Friday speeches 15 Zu elhujja 1423h/6 February 2003AD

God says in His Glorious Book; in the course of talking to His Messenger (p.) "O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you don't do it, you have not delivered His message); and Allah will protect you from the people ..." (Quran 5:67).

This Divine call to the Messenger (p.) came after the farewell pilgrimage to ensure that Imam Ali (a.s.) would be in charge after the Prophet’s death for he has all the knowledge, piety spirituality, courage and commitment, a person that lived with the Prophet, and acquired his mind and became united with him in spirit and soul.

This was Imam Ali, who lived with the Messenger since he was a child, following him like a baby camel following its mother, and learning from him all the fields of knowledge. Then he was with him when the prophet called for Islam, when he waged his wars and when he led the society.

The Imam’s home was that of the Prophet. He was the member of the only Muslim house at the time, a house in which only three people lived: Muhammad, Khadija and Ali.

Then when he became Fatima’s husband, his house continued to be the prophet’s house, for it was the first house Muhammad would visit when he comes to Medina and the last one he leaves when he travels.

Therefore, and with all due respect to all companions, Ali was the only one who accompanied the prophet the most, and actually lived with him throughout his life and consequently he was the only one qualified to lead the march of Islam after Muhammad, and ensure its continuity.

That is why Allah, the most Exalted, told His Messenger (p.) that if he did not tell the Muslims that Ali (a.s.) was the appointed leader he would not have delivered Allah’s Message. He added that he had not to worry about any accusations of favoring his cousin, for he was delivering God’s Message and Allah, the most Exalted, will protect him.

Thus, the Messenger (p.) stood at high noon, in the heat of the desert, and called on the Muslims to gather and listen to him, before they go to their homes having finished the rituals of pilgrimage. He then raised Ali’s hands and said: Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?" People cried and answered: "Yes, O' Messenger of God." Then Prophet (PBUH) held up the hand of Ali and said: "Whoever I am his leader (Mawla), Ali is his leader (Mawla). O' God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him. Immediately after the Prophet (PBUH&HF) finished his speech, the following verse of Holy Quran was revealed: "Today I have perfected your religion and completed my bounty upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion." (5:3)) Upon hearing this, some of the serious companions said: Well done Ibn Abi Talib! Today you became the leader (Mawla) of all believing men and women."

This story is agreed upon by both Shiites and Sunnahs, and there is no doubt among them about its authenticity, although some of them have questioned the meaning of the word Mawla, saying that it means that Ali loves or supports, whom Muhammad(p.) loves or supports. But such an interpretation is absurd, and meaningless. It is irrational that Muhammad would gather the Muslims at high noon to tell them that Ali loves whom I love.

Many Sunni narrations including Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal’s have included this story in their tradition volumes. Furthermore, Al-Hakim in his Mustadrak even adds that Muhammad said:

I am leaving for you two precious things and if you adhere both of them, you will never go astray after me. They are the Book of Allah and my progeny that is my Ahlul-Bayt. The two shall never separate from each other until they come to me by the Pool (of Paradise)." Which is a proof not only of the Imamate of Ali (a.s.), but also that of all the Imams.

Then as the events, turned out, Ali (a.s.) was denied his right. What did he do? He did not act selfishly subjectively or personally as a lot of us might do if they are denied their right or if they engage in a conflict with others. They would start to make plots to revenge, even if it creates civil strife.

But Ali (a.s.) considered himself responsible for Islam and all Muslims whether those who believed in his Imamate or those who did not.

That is why when he found the people were apostatizing in the aftermath of the prophet’s death, he was afraid that if he did not support Islam, his feeling of sorrow as a result of the loss will be greater on him than that of loosing the Imamate. Thus he had to step in and fight.

He is also the one who said: “I would hold up my peace, as long as the affairs of Muslims are secured and the only injustice has befallen on me”.

Thus he advised Omar not to take part personally in fighting the Romans, since it was more important to safeguard the institute of the caliphate regardless of who the caliph was.

Dear loved ones: This is Ali the man who never sought for a moment any personal goals…The man who slept in Muhammad’s bed with the people outside waiting to kill the Messenger (p.)… The man whose life was dedicated for earning Allah’s satisfaction saying to his followers when he became a caliph in a state of turmoil: “My concern for you is not the same as yours, I want you for God’s sake and you want me for your own sake”.

This is how we should live, trying to stand against those who incite fanaticism, and hate in our Muslim nation, Sunnahs and Shiites alike, and those who even try to accuse others of unbelief and spreading deviation. Imam Ali says: “I hate you to be slanders”. Thus, when we call for Islamic unity, we call for unity to defend Islam against the non-believers and the arrogant that seek to incite strife, as they are doing in Iraq for example.

We call on all of you to see in the Imam a role model of how to rise above personal ambitions and seek to serve Islam by enhancing the unity of Muslims in this era of critical challenges and the arrogant offensive to dominate our lands, resources and nation.

In his last speech, president Bush said that he is determined to implement a strategy of freedom in the Middle East. He also assented that the war the US is waging against terror and the ideologies of hatred in the Middle East is also a war between conflicting visions for the future.

But is occupation, like what he did in Iraq, the best way to obtain freedom?

Is America pressurizing the region for the sake of freedom or for protecting its interests and that of its giant monopolizing companies?

Moreover, what kind of freedom is promoted by the Zionist occupation of Palestinian lands and people? Why did not Bush condemn all these acts of building settlements and the racial wall?

Does this so-called strategy of freedom turn those who defend freedom into terrorists, while turning the occupiers with all their atrocities to powerless victims?

He talks about those who produce hatred, but he does not include the likud’s politicians and religious men, nor does he mention the Palestinian’s positive discourse of seeking peace if the occupation withdraws.

Can the solution in Palestine be reached when America talks about security measures when it comes to the Palestinians and stands silent towards the Israeli practices that use American advanced weapons to deprive the Palestinians of any sense of security? The Intifada is but a reaction to occupation, and if America were sincere it should start by ending occupation and starting political negotiations, since the issue is a political one and not one of security.

How can we explain the American and British confusion in the issue of discovering weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Why was the United Nation forbidden of continuing its search before the war? Does blaming the intelligence deem the administration innocent of the big lie that justified the war? It is quite cynical that the American Defense Secretary says that it has not been proven that the weapons do not exist, while what should be proved is that they do.

We emphasize this because America continues to accuse Syria and Iraq of preparing to produce such weapons, although these two states have been calling for a Middle East free of such weapons, a preposition that America rejected for it includes Israel.

America, according to Bush, is trying to wage a media war against the propaganda of hatred that fills the Islamic world. Why does not he look at what could the results of policies that depend on such concepts like those who are not with us are with terrorism be? Why does not he accept any discussion about the definition of terrorism… We say to Bush: Change your policies, and respect the freedom and the interests of Muslim and Arab peoples, their view will change and their “propaganda” will cease.

In Iran and on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Islamic revolution, we are following up the internal political struggle which means that might not be in the interest of the Islamic Republic. We hope that all parties review the lessons of this revolution to renew their unity on the basis of diversity, especially that the international arrogance is still palming to reenter from the window, using every possible devious means that could be available to him, including the use of some of what is happening inside to serve the plan plotted in the outside.

We hope that a solution, in which everybody meets on protecting the revolution and the state, could be reached. We also hope that the Iranians would choose the representatives who could build the Islamic future, uphold the law and order, in the line of the Islamic revolution and in the spirit of the late great Sayyed Khommieni (s.)

Lebanon has to focus all efforts on building a strong state on the ruins of the existing corrupt farm. We have to open all files of waste, corruption and playing with the country’s security…We ought to elect our representatives on the basis of our principles and general interests and cast away all those who have proven to enhance deviation. We have to implement the law of illegal wealth and prove wrong the dominate saying in Lebanon that holds that the shortest way to get rich is to become a politician.

We have to be the futuristic people who plan in their present for their coming days and not leave them to be conquered by anarchy.