الرئيسية » English » Translation of the Friday sermon delivered by Sheikh Issa Qassim in Imam Sadiq Grand Mosque in Diraz

Translation of the Friday sermon delivered by Sheikh Issa Qassim in Imam Sadiq Grand Mosque in Diraz

Fatwa by Ayatollah Qassim: Terrorism is Forbidden in Islam


10th January 2013

Questions vs. questions:

Anyone has the right to ask about our stance on terrorism. We also have the same right to ask about others’ stance on the same. We forbid attacking others and terrorism; in which Allah did strictly forbid. Our means to enlighten people with good, and alienate them from bad, will never violate Islamic rulings. We don’t permit taking bad means or non-Islamic acts when demanding reforms. From Islamic jurisprudence point of view, there is no way but to protect blood, privacy and property of people. This is our clear and persistent word to all believers; no to terrorism. Nothing other than a nonviolent approach must be adopted while demanding reforms. We must avoid Allah’s discontent by adhering to the good behavior and ethics all the way. These words transcend the humanity to the honorable level of fewer blemishes.

All bad words and deeds which we don’t allow ourselves to perpetrate against others, will never be accepted when others perpetrate them against us. We condemn any unjust terrorist act; any aggression, any violation against the sanctity of blood, privacy and property whoever is the perpetrator, an individual, a group, a party, or a government; all governments in the whole world.

From an honest religious view, we forbid the false testimony. It is the methodology of scientific thinking which differentiates between the doubt, the suspicion, the knowledge, and the illusion. In this context, is not compulsory on us; and we can’t accept any news from people, party or government. There is no right for others impose their stories or accusations on us to agree, buy and do marketing for such allegations.

There is no right for the government to claim something and asks us to blindly follow what has been claimed. We have religion, brain, a scientific methodology and a meticulous evaluation process, to follow; as we are obligated to say what we truly know.

When a party is pointing a finger at you with one accusation after another and you are absolutely certain of its lies and bad intention, then how could it expect you to believe, with no doubt, what it is saying about others, and to promote what it is promoting and spread what it wants you to?

How can one settle to the blatant lies said against him? Why don’t the others ask themselves before they are questioned by others about their opinion and stance on the tyranny and political and economic corruption. The government questions and must be questioned on the torture to death in prisons and the unlawful control over wealth, the refusal of reform and rights, demolishing mosques, banning prayers in mosques, disrespecting the Holy Quran, the media’s incitement of hatred and sedition and excluding others, and this is the tip of the iceberg. Why doesn’t the Government ask itself? Why mustn’t we ask the Government about its opinion and stance on all these unhidden practices, even if the law states what the rights organisations state in this regard?

An advocate for violence or reform?

Sheikh Ali Salman, the Secretary-General of Al Wefaq National Islamic Society, who has been interrogated about inciting sectarianism and calling for violence and terror, as well as spreading false news about some State institutions. This was after he was taken while handcuffed to the prosecution office and then given a travel ban. In reality, is he with sectarianism or against? Are his speeches, sermons and statements honest? Is he an advocate of violence and terrorism or peacefulness and reform?

You as well as politics can describe the man, I mean Sheikh Ali, as being honest in declaring the truth, and courageous in saying his political opinion, and persistent to the demands of the people. He does not like to express his opinions with ambiguity. His speech has not contradicted the constitution and the freedom of political opinion that the authority claims to respect. At the same time, anyone following his views and statements would not believe what the authority is accusing him of. It is hard to believe, considering his vision and ideas, that he would accept oppression of a certain sect or that he would accept incitement of sedition by anyone, let alone practicing such evil himself.

Would you find an impartial person who would describe Sheikh Ali as an advocate for violence and terror? When Sheikh Ali talks about the unhidden situation of the official media, and when he makes statements like those made by rights organizations and international parties about the human rights violations by the hands of the authority in Bahrain, and when he talks about an obvious sick political situation, is he making wrong accusations? And if he highlights problems on the ground that show the sectarian position of the authority, and not a certain sect of the society, then is this considered a call for sectarianism? And if criticizing the official media for its infringements and incitement of hatred in public is a crime, then there is not a single spot in the lands and skies of this country where freedom of expression and speaking and constructive criticism can be exercised. So anyone who says torture is practiced in prisons or during interrogation and that there had been cases of torture to death, even according to rights organisations and the Commission of Inquiry that was Government endorsed would be prosecuted because he said some State institutions have committed illegal practices? Or is there nothing of such? Or are these practices legal? Or was the party who killed the martyrs under torture not Governmental?

There is no call for reform clearer than Sheikh Ali’s, no insistence on the demands of the people like his. He stresses more than anyone to refuse corruption, his call for peace, Islamic and national brotherhood, justice and security to all citizens was the loudest. No one has repeated all this as much as he has. He has always, and more than anyone, renounced violence, condemn terrorism and warned of hatred.

It is of most evil to twist facts to this level, and to act against justice to this extent, and for the truth to be behind this entire blackout and for the truth to be denied this much.

Targeting this man can only be considered targeting reform, rationalism and moderation, peacefulness, Islamic and national brotherhood, the dignity of citizens, freedom and the inevitable truth that reform is a must and cannot be waived. There must be a fair and inclusive solution by respecting the people’s say and will. This is what the people’s persistence and their sacrifices are saying. And this is what the truth and the broad national interest will lead to. This is the direction of the world’s movement today. This is determined by the will of God for every human who takes and sacrifices in the path of truth and right.

What do experiences tell?

The dialogue has been suspended. Actually, it is expected. It failed to reach results, and there was nothing for it to reach but failure. Before this dialogue, there was another one. They said it achieved something, but, the crisis is still waiting for a solution. The previous dialogue produced more complications and the crisis got aggravated after its failure. Actually, the crisis reached a serious danger with  more grievances, the tragedy deepening and the breakthroughs fading. From its first days, the recent dialogue evolved sick, paralyzed and invalid. Therefore, its normal delivery will be nothing but suspension and colossal failure.

More than one experience tells the authority in very fluent, factual and practical language that all sham dialogues are useless; even if repeated thousand times. There is no use of all frolicsome solutions.

Real reform only needs a serious political desire from the authority because it is responsible for and able to make this reform. And if the authority insists on a preface to the dialogue, then it must be of a new type that adopts agreed upon representation, headlines, committed-timeline, essential preliminary pledges and a practically suitable environment far from any escalation in the iron fist and the media’s hatred language to make conflict between the citizens.

Experiences clearly tell us that the worst method to exit any stalemate is severe oppression and repression. Experiences say that repression only destroys countries. This is what we have seen in this country and other countries that witness a conflict between good and evil, between rigidity and positive change towards reform.