The second part of Friday Prayers Sermon for Ayatollah Shaikh Isa Ahmed Qassim Imam of the Grand Mosque in Duraz (Imam Al-Sadiq Garand Mosque) 15th February, 2013.
What did “14th February” say?
The date of “14th February” in 2011, which represents the beginning of the movement, said that people in Bahrain want political reform and the other types of reforms, which the situation of their nation cannot be corrected or straightened without them.
This date also said that Bahrain’s people are patient on the high cost they pay to achieve their demand. This dat e said that people in Bahrain embrace a firm, political, peaceful, and popular demand, and that people resent and hate sectarianism.
This date said that people wait the world to do them justice, while at the same time they reject to depend on the will of abroad or to forget anything related to the principles of their religion or the provisions of Sharia or the interest of their homeland.
All these things were emphasized during the two past years, since the beginning of the movement.
During the last two years, the way was difficult and full of challenges, various experiences and cruel examinations.
In spite of the harsh way, people’s patience and steadfastness increased, the number of participants in the protests grew more, people of various ages and cultures participated in the protests, the slogan of peace was emphasized and stressed on from time to time, the intention was not spoiled, and the coherence was tightly knit. Our issue also imposed its presence in the important capitals around the world and got the interest of important international forums.
What does 14th February say this year?
14th February, this year, says that people of Bahrain are glorious, whenever they say something, they are honest about it. Whenever they move, they prove their solidarity.
14th February, this year, comes along with a strong mass imprint that insists on pursuing the movement to assure that will of reform and change does not retreat.
This day comes to confirm that people do not get tired, and if they get tired, this tiredness will not stop people from demanding their freedom, dignity, and rights.
This day comes to emphasize that this ongoing movement is full with huge sacrifices and agonies.
This day comes to say that people believe in their case and have faith in the justice of their demands and in the mercy of God. This day comes to ensure that people have hope in the victory as this hope does not wilt.
This day comes to say to all those who deal with our case: You should know the qualities of this people, you have to know that our sons’ and daughters’ necks do not bend, that their will does not break, that they only bow to God, and that their foreheads only fall for God’s greatness.
This day comes to tell those who think that Bahrain’s people will give up on their rights and forget their religion or dignity or humanity, this days come say to those who dream that people will retreat their fair demand, that they should give up on this illusion.
This day comes to say that that the rigidity demonstrated by our people for two years does not relent but it gets stronger.
Since our people demonstrate this rigidity, they are for sure aware of their identity as they are away from intolerance and terrorism and aggression.
Our people realize well that dialogue and marches are not the goal, and they know if the goal is achieved, then there will be no marches or protests. The government also knows this.
The aim of people is the serious reform that can save the nation from injustice, disregard of the citizen, corruption, spoilage, and the authority’s control. The aim is to follow the measures of efficiency and citizenship and to refer to what the Charter mentions on considering the people the source of authority.
Whenever this reform is circumvented or loses its seriousness or honesty, the door of marches, sit-ins, and all the peaceful events will be opened to request consideration, exit the injustice, intensify pressure, restore dignity, respond to the religion’s order, and fulfill the rights of the nation.
There is no doubt that authority came to realize that the way to exit the crisis – which people suffered from its difficulties – is only the reform as suppression or dodge or malicious compromise or bargain does not help. Authority came to realize that there are no methods they can follow to stop people from demanding their rights, the only method they can adopt is to meet and achieve these demands.
The sham reform will not work and people will not be deceived or satisfied by it. On the other hand, trying to drag our people into violence in order to smash the movement in one strike is impossible to happen as our people here are aware, mature, and wise, not to mention that they always receive the advice from their leaders.
But the question remains: If the government knows all these things, why does the authority postpone the reform and delay it?
There is no justification for delaying the reform but the psychological barrier, stubbornness, ego, and the unjustly self-esteem. In general this is what it differentiates between the person and right as this what makes person advances its self-interest.
This home will remain in the circles of crises, its wounds and tragedy will increase, the material and moral losses will be more if the authority does not overcome this psychological barrier and its arrogance and stubbornness that inspired by Satan.
The authority needs to exit the country from this crisis and be aware of its danger – in a way that makes the authority realizes that it’s time to change itself and overcome the domination. On the other hand, what people can do is to continue their demands in order to get rid of injustice and oppression they are exposed to.
In Bahrain … there is a conflict and dialogue
There is a dialogue between two wills and a conflict between two wills. These two different wills have discussions because both are certain that there is a severe crisis and they are sure if it continues everybody will drown in the tragedy and there will be no exit.
As for the dialogue, the regime does not engage in a serious dialogue because of the psychological barrier we previously mentioned. Such barrier does not stem from wisdom or justice or mind or charter or nation’s interest.
Based on this, the design of the dialogue will be unfair as it will not include the factors of success. This design will circumvent in one way or other, attempt to decrease the level of reform, and escape the guarantees of implementing the outputs. This kind of dialogue will try to consider and make the outputs only recommendations rather than constitutional provisions – even it was announced recently that outputs will be constitutional provisions.
In the dialogue, the method which both sides and wills adopt is the word – with its different levels, as one of the wills requires the serious reform while the other aims disruption. Yet, on the streets the methods which are adopted by the two parties are different. Those who demand a serious reform in general are huge crowds who use their “throats” to ask what they want while the authority – the other one will which wants disruption- uses tear gases, birdshots, and live ammunition.
The boy Hussain Bin Ali Bin Ahmed Al Jazeeri, who was martyred on the fourteenth of February 2013, is a stark evidence that government follows the language of violence rather than dialogue.
In spite of the huge difference between the both methods, the masses of opposition adheres to the method of word and insist on their demands despite the high cost they have paid.
If this dialogue is a joke or trick..
If this dialogue turns to be a joke or trick as many people think now, this only will deepen the conflicts, increase the split, inflame the sedition, intensify the crisis and lead to disaster.
Dialogue of this kind will eliminate any hope of resolving the crisis. After this, the only way to be left is the conflict and rivalry. As a result, this will cause a deadly home.
If this dialogue ends to be a jock or trick, this will be a thousand times worse than the absence of the dialogue.
The government should be cautious from the failure of this dialogue – which it called for – because the failure of dialogue of this kind for the second time might close door to all the opportunities of the dialogue, turn the matter to the impossible, and cause people to refrain from participating in the dialogue again – this is a disaster in itself.
If it has been revealed, clearly and not intuitively, that this dialogue is similar to the first, then, the voice of understanding will not remain. All what will remain is the divide and merciless irrational confrontation – which will lead the nation to the deadly long dark tunnel.