peninsula was the main setting for the Prophet’s movement and missionary work.
Let us take a look at the people in that community before the birth of the Prophet and his missionary activities – their way of life, their religious life [What did they worship? What did they believe in?], their education [reading and writing], their level of knowledge, their culture, their values, their traditions, the values governing that society, poverty, deprivation, their security situation, the wars, the tribal wars, and their dispersion.
The Messenger of God [PBUH] did not come to address one aspect of the lives of these people, but rather all aspects, foremost is the doctrinal, belief, knowledge, cultural, ethical and behavioral dimensions. If we then studied the way of life of the people in the Arabian Peninsula after the Prophet’s missionary work, efforts, and jihad, what has become of these people?
What are the serious, deep, and very important transformations that took place, especially on the human side? Their faith and belief? The way they shifted from worshipping idols to worshipping the one God? Their sciences, their culture, and the system of values? Their perception of man, woman, other human beings, and the followers of other religions? Their customs, traditions, discipline, behavior, and morals? This tremendous human transformation that took place in the Arabian Peninsula and constituted the main basis for the launch of this nation and the spread of its voice and message to the whole world, making it the basis for global change, is Prophet Muhammad’s accomplishment.
The most important and very remarkable aspect is that this accomplished in 23 years only. We know that bringing about huge change in the lives of people within 10, 20, 30, and 40 years is hard, especially when it comes to culture, doctrine, values, and behavior. But this was achieved by the Messenger of God. He also paved the way, as we have said, for this humanitarian and religious pillar until the Hour of Resurrection.
I wanted to make this introduction so that I can delve into the topics that I want to speak about. All Muslims throughout history until the coming of the Hour have love, adoration, respect, and appreciation for this great Prophet, unmatched with any other human being and despite their love, appreciation, and reverence for all the prophets, messengers, awliya, imams, and righteous and good people throughout history.
All Muslims have a distinct view, a special faith and love, for this man, this person, and this figure. Muslims may disagree throughout history. This happened in several cases – intellectual cases of sometimes ideological nature, Islamic rulings, in cases of halal and haram, evaluating Islamic history, evaluating persons. In contemporary time, they may disagree on important social and political issues, conflicts, wars, etc.
But there are unanimous points and issues that Muslims have not disagree on throughout history, and they cannot depart from until the Hour of Resurrection. Among the most important of these unanimous points is their belief in Muhammad bin Abdullah [PBUH], his message, his prophethood, his greatness, and his stature.
They see him as the seal of the prophets since there is no prophet after him, the master of messengers, the master of creation, the master of beings, the most perfect man and the greatest human being, and the closest of God Almighty’s creations to Him, the most beloved and dearest of them to Him. This is how Muslims view this Messenger and this Prophet.
With this faith, his love is mixed with their blood, flesh, being, bodies, souls, minds and hearts because this belief is not only an epistemic belief, a philosophical belief, or a cultural or intellectual belief. No, there is a kind of distinct emotional, spiritual and psychological relationship. Of course, this is and will always be required towards the Prophet as they glorify him in this world and see his greatness and special stature in the Hereafter.
From here, we will use one point as a springboard to move on to other topics. Therefore, Muslims cannot tolerate any offense or insult directed at this great Messenger, and they consider defending the dignity of their Prophet as one of the highest priorities that comes before any interests and calculations, be it political, economic, or related to their lives. They consider this matter a top priority. They cannot be forgiving about it, nor can they remain silent about any behavior or practice that insults or offends the Great Messenger of Allah.
From here, I delve into the first file in tonight’s talk, which is the current problem that concerns all Muslims in the world today – the current problem between the French authorities [from the top of the pyramid] and Islam and the Muslims. I would like to speak calmly, objectively, and scientifically in order to dissect this issue and search for solutions, that is to reach a solution and not perpetuate enmities or search for new ones.
We begin with the latest incident that took place in the French city of Nice, in which a Muslim man killed three people and wounded others.
We will start from the end and return to the beginning. We strongly condemn this incident, and Muslims from the various scholarly, religious, and political positions, as well as the Islamic world and Muslim communities in France, Europe, and everywhere condemned it.
Islam also condemns such incidents, and it is not permissible for anyone to regard it as belonging to Islam. Islam and the Islamic religion, which forbids killing, assaulting, or harming innocent people just because of differences in ideological affiliation, reject it and reject every similar incident that preceded it or comes after it.
For us Muslims and Islam, it is always rejected and condemned, wherever this incident occurred and whoever was targeted – in France or anywhere in the world.
Let us establish this point as a basis so that there is clarity later.
Secondly, in the context of this case, it is not permissible for the French authorities or others to hold the religion of the perpetrator or the followers of the perpetrator’s religion responsible for the perpetrator’s crime. In other words, if the perpetrator of the crime is a Muslim, it is thus not permissible for anyone to hold Islam or the Muslims in France or in the whole world responsible for this crime. This is fundamentally an incorrect, unrealistic, illegal, and immoral perception.
When a person commits a crime, he must be held responsible for this crime, regardless of his motives, even if he believed that his motives are religious. This happened in France and in Europe, and it is happening in other places in the world.
We might have to speak in terms of Muslim and Christian. We will, however, not come near the Jews. If a Christian man committed a crime of this kind – and this happened in France and most of the crimes that are committed in France are not committed by Muslims as well as in Europe – the media usually does not shed light on it. But whoever follows it knows about statistics and figures. Is it right for someone to say the one who is responsible for this crime is the Jesus Christ [PBUH], God forbid? Or the Christianity? Or hold the Christians in the world responsible? Or the Christians in the country where the crime was committed? No one accepts this behavior. Unfortunately, the French authorities are doing this.
President Macron and the rest of the French officials spoke about Islamic terrorism – now someone has translated it to Islamic terrorism or Islamic fascism, a lack of difference. There is no such thing as Islamic terrorism or Islamic fascism. If someone is committing an act of terror, then he is a terrorist. And if he commits a crime, then he is a criminal. But we cannot say Islamic terrorism and Islamic fascism.
Today the United States of America is committing massacres all over the world from the year 2000 onwards, the wars they’ve committed in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in the region after September 11. Let us put aside World War I and II, Hiroshima, and the likes and just talk about the current generation.
Millions of people have been killed, and the Americans admit that hundreds of thousands have been killed in these wars, even if some were killed by mistakes such as weddings that were bombed in Afghanistan, sometimes deliberately. Does anyone come out and say that since the United States of America’s president and government are Christians and its army is mostly Christian, then this American terrorism is a Christian terrorism? Or that the one who bears the responsibility for this terrorism, God forbid, is Jesus Christ or the Christian religion whose values and teachings contradict these terrorist acts?
Muslims did not say that what the European armies, including the French army, did in Algeria and what the others did in Libya and elsewhere in our region is a Christian terrorism and that the Christian faith is responsible. Not at all. And if someone said this, then they are mistaken.
This phenomenon is at the very least not present. Therefore, it is absolutely impermissible to generalize and hold a religion or the Prophet of a religion or the nation that believes in a religion responsible for a crime committed by any person belonging to a certain ideology or religion whether he was a Muslim, Christian, or Jew. This is wrong and should stop. The French and French officials do it every day. However, there are those who are correcting and saying no, we respect Islam as a religion. If you respect Islam as a religion, you have to change the term “Islamic terrorism” and “Islamic fascism”, and you do not have to follow Trump who uses this kind of terms.
Third, we heard in the past few days that you are objecting that someone in France offended your Prophet. The most important is that some Muslims also offend your Prophet and your Islam. I would like to say here that some Muslims definitely offend Islam and that some Muslims offend the Prophet of Islam, and some commit very, very serious offenses.
And what we have witnessed in the past few years in terms of terrorist acts and crimes, including the demolition of mosques, churches, and historical monuments; the killing of people; the beheadings; the cutting open of chests; and the slaughtering of people like ewes based on their affiliations – foreign media have also promoted and photographed them in the world.
These are major offenses to our religion and our prophet, and we were attacking this and we strongly object to this, but suppose this is correct and not an assumption, if some Muslims offend our Prophet this does not justify you to offend our Prophet, if some of you offend your sanctities, are we allowed to offend your sanctities? This is absolutely no logic, the prophets, the apostles, the religions, the religious symbols, the sanctities of the nations must be respected, even if the followers, the nation or the group come out from within the community who does not perform this respect and exceed this respect.
These are major offenses to our religion and our prophet, and we attacked this and strongly objected to this. But let us suppose, this is true and not an assumption, that some Muslims are offending our Prophet. This does not justify you to offend our Prophet. If some of you offend your sanctities, are we allowed to offend your sanctities? This is absolutely not logical. Prophets, messengers, religions, religious symbols, and the sanctities of nations must be respected, even if followers, a nation, or a group do not respect them.
Fourth, here I continue to address the French officials and the public. Instead of holding Islam and the Islamic nation responsible for these terrorist acts that are taking place in France, Europe, and other places, let us discuss together your responsibility towards these actions and groups.
Let us go back 10 years, from 2011 onwards – we won’t say 50 years ago – there was a terrorist takfiri ideology that adopted killing just because of ideological, intellectual, sectarian, and political differences. They even committed brutal crimes just because they disagreed with the other about a detail.
You protected this ideology. The Americans, the US administration, the French governments, the European governments, you protected it, you provided it with all the facilities in the world. People that disagreed with your way of thought faced difficulties in obtaining a visa when they wanted to take part in an activity in your country. But doors were widely opened to those with this [takfiri] ideology and were protected.
You facilitated the presence of these groups that were formed and adopted this ideology in Syria and Iraq. You helped support, arm, and fund them until these groups gained experience and a fighting spirit. Now, you are surprised about a massacre or a beheading?
Where did this begin? Did it start in our region and countries? Who did this? You supported them politically, via the media, and financially. You provided them with international protection and international conferences. You opened borders for them, gave them passports, and facilitated their arrival to the region. Acknowledge your responsibility first and how much responsibility you bear regarding this matter.
I invite you to go back to the 2011-2012 archives where I or many others told this to you, especially to the Europeans – do not be part of this global war against Syria, Iraq and the region; these groups could not penetrate into Lebanon. Do not adopt them. Do not defend these people. Do not facilitate their arrival and do not strengthen them because you will lose this battle, and these groups will turn on you. This ideology will turn on you. These groups and these people will return to your country and will flood them with terror and destruction.
They will return to your countries and do what they did in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and other countries. On that exact day, we told you, America is far away, and the closest to our region is Europe, and the most serious threat is to Europe and you have to be aware. But you were too proud to listen. You believed that you will win this war, and it is known afterwards where you ended up.
Today, you must also acknowledge your responsibility. Do not blame those who have no responsibility. What is the relationship of the Messenger of Islam, Muhammad bin Abdullah, with these crimes? What is the relationship of his religion, Islam, and the Quran with these crimes? What is the relationship of a nation of two billion Muslims with these crimes?
The people you embraced, protected, nurtured, and brought to your countries are the ones who are responsible. This is what you should reconsider because you are still pursuing these sorts of policies. I will repeat what I said and use the same tone that we used when we were stating our position: We cannot be in a front alongside those who behead, cut chests open, eat livers, and slaughter.
These were your allies and your groups, and they were protected by you. That is why you – the French, the Europeans, the Americans, and their allies in the region – must reconsider your behavior and methods, including the employment of these takfiri terrorist groups as tools in political projects and wars. You never learn. You did this in Afghanistan, and you paid for it on September 11. You made mistakes and are repeating the same mistakes. The use of these type of groups as tools must stop. Otherwise, you too will be paying the price of these mistakes.
Secondly, the French authorities have put themselves and France and also want to involve all of Europe and the European Union in a battle with Islam and the Muslims for flimsy and sometimes incomprehensible reasons. I will speak from a position of concern and not to score points. What is the reason? Meaning these developments that took place in the past weeks and was clearly shown by the media – an open and clear war in France from the president to the government, from the ministers to the parliament, and from the media to the street. What is the reason? What started this problem? Who assaulted the other? Who offended the other?
This issue began when the sinister French magazine published insulting cartoons of the Prophet of Islam, so Muslims rose up to protest in more than one place in the world. This matter then developed into a series of events, including the killing and beheading of the history professor.
Instead of taking the initiative to deal with this matter, to absorb it, and to have a real and correct attitude towards it – let us wait, not confuse truth with falsehood, not to mix things together; there is a main reason that led to these repercussions – instead of dealing with the repercussions, unfortunately the French authorities declared a war of this kind. They insisted that this is freedom of expression, and we want to continue practicing freedom of expression and the satirical cartoons. This came from the top of the pyramid. Basically, what is the message you are sending to the two billion Muslims in the world?
What are we talking about here? It is not about a political, financial, or economic matter, nor is it a conflict or a battle. We are talking about a matter related to their Prophet, their Messenger, and their Master, whom I spoke about at the beginning and stated what he represents to them. To the French authorities, what deserves this sacrifice?
You took it upon yourselves to protect this battle and adopt it, then you tell us you’ve got values including freedom of speech and that you don’t want to abandon them. Let us discuss this a little. Why did I say at the beginning, we want to speak calmly and objectively? The first discussion is operational and procedural. If it was really this and the way things are in France or in Europe, one could have said that let us see how we can approach the subject from another angle.
However, the issue is not like that. You must first convince the Muslims in the world that this claim is sincere. They do not accept that. This is not an honest claim. This is not a true claim. We have a lot of evidence and examples in France and Europe on practices by authorities that prevent freedom of expression, rather suppress freedom of expression. There are matters that may be less sensitive than a topic related to a prophet two billion people in the world believe in.
In order not to waste all the time, I will give one well-known example because it does not need much explanation. It’s about the French philosopher Roger Garaudy. You can find this example in television archives, documentaries, films, and articles. What the man did was write a book and a study regarding the myths behind the genocide of the Jews, or the so-called Holocaust. He presented a scientific discussion and figures, discussed numbers, wrote an academic scientific study, and spoke about the political exploitation of this incident. To date, Europe, especially Germany, is being blackmailed by international Zionism because of this issue. The man did not curse, insult, mock, or draw satirical cartoons. He did not even touch on Judaism. He only tackled an important and sensitive issue that happened in Europe. What did the French authorities do to this French philosopher?
The judiciary sued him. He was tried and defamed, and he was sentenced to prison. It is possible that because he was very old, they did not implement the sentence. The man was suppressed. Is this freedom of expression? Is this the value you are defending? Yes, it may be said that when the matter affects a certain sect, “Israel”, or the Zionists, then freedom of expression ceases to exist. But when it affects another sect, an entire nation with two billion people and their sanctities, freedom of expression remains absolute.
There are many more examples like Roger Garaudy that one can mention in different occasions, confirming that freedom of expression in France and in Europe is not absolute, but rather it is limited by legal, political, security, and other restrictions.
This claim – that it is an absolute freedom which allows anyone to do whatever they want, for a newspaper or a cartoonist to draw cartoons of the Prophet of Islam, or for someone to make a film mocking the Prophet of Islam – being acceptable is not right. We can give you many more examples. But this is unacceptable.
This means that your battle is now based on a non-existent and non-realistic basis. This is not your reality, and we can come up with a list of how you behave on television, newspapers, magazines, and radio stations because they adopt, for example, certain ideas or broadcast certain programs. This is in the archives. This is first.
The other aspect, which is also important, is the discussion – is it true that you really possess this value in this manner? If we look at it from a humanitarian and moral perspective, is there such a thing as absolute freedom of expression? Meaning, isn’t there a limit? Why does freedom of expression cease to exist when it comes to anti-Semitism? When a person insults, exposes, and attributes lies and crimes to others, is this acceptable? You don’t have a problem with this in France and in Europe? Is it really like this?
Is this true? If a person publishes secrets and documents affecting national security under the rubric of freedom of expression, how do you deal with him? How do America and the West deal with him?
If someone said some things, announced some things, or wrote about matters that may lead to internal strife or a civil war or breach national security, how do you deal with him? Does freedom of expression end when someone’s dignity is on the line?
We wish and demand a reconsideration because this is not a humanitarian value. This is contrary to humanity. This is not a moral value. This is against morals and moral values. Therefore, it must be reconsidered.
I would like to conclude this part and this file. I would like to address the French authorities and tell them, today in the Islamic world no one is looking for new enmities or new battles, and I do not think that two billion Muslims think in this way.
On the contrary, Muslims are working to alleviate enmities in this world and keep the specter of wars away from them and confrontations they always pay the price for. You should think about dealing with this sin and this great mistake that has been committed.
I heard French officials saying that we do not submit to terrorism. It is not required that you submit to terrorism. You are required to fix the mistake, and addressing the mistake is not submitting to terrorism. On the contrary, insisting on a mistake and going into confrontations that do not serve anyone is submitting to terrorism. It is heeding to the demands of terrorism and terrorists who want to blow up all the squares in the world. You must go back to the source and address this mistake. This is not submitting to terrorism.
First of all, you are applying it incorrectly. Apply it correctly. Apply it to Muslims just as you would apply it to non-Muslims. Be fair and be just. Offending our dignities, the dignity of our prophets, and the dignity of our Prophet is something that no Muslim in the world can accept. I would like to clearly tell you – even if the political regimes in the Arab and Islamic world found excuses for their conspiracies, concessions, and betrayals, they will not be able to remain silent and cover up the insults before their people when it comes to offending their holy Prophet who is adored and respected by the people. Therefore, this battle that you insist on fighting is a lost cause.
What will happen to the political and economic interests of France and the French people as well as its relations with the peoples of the Islamic world if it continues on this path? This matter must be addressed, and you can find a solution for it.
I conclude by saying that instead of dealing with the repercussions and mobilizing more soldiers and security services to prevent terrorist operations of this kind, address the root of the problem. Stop the excuses and treat the root of the problem. Do not allow this mockery, this aggression, and this insult to continue, then the whole world will stand with you.
In any case, terrorist acts are condemned as I said at the beginning, but it is your responsibility and everyone’s responsibility to address matters from their roots.
Here, it is possible to consider His Eminence the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar’s proposal that calls for an international legislation to prohibit this type of action which concerns Muslims and the Islamic nation. The same or similar wording can be adopted. For example, we can talk about adopting international legislation criminalizing the act of insulting the prophets and messengers, insulting divine religions, or insulting the sanctities of nations. Any form of this kind.
Of course, if an international legislation of this kind is adopted, this will form a legal ruler over freedom of expression and will create a way out for the French government and for all other governments that claim to preserve freedom of expression as being part of their values and laws.
A solution to this matter must be found. The world does not need any more problems, confrontations, and wars. It is not permissible to push the world and its people, especially our Islamic nation and the European countries that such positions, into confrontations and wars of this kind for the sake of trivial, absurd claims that lack any humane, moral, and legal grounds. The responsibility of dealing with it today lies primarily on the French authorities, and everyone must cooperate to address this file and put an end to this strife. This was the first file. In the context of marking the birth of the noble Prophet and the massive crowds we saw yesterday in Yemen’s Sana’a and in a number of Yemeni cities and governorates, one cannot help but take note of this scene and its indications.
Despite the devastating war – when we say war, that means there is killing, wounding, displacement, and destruction of buildings that is now in its sixth year – despite the blockade, the starvation, difficult living conditions, outbreaks and diseases, and despite all these difficult circumstances, we find the masses gathering in Yemeni cities. For what? To commemorate the birth of the Messenger of God and to defend him. I would like to talk about this topic for a few minutes.
In Lebanon and elsewhere, we know what it means when a country is in a state of war. There is the possibility of an aerial bombardment at any moment, and the aggression does not hesitate to kill civilians including men, women and children. Despite all the security, health, and environmental dangers as well as the state of war, these people come out to express their deep faith in the Messenger of God, their great love for the Messenger of God, and their unparalleled willingness to defend the dignity and honor of the Messenger of God. Is this not a sign, a strong message that all people must take note of?
First and foremost, I call on Muslims in the world who believe in this Prophet, respect, and adore him to take note of what we saw yesterday in Yemen. These people chant for hours, repeat songs and slogans, and listen to their dear leader, His Eminence Sayyed Abdul Malik Al Houthi, as he explained and clarified. In the conclusion, he affirmed that they stood firmly and categorically by the Palestinian cause and alongside the Palestinian people.
Take a look. The besieged Yemenis, the strangers in this world today, the ones being attacked, those who are fighting diseases, hunger, blockade, and all difficult circumstances do not resort to any excuse to abandon Palestine, the Palestinian cause, or the Palestinian people. They declare their determination and adherence to Palestine and the Palestinian cause and their defense of the Palestinian people.
In return, there are those who have luxury and affluence, those who are immersed in the pleasures of the world, who did not engage in a war with the “Israeli” enemy in the first place rush to abandon Palestine, recognize “Israel” and normalize with it. Is this not a divine argument?
They affirmed that they will stand by the countries, people, resistance movements, and the axis of resistance in the face of American and Zionist projects, even though they are in dire need for the world to stand beside them and defend them. Muslims and all peoples of our Arab and Islamic region and the world should retake note of what we saw and heard yesterday.
They should take note of it with a humanitarian, ethical, and religious background. I tell you today this is a new, divine, religious argument on all Arab and Islamic scholars, officials, leaders, elites and people all over the world. It is a new, divine argument for them to break their silence. Those who support this American-Saudi-Emirati and unfortunately, Sudanese aggression against the people of Yemen must withdraw this support.
And those who are still silent about this daily crime should break their silence. A large and powerful wave and movement must be formed in the Arab and Islamic worlds to put pressure on those leaders, the leaders of the aggression who insist on continuing the aggression and the war. This is the least thing we can do to show loyalty to them – the people of knowledge, the people who adore the Messenger of God, and the people defending the Messenger of God [PBUH].
It is time for this unjust and criminal war to stop. The greatest and most urgent duty today is to work on ending this war. The greatest thing a Muslim can offer on these days to the Messenger of God is to stand by those who deeply believe in him, those who love him with affection, those who defend him with their souls, blood, money, and children. This is also in the context of the commemoration.
Time is over. I, in fact, wanted to talk a little about the topic of normalization in the region, the land border demarcation negotiations with occupied Palestine, the security situation at the southern Lebanese border with occupied Palestine, the “Israeli” military maneuvers, and the general situation in Lebanon. But considering that the first file took a lot of the time allotted, God willing, I will deliver a speech on Martyrs’ Day on 11-11, the day commemorating Hezbollah’s martyr. Therefore, I will postpone these topics. I will only talk about the formation of the government in Lebanon.
Of course, we hope that the Prime Minister-designate, in cooperation and understanding with His Excellency the President of the Republic and in cooperation with the rest of the parliamentary blocs, will be able to form a new Lebanese government as soon as possible. Of course, everyone knows that the financial, economic, and social conditions in Lebanon cannot be managed and addressed without a government with legal powers. The caretaker government cannot continue, so we carry this hope.
Our data indicate that the atmosphere is reasonable, positive, and good. We do not want to exaggerate the positivity, but the atmosphere is reasonable. We will cooperate from our part and will facilitate in whatever way we can, God willing.
Much of what is reported in the media and in articles is not true. Some are not accurate, while others are baseless, especially with regard to our approach to forming the government.
God willing, we are positive, and we will remain positive. We will provide whatever help we can to aid the concerned officials in forming the government as soon as possible. We will not spare any effort in this regard, God willing, especially now. This is the real challenge.
Regarding the anniversary of the October 17 movement, what was awaiting the country, and what some people were expecting, God willing, if there was time, we will talk about it later.
It’s not the time to engage in disputes and quarrels. It’s time for understanding, cooperation, and openness to form a government, God willing.
I want to conclude by mentioning the dangerous rise in coronavirus cases. Now, we are recording 2000 cases. This is a very dangerous thing. At the beginning, people used to complain when the numbers hit the 60, 70, or 100 mark. Now, the numbers are hitting 1600 and 1800 cases, and we will be nearing 2000. You know the situation of the hospitals. The death toll is rising day by day, and it seems that many people have become accustomed to this situation and are coexisting with it.
I repeat and say that negligence is inhumane, immoral, and illegal. In the religious sense, it is a sin, and it is haram.
There are countries in the world today -since we were talking about France- that are heading into lockdowns, the same in Germany, in Spain, and in Italy. The Americans cannot see in front of them – there are 80 thousand or 90 thousand cases. Some people in the world are going mad, while others are opting for new measures.
We cannot continue in this way in Lebanon. It is not a matter of the Health Ministry, but rather the whole government, the whole country, scholars, religious authorities, political leaders, fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, parents, brothers, sisters. It is a humanitarian responsibility that concerns everyone. Everyone should wear masks, adhere to social distancing, and sanitize. These measures reduce the dangers of getting infected. Lockdowns that cause people to lose their jobs and starve are not the only solution. Coexistence is possible by adhering to the measures.
I would like to call on people once again and I will never tire because it is my legal, moral, religious, and humanitarian responsibility as well as the responsibility of each and every one of us to commit while we call on others to commit [to the health measures]. Otherwise, we are heading towards a very dangerous path at the health level that requires a major cry in the country and dissatisfaction with the existing reality.
I ask God to protect everyone, heal everyone, and guard everyone with his eye that does not sleep. Once again, I congratulate you on the birth of the Master of Messengers and the Seal of the Prophets Abi Al-Qassem Muhammad bin Abdullah. I ask God to make us among those who believe in him, his lovers, and those who are following on his path and are committed to his teachings. May He grant us his intercession on the Day of Resurrection and put us with him and never separate us from him in this life and in the Hereafter. May He allow us to mark this occasion again with goodness, blessing, victory, peace, and health. Many happy returns. Peace and Allah’s mercy be upon you.
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
[…] 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.
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.https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x6e7jhb
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.).
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.
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.
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.
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.https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x7x99lo
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.
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!
I just read your piece on Freedom of Speech & Holocaust Denial. It was like a breath of fresh air in the putrid atmosphere choking us around here. I don’t think you follow the situation in France, but things are crazier than ever since the gruesome murder of a teacher, Samuel Paty. In the name of Free Speech –because the only country criminalizing the slightest questioning of the Holocaust’s official version thinks he’s the world leader in this area– all Muslims are now explicitly branded as fair game, and the public debate revolves around Charlie Hebdo’s pornography and the alleged courage & wisdom it takes to publish their hateful caricatures or show them in class to 13 years-old pupils, many of them Muslims.
Let me fill you up with the details as they unfolded.
In the first days of October, in a Middle school located in the Paris suburb, a History-Geography teacher showed Charlie Hebdo caricatures of the Prophet to his 13-years-old pupils in a Moral & Civic class devoted to Free Speech. A pupil and her father denounced it on Facebook videos, stating that the following had happened:
The teacher told his pupils that he was about to show some depictions of the Prophet that might shock some of them. Before doing so, either he asked the Muslims in the classroom to identify themselves and get out, or merely allowed them to do so. Most of the Muslim pupils got out, but this particular girl chose to stay and then protested against this outrageous display. One of those drawings was among the most offensive ones, showing the Prophet totally naked in a lascivious position, zooming on his hairy testicles & dripping penis, and depicting his anus as the Islamic five pointed star, with the legend “A star is born”. The pupil claimed that she got expelled 2 days for refusing to leave the room that day. The father denounced this teacher online as a “thug” who “ought to educate himself before educating others”, and called on people to protest by contacting the Middle School, giving its address and the name of the teacher. He said he was submitting the case to the CCIF, the Collective Against Islamophobia in France. He also went to the police and filed a complaint for display of pornographic images to children (rightly so in my eyes, there is no other way to put it).
Later it was said that this particular pupil wasn’t even in class that day, and that she was expelled from the school for 2 days for other (unspecified) reasons. But the teacher’s account to the police is roughly the same as to what happened, and he just denied having asked Muslims pupils to identify themselves or go out, saying he only suggested those who might be shocked to look away. He filed a complaint against the father for defamation.
The case got some attention on social media. From here, I suppose that the murderer, an 18-years-old of Chechen background living 50 miles away, saw the case online and decided to come and kill the teacher. On the afternoon of October 16th, he went to the school and asked some pupils to show him the teacher, paying them to do so according to the police (they are now indicted for complicity in the murder, though they had no way to imagine he intended to kill him). He followed him as he was going home and murdered him. He beheaded him and posted the severed head on Twitter with this message: “In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. From Abdullah, the Servant of Allah, To Marcon, the leader of the infidels, I executed one of your hell dogs who dared to belittle Muhammed (peace be upon him), calm his fellows before you are inflicted harsh punishment.”
Police found him right after the killing and as he refused to surrender and “opened fire” (with an “Airsoft gun”, as the media puts it, instead of using the much more common “soft ball gun”), they killed him.
From here, the collective anti-Islam hysteria reached new depths. News shows are awash with hatred against Muslims (most of the time, only the right, far right and extreme right are seen debating on BFM and CNews, our CNN & Fox News channels), the Charlie Hebdo caricatures of the Prophet are shown on TV (though the most offensive one shown by the teacher is rarely to be seen), cities project some on buildings, and the government wages war on the most prominent Muslim organizations, branding them as “enemies of the Republic” and vowing to banish them for the most preposterous reasons (anonymous comments on social network mentioning them, etc.). A mosque that merely shared the father’s original video is already shut down.
The police arrested the father and another man who denounced the case online –as well as the killer’s family and some pupils–, indicting them for complicity of murder & terrorism (while only defamation seems relevant if they indeed lied). Macron came to the place of the killing right away and made a fiery speech, vowing that “They shall not pass” –a few weeks ago he had devoted a whole speech to denounce “Islamic Separatism” and vowing to reform it (a project Law against Separatism was rebranded Law for Secularism for fear of being censored by the Constitutionnal Council, as had happened shortly before with the Avia Law against online hatred that was rejected as violating free speech, as it was forcing websites to preventive censorship of all suspected contents). Our Interior Minister, Gerald Darmanin (accused of rape & abuse of a vulnerable person: he asked for sexual favours in exchange for providing social housing to a woman in need when he was mayor; despite multiple blowjobs, she never got the house), vowed to dissolve 51 Muslim organizations, including mosques, private schools, a Charity called Baraka City, and the CCIF, merely because it was mentioned by the father in the video. It’s a real crackdown against Muslims, linked or not to the case. Darmanin clearly said that Police operations have been launched against “dozens of individuals” who are not “necessarily linked to the investigation but to whom we want to send a message”. Here is the reaction of VIGI, a very tiny & marginal Police Union (most cops are with the fascist Union “Alliance”): “We are not thugs who pass a ‘message’, at the request of a mafia godfather, but law enforcement police, dear @GDarmanin. The nuance is important.”
Darmanin went as far as saying that he is shocked that supermarkets have shelves with exotic food, thus shaping a new concept: culinary separatism. I didn’t believe it at first. Things got so far it’s hard to tell between the real news and satire.
What happens with the Collective Against Islamophobia, is revealing: simply because they were mentioned and informed of the case by this angry father, the government wants them banned. It’s an all-out, blind witch-hunt, chasing any display of Islam. It’s like they are encouraging terrorists by blocking the way to any kind of defense or legal complaints in cases of Islamophobia. The far right coined a nice concept years ago, “judiciary djihad”, but now it has gone mainstream. If you kill you are a terrorist. No problem with that. But even if you protest legally and file a complaint to the police, you are a djihadist & complicit of murder. If you denounce something online, it means you called for violence, even if you didn’t, so you’re still an “online terrorist”, the “intellectual author” of a future crime. The media & government clearly denounced the two men who went online with the case as being complicit with the terrorist, without any proof whatsoever (“The video was made to lead to something violent”, claimed the Education Minister, as if he was the public prosecutor). I guess following this logic, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists could be indicted as well, if the one making things public is responsible for any reaction of any madman. I’m sure that if you were French, your own article comparing Charlie Hebdo to Der Sturmer would have gotten you into trouble.
And don’t dare criticize the police. The Interior Minister himself filed a complaint for defamation against an obscure, anonymous blogger who denounced the systematic killing of terror suspects even when they pose no threat (the murderer was on foot and had a knife and toy gun, clearly identified as such by the police officers who surrounded him before the shooting began; he was riddled with 9 bullets, and killed -or “neutralized” as the bashful media put it- as he laid on the ground, Elor Azaria style).
The irony is that the murderer had the status of political refugee (he came with his family from Chechnya at 6 years-old). And some of his tweets simulating a decapitation were signaled months ago to the authorities who did nothing and didn’t even have him on their radar (I guess they’re too busy tracking Unionists, bloggers & Muslim charities), so it’s a clear fiasco for the Interior Minister. Our government is allied with the beheaders of Wahhabi Saudi Arabia & creates and supports terrorists everywhere, from Afghanistan to Chechnya to Libya to Syria to Yemen. In 2013 our Foreign Minister Fabius famously said that “Al-Nosra does a good job in Syria”, when he was protesting the US decision to brand them as terrorists. And when these terrorists come back home and attack the wrong innocents, they pin the blame on the main victims of the West’s plots, Islam and Muslims, before anyone can blame them. The Yellow Vests & awful management of the pandemic made them the most unpopular government in France’s history, and their last hope before the next elections is to capitalize on the tragedy and steal electors from the racist Far Right whose anti-Islam, anti-Immigration speech is now mainstream.
Thank God it’s holidays. Blanquer, the Education Minister, is preparing a “strong, powerful and strict educational framework” for November 2, when pupils will get back to school. Will he make the Charlie Hebdo pictures mandatory? We can’t rule out anything with such a world-class opportunist (in 2007, when Sarkozy was campaigning and cozying up with the UOIF, a Muslim’s organization, Blanquer kicked out a prefet, Alain Morvan, because he was delaying the construction of a Muslim school out of security & extremism concerns), considered as the grave-digger of what remains of school and teachers’ status and rights (for one, they have no right to express themselves, and can be disciplined for online comments or strikes). This man casually wears the kippa in the synagogue, along with all the government, but publicly said that the Islamic veil “is not desired” not only at school but in any part of society because of “what it says about women”. Funny conception of secularism that allows him to have the final word about what a religious item means. Blanquer also denounced the “ravages” of “Islamo-leftism” in Universities, in the student’s Union UNEF (I guess it’s because their spokesperson, a French-born convert, wears the Islamic veil) and teacher’s radical Union SUD, and in the France Insoumise, Mélenchon’s leftist political party allied with the Communist party, the only strong opposition besides Marine Le Pen’s neo-fascist far right: just because the left denounces Islamophobia, they are explicitly accused of paving the way for the terrorists (“These people favor an ideology which then, ultimately, leads to the worst.” Blanquer said.)
Even a Teacher’s Union, published a Charlie Hebdo caricature and called on teachers to use them in class, and all High Schools will have books devoted to them. It’s insane: do they want to make out of schools, supposedly neutral and peaceful, a violent battlefield? Given the racism & islamophobia of many teachers, many zealots will certainly show the Prophet’s pictures to their pupils, even in places with a majority of Muslims, and it’s asking for trouble. Here is how Pierre Tevanian, a High School Philosophy teacher, rare drop of wisdom in an ocean of madness, put it:
Then, just a few days after the terrible attack, without any consultation on the ground with the concerned profession (i.e. teachers), there was astonishing news in the press (that’s how we got the information, as usual): all the Regional Councils of France have decided to distribute a “collection of caricatures” (we do not know which ones) in all High Schools. “If one has to give his blood. Go give yours”, says the song. So let these elected officials go and distribute their little Republican Bibles themselves in the markets. But no: it is our own blood, shitty little teachers, despised, underpaid, insulted for years, that must be shed, it was decided in high places. And possibly the blood of our pupils as well.
Because we have to face the facts: if this information is confirmed, and if we accept this role of heroes and martyrs of a power that plays little tin soldiers with teachers and pupils of flesh and blood, we officially become the preferred target of terrorist groups. To an enemy which functions, in its choice of targets and in its political communication, only with challenge, symbol and the invocation of the honor of the Prophet, our leaders answer in full irresponsibility by challenge, symbol, and targeting the image of the Prophet. What should we expect? Are we ready for it? I am not.
All this is done in the name of Free Speech, Secularism & the Republic’s values. While Jules Ferry, the father of the so-called “Republican School” (and godfather of French colonialism and theory of “superior races having the duty to civilize inferior races”), stated in a famous “Letter to teachers” in 1883, about Civic and Moral classes (the very one Samuel Paty chose to illustrate with Charlie Hebdo):
“If at times you were embarrassed to know how far you are allowed to go in your moral education, here is a rule of thumb that you can stick to: before offering your students any precept, any maxim, ask yourself: Is there, to your knowledge, only one honest man who could be offended by what you are about to say? Ask yourself if a father, I say only oma single one, present in your class and listening to you, could in good faith refuse his assent to what he hears you say. If so, refrain from saying it; if not, speak boldly, because what you are going to communicate to the child is not your own wisdom, it is the wisdom of the human race, it is one of those ideas of a universal order that several centuries of civilization have made part of the heritage of humanity. However narrow such a circle of action thus drawn may seem to you, make it a point of honor to never go beyond it, to stay within this limit rather than expose yourself to crossing it; you’ll never touch with too much scruple this delicate and sacred thing, which is the conscience of the child.”
I can’t believe I miss this reactionary imperialist.
“Fear is going to change side… Islamists won’t sleep peacefully” said Macron. Since “Islamists” clearly means “Muslims”, he nailed it all right. My wife is afraid to go out with her hijab, especially after she heard that two Muslim women were savagely attacked next to the Eiffel Tower and stabbed a dozen times shortly after Samuel Paty’s murder. First the mainstream media ignored it completely, and it was only seen on militant social media –because Muslims cannot but be the aggressors. Then the main media outlets mentioned it as semi-fake news, denying the attack had anything to do with the women’s hijab. Then when the police opened a case for aggravated racist aggression, they were forced to accept the fact reluctantly (and without apologies, of course).
We’ll see what happens in November. I am really worried. I hope for the best but try to prepare for the worst.
Best,
SH
PS: Here are a few examples of the constant hatred heard on TV:
A BFM TV anchor deplored that he didn’t see many Muslims at the funeral of Samuel Paty, as if they all had visible features like beards and veils or represented more than 10% of the population; if they had come ostensibly anyway, it would’ve been denounced as a provocation, as happened with Muslims (veiled women) or pro-Muslims (UNEF members) who were insulted for their presence.
Eric Ciotti, official from the right party Les Républicains, said that the Islamic veil is a weapon, and that bearing arms should be forbidden to Islamists. Thus the veil is to be banned altogether. CQFD.
Ivan Rioufol, far-right columnist, stated about the Covid-19 that he is sick of hearing alarming news about the health situation, and that we should stop scaring people for nothing –after all, it’s merely a life-and-death matter– and care about what really matters, meaning France’s cultural death. Better dead than “colonized”!
Elisabeth Levy, far right anchor in Cnews, said that Muslim women should stop wearing the veil for 1 week to pay tribute to Samuel Paty.
Manuel Valls, former Interior Minister and Prime Minister, said that France should’t be afraid to trample on the rule of law and the European Convention on Human rights. “We are in a state of war. Now is the time to act, strike”, he said. Indeed, there is such a thing as blasphemy in European law, and France know they’ll be condemned if the case gets there. So they speak of forgetting the rule of law and forbidding Muslims’ legal defense groups like CCIF.
Marine Le Pen said the hijab should be forbidden everywhere, and that any person suspected of radicalism and holding 2 nationalities should lose his French nationality right away, without any kind of judicial procedure. However, it is known that Police’s files on terror suspects (“fiches S” as they call them) are merely a tool, encompassing the most innocent (like someone not shaking hands with women) and the most dangerous (like having fought with Jihadis in Syria) forms of radicalism, and often targets Unionists and bloggers.
Among the many questions of the TV debates, there was the expulsion of all women wearing the hijab (not only from schools & administration jobs, but also from universities, public places, streets and the country altogether), the forfeiture of nationality for those wearing it who would be French, the reopening of the “convicts penal colony” “in the Kerguelen Islands”, the reinstatement of the death penalty, and finally the “criminalization” of all conservative Muslim ideologies, “not only jihadism but also Islamism”.
Etc, etc.
PPS : Here are some pictures / cartoons I am sure no teacher will show his pupils, except if he wants to be disciplined (or indicted for apology of terror & incitement… against Charlie Hebdo!):
As events unfold in France centring around Islamophobia, there is a feeling of déjà vu. We have witnessed a few times before this sequence of events. There is some provocation or other targeting the Prophet Muhammad initiated by a non-Muslim group or institution. Predictably, Muslims react. In the midst of demonstrations and rallies, an act of violence occurs perpetrated by an offended Muslim and/or his co-religionists. The violent act leads to further demonization of Muslims in the media which by this time is in a frenzy. Feeling targeted, some Muslim groups escalate their emotional response, sometimes causing more deaths to occur of both Muslims and non-Muslims even in countries far away from the place where the provocation first occurred. One also hears of calls to boycott goods produced in the country where it all started.
On this occasion too it was French president Emmanuel Macron’s vigorous assertion that cartoons of the Prophet produced by the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, in January 2015 and republished since represented freedom of speech that angered a lot of Muslims in France and elsewhere, though some other remarks he had made recently about ‘Islam being in crisis’ and ‘Islamic separatism’ had also annoyed some people. However, it was the beheading of a French schoolteacher who had shown the cartoons in a class discussion on freedom of speech by a Muslim youth of Chechen origin that provoked not only Macron but also other leaders and a huge segment of French society to react with hostility towards Muslims and even Islam. It should be emphasised that almost all major Muslim leaders and organisations in France also condemned the beheading. So did many Muslims in other parts of the world.
It is not enough just to denounce an ugly, insane murder of this sort. Not many Muslim theologians have argued publicly that resorting to mindless violence to express one’s anger over a caricature of the Prophet is an affront to the blessed memory of God’s Messenger. For even when he was physically abused in both Mecca and Medina, Prophet Muhammad did not retaliate with violence against his adversaries. He continued with his mission of preaching justice and mercy with kindness and dignity. It is such an attitude that should be nurtured and nourished in the Muslim world today especially by those who command religious authority and political influence among the masses.
If a change in approach is necessary among some Muslims, French society as a whole should also re-appraise its understanding of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should never ever glorify the freedom to insult, to mock, to humiliate another person or community or civilisation. Respect for the feelings and sentiments of the religious other should be integral to one’s belief system, whether it is secular or not. Just because the French State and much of French society have marginalised religion, it does not follow that it should also show utter contempt for a Muslim’s love and reverence for his/her Prophet especially when 6 million French citizens profess the Islamic faith.
Indeed, respecting and understanding the sentiments and values that constitute faith and belief has become crucial in a globalised world where at least 80 % of its inhabitants are linked in one way or another to some religion or other. We cannot claim to be champions of democracy and yet ignore, or worse, denigrate what is precious to the majority of the human family. This does not mean that we should slavishly accept mass attitudes towards a particular faith. Reforms should continue to be pursued within each religious tradition but it should not undermine respect for the foundations of that faith.
French leaders and elites who regard freedom of speech or expression as the defining attribute of their national identity, should also concede that there have been a lot of inconsistencies in their stances. A French comedian, Dieudenne, has been convicted in Court eight times for allegedly upsetting “Jewish sentiment” and is prohibited from performing in many venues. A cartoonist with Charlie Hebdo was fired for alleged “ anti-Semitism.” There is also the case of a writer, Robert Faurisson in the sixties who was fined in Court and lost his job for questioning the conventional holocaust narrative. Many years later, the French intellectual Roger Garaudy was also convicted for attempting to re-interpret certain aspects of the holocaust.
The hypocrisy of the French State goes beyond convictions in Court. While officials are rightfully aghast at the violence committed by individuals, France has a long history of perpetrating brutal massacres and genocides against Muslims and others. The millions of Algerians, Tunisians and Moroccans who died in the course of the French colonisation of these countries bear tragic testimony to this truth. Vietnam and the rest of Indo-China reinforce this cruel and callous record. Even in contemporary times, the French State has had no qualms about embarking upon military operations from Afghanistan and Cote d’ Ivore to Libya and North Mali which serve its own interests of dominance and control rather than the needs of the people in these lands.
Honest reflections upon its own misdeeds past and present are what we expect of the French state and society in 2020. There is no need to pontificate to others. This is what we would like to see all colonial powers of yesteryear do —- partly because neo-colonialism is very much alive today.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
There have been some horrendous, despicable killings by Muslim extremists in France. Such killings must be condemned.
French president Emmanuel Macron played the victim card, saying that France “will not give into terrorism.” Yet when 21st century France engages in overseas militarism, otherwise known as state terrorism, in places with large Muslim populations – places that never attacked France — such as Afghanistan, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Chad, Somalia, Libya, North Mali, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen then what is to be expected? Is it okay for France to engage in militarism abroad and expect no blowback on French soil? Must not the French terrorism be condemned?
The embattled, unpopular French president has seized upon the gruesome killings to denounce terrorism and championed “French values,” such as freedom of speech. [1]
Once again the controversial publication Charlie Hebdo has provoked a lethal response.
But the French, especially its politicians, are hypocrites. If free speech allows one to impugn one religion, then then that right to impugn must be allowed for all religions. Take the case of French comedian Dieudonné. He has been convicted in court eight times for upsetting Jewish sentiment and has consequently been embargoed by many venues where he would normally ply his trade.
Many years earlier, professor Robert Faurisson, an extreme skeptic of the typical Holocaust narrative, was hit wth by judicial proceedings, was fined, and lost his job. Is this respect for free speech? Professor Noam Chomsky experienced blowback for supporting free speech in the case of Faurisson. Chomsky held, “… it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense.” [2]
As for France defending freedoms, The Times of Britain notes,
French authorities have been accused of “judicial harassment” in a damning Amnesty report that claims more than 40,000 people were convicted during the gilet jaune (yellow vest) and pension reform protests in 2018 and 2019 “on the basis of vague laws” aimed at restricting their rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.
The controversial media outlet Charlie Hebdo is not about either free expression or speech. It fired a cartoonist for alleged anti-Semitism. [3] On its face, Charlie Hebdo signals that Islamophobia is kosher, but Judeophobia is haram.
Macron said “France is under attack.” [4] Were Afghanistan, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Chad, Somalia, Libya, North Mali, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen not under attack when the French sent their guns to these countries? [5]
“Attentat de Nice – ‘La France est attaquée’, 7 000 militaires déployés, les églises et les écoles sous surveillance : ce qu’il faut retenir des annonces d’Emmanuel Macron” L’Indépendant, 29 October 2020.
Note some of these 21st century conflicts are still ongoing.
*(Top image: French President Emmanuel Macron meets Prime Minister
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah on Friday condemned the Nice attack, stressing that Islam forbids killing the innocent people and categorically rejects such crimes.
In a televised speech on the occasion of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) Birthday, Sayyed Nasrallah called on the French authorities and public opinion to avoid blaming Islam and all Muslims for the attack which targeted Nice City or any other area in the world, confirming that such acts are illegitimate and immoral and that only the culprits must be persecuted.
Sayyed Nasrallah rejected the French President Emmanuel Macron’s use of the “Islamic Terror” term, underscoring the obligation of respecting Islam and wondering whether religions can be blamed for crimes committed by individuals.
In this context, his eminence said that no one blamed Christianity for the crimes committed by the French military in Algeria or the atrocities of the US army all over the world.
Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized that the takfiri and terrorist groups in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Iraq, have been protected by the US administration and the European governments, adding that employing those terrorists to carry out certain political and military scheme must be stopped.
Sayyed Nasrallah maintained that if some Muslims have distorted their own religion, this does not give the others any right to abuse Islam, stressing that the Islamic teachings have nothing to do with the crimes committed by the terrorist groups.
Hezbollah leader pointed out that the recent tensions in France started with publishing that cartoons which abuse Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), continued in the form of Muslim protests against the insults and developed into the murder of the French history teacher.
“Instead of addressing the root causes of the problem, the French authorities waged a war of this sort, claiming that it is a matter of freedom of speech.”
“What is the message which the French authorities want to send to the Muslims by insisting on allowing the cartoons which insult Islam?”
Sayyed Nasrallah called on France and the other Western States to convince the Muslims that it is a matter of freedom of speech, adding that facts prove other abuses, especially those related to ‘Israel’ are banned.
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the freedom of speech in France is restricted, citing the example of the philosopher Roger Geraudy who was persecuted for denying the Holocaust.
Hezbollah Secretary General stressed that the aim is not instigating hostilities and conflicts, calling on the French authorities to address their sin and confirming that the Muslims can never accept any humiliation and insult against their Prophet (PBUH).
“Undoing the mistake is not succumbing to terrorism. Be fair as the insults against the Prophet can never be tolerated by all the Muslims. Even the political regimes cannot cover up such abuses. So, you have to withdraw the excuses and stop this violation,” Sayyed Nasrallah addressed the French authorities.
Sayyed Nasrallah called for adopting the proposal of Egypt’s Al-Azhar based legislating international laws that criminalize abusing the religions and sanctities, underscoring that freedom of speech must not be away from restrictions so that the world countries avoid paying heavy prices for these violations.
Yemen
Hezbollah Secretary General highlighted the million-man celebration of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) across the Yemeni provinces despite the Saudi-led aggression and blockade in addition to the poverty crisis and the pandemic outbreak, stressing that this reflects the depth of their Islamic faith, love to the Prophet and readiness to defend Him.
“Millions of Yemenis march for hours before listening to the speech of the dear Sayyed Abdul Malik Al-Houthi, voice commitment to the Palestinian cause and reiterate readiness to defend the Palestinians, while those, who enjoy a luxurious life and have never engaged in any war with ‘Israel’, rush to abandon Palestine and normalize ties with the enemy.”
This should be a divine indication that the Yemenis must be supported and that the Saudi-led war on Yemen must be immediately stopped, according to Sayyed Nasrallah.
“All those who back the Saudi-Emirati-Sudanese aggression on Yemen must reconsider their calculations immediately.”
Lebanon
Domestically, Sayyed Nasrallah expressed hopes of a speedy cabinet formation, stressing that Hezbollah will cooperate with all the parties in this regard.
“It’s time to form the new government, not to engage in disputes.”
Regarding the sharp rise in the number of coronavirus cases, Sayyed Nasrallah urged all the residents to commit the anti-pandemic measures and highlighted the religious aspect of this commitment.
Sayyed Nasrllah stressed that the Prophet’s Birth was the prelude of announcing the unaltered and the final revelation of the Holy God, adding that Prophet Muhammad showed a number of miracles as all the other Prophets.
The eternal miracle of Prophet Muhammad is the Holy Coran which has been preserved for 1400 years and will remain till the Resurrection Day in accordance with the divine promise and can never be matched by any human book, Sayyed Nasrallah pointed out.
Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that Muslims love, appreciate, respect and sanctify Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) more than any other human being, though they love all the other Prophets.
Muslims disagree on many jurisdictional, political and other issues; however, one of the issues that have remained consensual among them through history is their love to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and belief in His Greatness as a perfect human and closest creature to Holy Allah, according to Sayyed Nasrallah.
“This love is not only cognitive and philosophical but also spiritual. Muslims glorify their Prophet (PBUH) and consider his distinguished position, so they may never tolerate any humiliation or insult against Him.”
Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized that Muslims consider defending Prophet Muhammad (PBUH as a top priority above any other issue and find it obligatory to respond to any abuse which targets the Messenger.
Sayyed Nasrallah postponed tackling a number of other topics, including the normalization deal with the Zionist enemy, the military drills of the Israeli occupation army and the situation on Lebanon’s southern border, due to the time consideration for the upcoming speech scheduled to be on November 11 on the occasion of Hezbollah Martyr’s Day.
Beirut – Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered a televised speech marking the birth anniversary of the Prophet of Mercy, the Messenger of Islam Muhammad bin Abdullah [PBUH] and his grandson the sixth Shia Imam Jaafar bin Muhammad al-Sadiq [AS].
After congratulating the entire Muslim world on the blessed occasions, Sayyed Nasrallah lectured France on the morale and rank of the holy prophet among his Muslim nation, and called the French authorities to reassess their measures and their standards upon which they tackle the freedom of expression.
His Eminence further elaborated on Prophet Muhammad’s [PBUH] existing miracle that will remain until the day of resurrection, which is witnessed in all times, in reference to the holy book that Allah has sent his last prophet, the Holy Quran.
“The survival of this holy book in this accurate manner is a miracle in itself despite all reasons to distort it,” His Eminence stated, adding that “The most notable achievement of Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] is the humanitarian achievement he made in the deep and huge transformation of the Arabian Peninsula community.”
All Muslims respect, sanctify, and appreciate this great prophet unlike any other human, though they love and appreciate all other prophets, Sayyed Nasrallah underscored.
“Among the most important social points for Muslims is that they believe in the greatness of Prophet Muhammad [PBUH], and they view him as the most complete human and the closest creature to Allah the almighty,” His Eminence added.
Making clear that Muslims could never tolerate any insult or humiliation directed at the great prophet, Sayyed Nasrallah added that they consider defending the dignity of their prophet among the top priorities that is above all other interests and calculations.
Elsewhere in his remarks, the Hezbollah Secretary General stated that the Nice incident is strongly condemned and rejected by Islam; the religion that forbids killing or attacking civilians. “All similar attacks are rejected in the first place from Islam’s viewpoint.”
However, he emphasized that neither the French authorities nor others are permitted to blame the religion or the community of the religion to which the perpetrator belongs.
Making the example closer to their minds, Sayyed Nasrallah asked: If a Christian man commits such a crime, which happened indeed in France, is it right to say that all world’s Christians are responsible for this crime?
“The US today commits crimes all over the world, and they admit the killing of thousands in such wars. Did any Muslim accuse Christians of those crimes just because the US President is Christian?” he then questioned.
Highlighting the importance of respecting Islam as a religion, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that the matter requires to stop using the terms of “Islamic terrorism” and “Islamic fascism.”
“If some Muslims offended Islam it doesn’t give the right to any other side to offend it too. The Takfiri terrorist ideology, which adopted killing just for ideological differences in our region, was protected by the West.”
Blaming the West for nurturing the Takfiri and terrorist ideology, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that “The West has, in the first place, to look for its responsibility for Takfiri groups, and the US administration and the European governments supported and funded Takfiri groups in Syria and Iraq.”
His Eminence then ruled out Islam’s involvement in such terrorist acts, adding that “Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] and the Muslim nation have nothing to do with the crimes committed by the Takfiri groups.”
Sayyed Nasrallah also noted that the Americans and the Europeans should reassess their behavior of using terrorists as tools in their political schemes and wars. “Using such kind of tools must stop, otherwise you [the US and the West] will pay the prices for those mistakes.”
Referring to the origin of the Muslims’ problem with the French authorities, Sayyed Nasrallah recalled that the crisis began when the notorious French magazine Charlie Hebdo published cartoons insulting Prophet Muhammad [PBUH], and the French authorities, instead of dealing with the issue, started a war of this kind and insisted to continue publishing such sarcastic cartoons.
Instead of dealing with the repercussions, Sayyed Nasrallah advised the French authorities to deal with the reasons. “We have many evidences that they suppressed the freedom of expression in less sensitive issues that insulting the Prophet. We have many evidences that they suppressed the freedom of expression in less sensitive issues that insulting the Prophet.”
Commenting on the double standards when it comes to the freedom of expression in France and Europe, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that is not an absolute matter, but rather restricted with security and political considerations. “When it comes to ‘Israel’, this freedom stops in France, and the examples are many. Why does it stop when it comes to anti-Semitism?”
His Eminence called for reassessing the concept of the freedom of expression, especially when it harms dignities, recommending the French authorities to deal with this grave mistake.
“Do not allow the progress of this aggression, violation and sarcasm. Offending the dignities of our Prophets is not accepted by any Muslim in the world,” Sayyed Nasrallah said as he addressed the French authorities.
He also assured them that they will lose this battle that they insist to continue. “Where are France’s interests in its relations with the Muslim world if it wants to continue in this situation?”
The responsibility for dealing with what happened in France is related to the French authorities’ performance, His Eminence added.
Blasting the Arab regimes that normalize with ‘Israel’, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that they are not allowed to remain silent and cover such offense against the sacred prophet for their people.
The resistance leader hailed the strong significances of the Yemenis’ presence in defending the Prophet [PBUH] despite all difficulties: “Despite the siege and war in Yemen, we find the Yemeni people assemble to celebrate the Prophet’s birth anniversary.”
He then urged Muslims and the entire world to read yesterday’s scene in Yemen with fidelity and religious background. “A major movement must be formed in the Arab world to press for ending this brutal war against Yemen. It is the least of our duties,” Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized.
He then called on Muslims to support the Yemeni people as the most notable thing they would present today to Prophet Muhammad [PBUH].
On the Lebanese level, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the country cannot continue with a caretaker government. He then assured that Hezbollah’s information say that the cabinet formation circumstances are good and acceptable, adding that: “We will cooperate and facilitate the formation. Time now is not for internal problems.”
As for the surging COVID-19 cases across Lebanon, Sayyed Nasrallah repeated and recalled that leniency in the battle with the Coronavirus is unethical, inhumane and illegitimate. “The responsibility for fighting the Coronavirus belongs to everybody; the government and people, not the Health Ministry alone,” His Eminence concluded.
Before ending his sermon, Sayyed Nasrallah noted that he will deliver a speech on November 11, the day that marks Hezbollah Martyr’s Day.
I won’t even bother repeating it all here, those who are interested in my views of this entire Charlie Hebdo canard can read my article “I am NOT Charlie” here: https://thesaker.is/i-am-not-charlie/
No, what I want to do is to ask a simple question: do you think the French leaders are simply stupid, suicidal or naive? I submit that they neither stupid, nor suicidal nor naive. In fact, they are using a well practiced technique which goes with some variation of this:
Infiltrate some pseudo-Islamic gang of cutthroats (literally!)
Keep them under close scrutiny ostensibly for counter-terrorism purposes
Inside the group, try to promote your confidential informers
Have your analysts work on the following question: “how could we best provoke these nutcases into a bloody terrorist act?“
Once the plan is decided, simply execute it, say by organizing the posting fantastically offensive caricatures
Once the cutthroats strike, blame Islam and double down
By then, you have infuriated most of the immense Muslim world out there and you can rest assured that the process is launched and will continue on its own. You can now relax and get the pop-corn
Have your propaganda machine declare that Islam is incompatible with western civilization (whatever that means in 2020, both Descartes and Conchita Wurst I suppose…)
Shed some crocodile tears when the cutthroats murder some completely innocent Christian bystander
And announce a new crusade against “Islamism” (also a vague and, frankly, meaningless term!) and crack down on true Muslim communities and ideas while continuing to lovingly arm, train, finance and direct the “good terrorists” who have now become your own, personal, cutthroats.
Cui bono?
Anybody who knows anything about the political realities in France will immediately know in whose interests this all is and who is behind that: the Zionist power structure in France (CRIF, UEJF, etc. and the Israelis). They have a total control over Macron and over the entire political class, very much including Marine LePen.
Who else could have concocted the “beautiful” term “Islamo-Fascisme“?!
In its inception (from Ahad Ha’am, Theodor Herzl, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, etc) Zionism used to be a largely secular and nationalistic, then, later, after WWII, it became very leftist and still secular ( Ben-Gurion, Shlomo Lavi, Golda Meir). Modern Zionism, however, is both rabidly racist and religious – the perfect example would be US neocons. It is also a ruthless and genocidal ideology which has created something truly original: God-mandated racism, something which, as far as I know, no other religion professes (so much for the ignorant and, frankly, plain stupid notions of “Abrahamic religions” or, even worse, “Judeo-Christian values”!). National Zionism is the next phase of Zionism – it is rabidly “conservative” (in a Neocon sense only, of course!) and it parasitically feeds on whatever nationalist ideology the local patriotic goyim are inclined towards (the best example of that being the so-called “Christian Zionists” in the USA).
But here is the demonic “beauty” of it all: in a society like the French one, the Zionists don’t even need to micromanage their false flags: given enough uneducated and murderous pseudo-Muslim cutthroats and enough rabid secularists wanted to offend the faithful – some kind of violent explosion will *inevitably* happen!
Right now, between the embarrassing Yellow Vests movement, the crumbling economy, the massive influx, wave after wave, of unwanted and un-adaptable immigrants and the resulting social tensions, the French regime is in deep trouble. Add to this the COVID pandemic which just added to the chaos and anger and finish with a total lack of foreign policy successes and you will immediately see why this regime badly needed what could be called a “patriotic reaction”.
Finally, there is the time-proven method of scaring your own population into a state of catatonic acceptance of everything and anything in the name of “security”.
We see it all in France today, we saw it in the UK before, and also in Belgium. And, rest assured, we will see much more such massacres in the future. The only way to really stop these “terrorist” attacks is to show their sponsors that we know who they are and we understand what they are doing. Short of this, these attacks will continue.
لم يمض عشرة أيام على خطاب الرئيس الفرنسي الذي شنّ فيه حملة غير مسبوقة على ما أسماه الإسلام السياسي الانعزالي (انظر مقالة البناء يوم 6 الشهر الحالي بعنوان: ماكرون يحارب الإسلام انتخابياً) حتى وقع ما حذّر ما منه وكنا نخشاه، وحصلت جريمة ذبح أستاذ الجغرافيا والتاريخ في مدرسة في إحدى ضواحي باريس على يد مهاجر شيشاني بسبب اتهام بعض أهالي الطلاب للمعلم بالإساءة للنبي محمد عبر تخصيص حصة حول الرسوم الكاريكاتوريّة التي نشرتها صحيفة شارلي أبدو قبل أعوام.
هذه الجريمة البشعة والتي لا يمكن سوى إدانتها وشجبها، لم تأت من فراغ ولم تحصل صدفة أو لأن هناك أشخاصاً أو شخصاً قرّر ارتكابها، كما أنها ليست حالة منفردة ونخشى أنها لن تكون الأخيرة في مسلسل الصدام الذي بدأ بين فرنسا وسلفيّيها الذين طالما احتضنتهم وربّتهم وسهّلت لهم كل سبل القوة طمعاً بالأموال القطرية والسعودية التي لا تتوقف عن إمداد هؤلاء السلفيين تحت أعين الأجهزة الفرنسية ومعرفة الساسة في فرنسا، فضلاً عن سعي فرنسا للعب دور سياسي وعسكري في العالم العربي عبر استخدام مجاميعها من السلفيين في ليبيا ومن ثم على نطاق أوسع في سورية.
الآن وبعد حصول هذه الجريمة التي نكرّر إدانتنا لها، وبدلاً من أن تعمل الحكومة الفرنسية والرئيس الفرنسي على إعادة النظر في الحملة التي بدأها ماكرون على الإسلام كدين وعلى مسلمي فرنسا بحجج واهية محملاً إياهم مسؤولية وجود مجموعات سلفية في أوساطهم متناسياً أن هؤلاء السلفيين كانوا الجهة المدللة للحكومات الفرنسية المتعاقبة منذ عهد شيراك حتى اليوم. هذه الحكومة وهذا الرئيس صعّدوا من هجومهم على الإسلام وعقد الرئيس الفرنسي إيمانويل ماكرون اجتماعاً شبه عسكري وامني طارئ يوم أول أمس الأحد حضره كل من وزير الداخلية ووزير الدفاع والخارجية والتربية وقائد أركان الجيش ومدعي عام الجمهورية الخاص بقضايا الإرهاب نتج عنه قرار من الرئيس بتسريع الإجراءات والقرارات التي اتخذها قبل عشرة أيام؛ وهي في خلاصتها تضع الإسلام كدين في خانة التجريم والمسلمين كبشر في خانة الاتهام المستمر ووضعهم تحت نظام حالة طوارئ، في مسعى انتخابي واضح وفرت له جريمة الجمعة الماضية أسباب الاستغلال الرخيص والخطر.
أخشى ما أخشاه أن تكون جريمة الجمعة الماضية ليست سوى بداية الصدام بين متطرفي الحكم في فرنسا ومتطرفين سلفيين طالما عملوا سوياً وكانوا حلفاء في سورية وليبيا، والآن انقلبوا على علاقتهم القديمة لأسباب انتخابية وأمنية وسياسية سوف نشرحها في مقالات مقبلة..
TEHRAN – In an indirect reference to the republication of cartoons insulting the Holy Prophet of Islam (PBUH) by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Wednesday slammed “institutionalized hypocrisy” under the pretext of the freedom of expression.
“Freedom of Expression? Or Institutionalized Hypocrisy? Instigate violence and hatred against 1.8 Billion Muslims by stereotypical defamation and desecration of their Holy Book and Prophet,” Zarif tweeted on Wednesday.
However, in an indirect reference to the Holocaust which is not tolerated to be questioned in the West, Zarif said, “Touch party line about events in recent history—repugnant as they are. Enough already.”
Freedom of Expression? Or Institutionalized Hypocrisy?
Instigate violence and hatred against 1.8 Billion Muslims by stereotypical defamation and desecration of their Holy Book and Prophet👏
Touch party line about events in recent history—repugnant as they are⛔
Mojtaba Zonnour, the chairman of the Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, who met with French Ambassador to Tehran Philippe Thiebaud on Wednesday, slammed Charlie Hebdo’s republication of cartoons insulting Prophet Muhammad (S).
“This action, under the pretext of the freedom of expression, has hurt the Muslims’ feelings,” Zonnour told the French diplomat.
The senior MP predicted that the action will add to complications in the region.
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also condemned the magazine’s move, saying the move once again exposed the enmity of the political, cultural centers of the Western world toward Islam.
“The unforgivable sin of a French magazine in insulting the Holy Prophet (PBUH) once against exposed the enmity and the vile spite of the political and cultural centers of the Western world toward Islam and the Muslim community,” Ayatollah Khamenei said in a message on Tuesday.
He said freedom of expression is misused by some French politicians to not condemn such great crime. This is “completely wrong and demagogic,” the Leader noted.
The deep anti-Islamic policies of the Zionists and arrogant governments are the cause of such hostile moves, said Ayatollah Khamenei.
“This move at this time could also be a measure to distract the nations and governments of West Asia from the sinister plots of the United States and the Zionist regime for the region.”
“Muslim nations, especially West Asian nations, should maintain vigilance regarding the issues of this sensitive region and never forget the hostility of Western politicians and rulers towards Islam and Muslims,” the Leader concluded.
In a reckless and provocative move, on September 2 Charlie Hebdo republished the same cartoons about Prophet Muhammad (S) that prompted a deadly attack on the magazine in 2015.
The cartoons were republished so as to mark the start of the terrorism trial of people accused as accomplices in the attack. The magazine posted the cartoons online on September 1 and they appeared in print the next day.
13 men and a woman accused of providing the attackers with weapons and logistics went on trial on charges of terrorism.
Twelve people, including some of France’s most famous cartoonists, were killed on January 7, 2015, when two French-born brothers of Algerian descent, Said and Cherif Kouachi, went on a gun rampage at Charlie Hebdo’s offices in Paris.
The brothers identified themselves as belonging to the terrorist group al-Qaeda and cited “avenging the prophet” as their reason for the attack. The attack touched off a wave of killings claimed by Daesh (ISIS) terrorist group across Europe.
On January 9, 2015, Said and Cherif’s friend, Amedy Coulibaly, took hostages and killed four people at a kosher supermarket in Paris. Coulibaly and the Kouachi brothers, who were in contact during the attack, were killed in standoffs with the police.
10 months later, in November 2015, a group of Daesh gunmen and suicide bombers killed 130 people and injured more than 400 at multiple sites across Paris, which became the deadliest of the attacks.
Throughout the world, many Muslims see the publication of the cartoons as a renewed provocation by Charlie Hebdo, which has a history of publishing material considered racist and anti-Muslim.
Tehran on September 3 strongly condemned the French magazine, saying any insult against the prophet of Islam and other divine prophets is not acceptable at all.
“The French magazine’s offensive move, which has been repeated on the pretext of freedom of speech, has hurt the feelings of the world’s monotheists, is a provocative move and an insult to the Islamic values and beliefs of over one billion Muslims in the world,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said in a statement.
![Sayyed Nasrallah’s Full Speech on Prophet Muhammad’s [PBUH] Birth Anniversary](https://english.alahednews.com.lb/uploaded2/images/20201111120947.jpg)
![Calls for boycott of French products - Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]](https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/SUhM8nrysD9UhrgrCoiVyARel8zcoFIfS0uLyt5WyUea3CD647BbcoYWX5tdREemHJj8rxBFqtKBnxpwgMKf1olf2Q_21bu7Rs-sSEuj-Zji-2MwfIz2NX_TTIwX65RnAHXZVa05af4wHwRux1f5zmJMWb-FOA=s0-d-e1-ft#https://mcusercontent.com/0f75dc11487e03cbba46b3dd8/images/d4584fd6-e431-4cbe-843a-59dabe152567.jpg)
![Sayyed Nasrallah: Insulting the Prophet [PBUH] Unacceptable; US, The West to Pay the Price of Nurturing Takfirism](https://english.alahednews.com.lb/uploaded2/images/20201030224640.jpg)
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 