The First Sermon
the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
The Imamate as an extension to
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 ..."
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
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
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
The Imam of
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
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.
The Second Sermon
the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
freedom: Terror and Occupation
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.
dominated by the Zionist Policy
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”
lessons of the Revolution
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.)
Planning for the future.
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
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.