Ayatollah Qassim: People are not obliged by the outputs of the dialogue if there is no refereundum

Ayatollah IsaQassim: People are not obliged by the outputs of the dialogue if there is norefereundum

The second part of Friday prayers Sermon for Ayatollah Isa Ahmed Qassim Imam of the Grand Mosque in Duraz (Imam Al-Sadiq Grand Mosques) on March 1st 2013.

First: Prohibited by a low or resolution

To hold a sit-in in a certain area is prohibited by law or resolution, even if it does not disrupt the public interests.

To conduct a peaceful protest in the Capital is prohibited.

Talking about politics in some mosques is also prevented.

To meet and gather for prayers at selected time is neither allowed.

Conducting the rituals of the funeral in certain areas is also forbidden.

Burying the martyr’s body must be in certain places; otherwise its burial will be prevented.

Thus the prevention expands more and more until it covers most areas of life, blocks the outlets, takes the liberty and freedom away, tightens the grip on people’s breaths, andintenses the pressure.

When all the outlets to be blocked, people’s patience will start to run out according to the human nature. As a result, people will try to do the impossible and overcome all the barriers even though they expect that they will lose their lives. However, these reactions from people come in a last-ditch attempt to maintain the decent life. Thus, blocking the outlets is a dangerous thing to do.

Banning things overly and excessively will demolish the ban itself. The excessive restrictions will push people to break the cordon and rebel against the reality.

It is rational thing not to block the outlets or impose restrictions in unbearable way. The Lord God Almighty has only forbidden immoralities – what is apparent of them and what is concealed – and he has not forbidden anything else, so, how is it supposed that me or someone wants to be obeyed if he/she doesn’t allow the permitted things and areas and prevents most or all areas of life?

There is a reality that people cannot endure while there is a reality that people endure even though it represents a critical need that people find unbearable. The true religion – Islam – has taken into consideration that its instructions are endurable and come along with people’s abilities and takes into account that its provisions are not burden on people as it considers the reality and position of human being.

Whoever wants the people be patient and endure the laws and solutions, he should not exceed the limits of people’s capacities and his laws must not be tyrannical in a way that it turns people’s lives into hell.

Violence

Condemning the violence became a slogan that the regime and its followers have repeated again and again. This comes within their ongoing demand from the political institutions of the opposition and people to repeat this slogan – which precisely means that they want the institutions, oppositions’ figures, and people to condemn the violence which the regime accuses societies, people, and figures of.

“Condemn yourselves, prove your crimes, punish yourselves, and witness against yourselves”.

It was not sufficient for the authority the opposition’s rejection and condemnation of violence as the authority wants to exonerate itself completely from its violence and terrorism and the exposed murders it committed in the marches and demonstrations and other cases through its services and militias.

The opposition’s statements and declarations which condemn the violence, including the declarations of non-violence principles, were not enough for the government as it requires from the societies and clerks and figures a practical stance which condemns strictly the violence that the authority tries to attribute to the people, figures, and clerks. Beside the condemnation of the violence, the authority today has also asked from the opposition to provide a practical stance that condemns the violence. What is this practical stance supposed to be? Is it required from people to establish an army from their sons to confront their own popular movement and demonstrations?

Does the authority want us to confront and fight each other as a practical way to condemn violence?  

The statements of the government and its followers has been circulated, informing the societies, clerks, and figures that it is not enough to condemn violence and requiring interfacial war and divisions between the opposition’s ranks as a way to eliminate violence!

This issue has been also referred to in the dialogue by the representatives of the authority as a condition for the dialogue. This condition comes in the dialogue despite the authority’s murders of the innocent citizens, not to mention how clear these murders are even though the competent official authorities ignore them because these crimes condemn the authority itself.

Fight and kill each other in order to prove that you have taken a serious stance against the violence!

This condition which is adopted in the dialogue and the terrorism practiced outside on the ground are interacting to destroy and undermine the dialogue.

The Referendum

Everyone knows that there is on Bahrain’s ground an authority and people. Not people only. Not authority only. Not only authority, political societies, and independent figures.

On the other hand, everybody knows that the severe current problem is between two parties which are the authority and people.

Everyone knows well that anyone talks on behalf of the authority – without an explicit mandate from the authority – will not represent the regime and authority even if this person is a member of the regime. It is the same thing for people. When one citizen or a member of some society talks on behalf of all the people without an explicit mandate, it does not mean that this person represents the people. All these issues are clear and have no dust on them.

In the light of these clear issues, any dialogue that does not engage the two parties which both must have an explicit mandate from the authority or the people, is not considered adialogue. Thus, the outcomes of the dialogue cannot be fair and legal if the dialogue itself doesn’t represent the genuine parties. This is known at the level of Sharia, logic, law, and custom.

From the practical side, let us assume that there are two ceilings for the outcomes of thedialogue and what it might end with.

The first ceiling might achieve ten degrees of the reform while the other might achieve twenty degrees of the reform. If the second ceiling gains the consent of the two parties in thedialogue but is not accepted for some reason, will this ceiling achieve the required calmness? Will this ceiling make the authority and people closer to each other? Will this ceiling stop the protests, demonstrations, and marches? Yes to these question is only an obstinacy and stubbornness.

The lower ceiling might gain the consent of people, if their votes have been taken in consideration. Will this calm the situation? Will this lower ceiling end the tension and the anger? Will this ceiling put our homeland on a new path away from the disorders? The answer is: Yes, for sure. This what will happen if there is an honest referendum that does not circumvent anything or makes trickeries.

The referendum of the dialogue’s outputs will oblige people and make them committed to outputs at the same time.

According to the language of Sharia, law, and sanity, and for all those who want the calm situation and wish the protests with its various forms to end, the referendum is a must. If you want people to be committed to the outcomes and oblige them at the same time, you should take their opinions. How can you make them obliged to the results or how can they be committed to the outputs if you do not take their opinions in the matter or if they don’t agree on this matter from the beginning.

Without this referendum, people will remain oppressed, even if the parties involved in thedialogue have a deal.

Who disrupts the dialogue?

The day which will witness the serious reform is a day that people and opposition wait on pins and needles. If there is a dialogue which will bring such day and achieve people’s goals, the popular side will be keen and help to make this dialogue successful and complete.

If the authority sees that there is no problem that requires a solution, people do not agree on this denial as they burn with the fire of the problem.

If the authority believes that there is a problem and feels its pressure but does not feel that there is an urgent need to solve it, it must know that people urgently need the solution of the serious reform and do not want it to be postponed but not at the expanse of the seriousness of the reform. People will not accept the shaky, incomplete, weak, and circumvented reform.

In the light of all this, it is not imagined that the opposition’s side will obstruct the dialogue or work on its failure because the opposition is wise and rational and it cannot commit such a folly.

If someone works on the failure of the dialogue and blocking it, it will not be the opposition for sure and the practical proof on this is the attempts of deliberate murders – that the arena witness – through the bullets and running over the bodies by the car.

Humanitarian precedent!

There is a precedent that the arena of our homeland has witnessed! It is the deliberate and the unfair imprisonment of the killed people – who were deliberately killed and at the same time their bodies were prevented from the burial.

This State comes to be marked with the imprisonment of the dead people.

Our country started a new stage in the field of imprisonment as it imprisons the bodies of the free martyrs.

On the other hand, our country can compete with the other countries in the imprisonment of the people – who are alive – of different ages! Our country can be proud of the women and martyr’s imprisonment as this is a precedent! There are many glories in this country that people renounce and disown.

May God bless the martyr Mahmoud Bin Isa. He took the path of faith, pride, and dignity. He is one of the long series of the martyrs in this homeland.

Valuable and cheap blood / Expensive word

According to the authority in Bahrain, the blood of the official is a valuable and we agree with the authority in this. However, it considers the blood of the people cheap. This thing is not approved by any religion or justice or conscience or law or custom or charter.

On the other hand, there is a word that costs highly in the local politics. It is the word which demands the rights of people.

The valuable blood – according to the authority – leads them to release the provisions of death and life sentence and take confessions from people under torture. Considering people’s blood cheap, the authority acquits the killers who killed deliberately one of the opposition’s protesters.

All these thousands in the prisons, including the figures who were handed life sentence or fifteen years sentence, in addition to those who died under the torture and those who spend their prison terms, prove that the word which demands the rights costs highly and has an expensive price. Its price might be the death under torture!

What is this? Is it justice or transparency or religion or perfection? Do we have to describe it like that?

If you say the opposite of this and survive, it will be considered a bless of the politics and great example of kindness and tolerance.