Sheikh Qassem’s Full Speech on the Martyrdom Anniv. of Sheikh Nabil Qaouq and Sayyed Suhail Al-Husseini
Translated by Al-Ahed News, Hezbollah Media Relations
The full speech of Hezbollah Secretary General His Eminence Sheikh Naim Qassem on the first martyrdom anniversary of Sheikh Nabil Qaouq and Sayyed Suhail Al-Husseini on October 4, 2025.
In the name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. Peace and blessings be upon the noblest of creation, our Master, our Beloved, our Leader, Abu al-Qasim Muhammad, and upon his pure and virtuous household, his chosen and righteous companions, and upon all the prophets and the righteous until the Day of Judgment.
May peace and Allah’s mercy and blessings be upon you.
Today, we commemorate the first martyrdom anniversary of two jihadi leaders—His Eminence Sheikh Nabil Qaouq [may God’s mercy be upon him] and Sayyed Suhail Al-Husseini [Sayyed Ahmad], may God’s mercy be upon him.
We will speak about them, and afterward, we will turn to political matters on both the regional and domestic levels.
On the Martyr Sheikh Nabil Qaouq
His Eminence Sheikh Nabil Qaouq was born in Al-Musaytibeh in 1964 and hails from the southern town of Aaba. He traveled to the holy city of Qom in 1981, where he spent ten years studying religious sciences. He was a close companion of His Eminence Sayyed Hashem Safieddin0065 [may God’s mercy be upon him], who was martyred on this very day, October 4, last year.
We have, in fact, commemorated this anniversary with His Eminence, the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah [may God’s mercy be upon him], and we chose to dedicate this particular commemoration to the two jihadi commanders—Sheikh Nabil and Sayyed Ahmad—because of their unique status, and to speak a little about them both.
Sheikh Nabil participated on the frontlines of the imposed war against the Islamic Republic, both as a preacher and a fighter. He took part in several major operations there—in Al-Faw, Shalamcheh, Badr al-Kubra and Fajr. He viewed his contribution to the defense of the Islamic Republic as part of the same struggle: for when the enemies target the Islamic Republic, they are targeting the Islamic Resistance, they are targeting justice, and they are targeting Palestine. To him, it was all one front—anyone, anywhere in this region, bore the responsibility to contribute whatever they could. This was the vision of His Eminence Sheikh Nabil, the same vision shared by His Eminence Sayyed Hashem [may God’s mercy be upon him], who also went to the front and gave his full share in that sacred duty.
In 1991, Sheikh Nabil returned to Lebanon and assumed the position of deputy head of the southern region under the supervision of Sayyed Hashem until 1993. The two were always together, never apart in any assignment or responsibility. From 1993 to 2010, Sheikh Nabil served as head of the southern region. From 2010 to 2018, he became Deputy Head of the Executive Council—again serving as Sayyed Hashem’s deputy. From 2018 until his martyrdom, he was appointed Head of the Preventive Security Unit.
Here lies a telling detail: how does someone move from Deputy Head of the Executive Council—a high-ranking position—to the Preventive Security Unit? For one reason only: His Eminence Sayyed Hassan [may God’s mercy be upon him] personally requested it. Sheikh Nabil replied, “At your command,” and obeyed without hesitation. He was among those who followed the command of the Wali [the Guardian Leader] and the Leader without question—especially when that leader was Sayyed Hassan himself [may God’s mercy be upon him].
Sayyed Hassan had a clear purpose in assigning him to that position: the Preventive Security Unit deals with highly sensitive matters involving individuals’ private lives. It requires someone with firm religious grounding—someone who can discern what is permissible and what is not, what is right and what is wrong, what is lawful and what is not. At times, the work might brush close to the boundaries of personal privacy, and one must be cautious not to cross into forbidden surveillance. Sayyed Hassan [may God’s mercy be upon him] recognized that Sheikh Nabil possessed both the piety and the precision necessary for this role.
Sheikh Nabil deeply cared for the mujahideen—whether in the South, in Beirut, or at the central headquarters. He frequently traveled to Syria, where he met with the fighters, attended their ceremonies and graduations, and oversaw their preparations. He was very close to them in every sense. Despite his many responsibilities, he never abandoned teaching or religious study, and he continued to hold scholarly discussions with fellow clerics. He also authored works on Sirah, ethics, and Aqida.
His Eminence Sheikh Nabil was a model of a devout jihadi leader—imbued with faith, awareness, and a profound connection to God Almighty. He was among those who rose at dawn for tahajjud [night prayers], recited the Quran regularly, and spent long hours in worship. For many years, he followed a consistent spiritual routine: reciting Ziyarat Ashura and Dua Al-Ahd daily, and reading three sections of the Quran every day as an act of reverence for God’s Book. He was known for his discipline, decisiveness, and unwavering optimism, even in the darkest of times, always trusting in God’s mercy. He was also known for personally tending to people’s needs and helping others directly.
Today, as we speak of such leaders, each with unique traits, we find that they share one unifying bond: a deep faith, a living connection to Islam, devotion to Wilayah [the guardianship of the divine leadership], and a life of jihad. Each of them also carried a bright, personal legacy—one that shines with sincerity and devotion. As the Almighty says:
“Allah will elevate those of you who are faithful, and [raise] those gifted with knowledge in rank. And Allah is All-Aware of what you do.” [Al-Mujadilah, 11]
Sheikh Nabil’s martyrdom came at the very beginning of the Battle of the Mighty [Uli al-Ba’as Battle]—on September 28, just one day after the martyrdom of the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, Sayyed Hassan [may God’s mercy be upon him].
It must be remembered that twelve scholars—twelve turbaned men, both sheikhs and sayyeds—were martyred in that same battle. As we remember His Eminence Sheikh Nabil, we also remember his fellow scholars who fell alongside him. Their sacrifice proves that our religious scholars are an integral part of the nation’s social, political, and jihadi life. They fight as the fighters do, live as the people live, and work in the path that pleases God Almighty.
To the soul of His Eminence Sheikh Nabil and to the souls of all the righteous martyrs among the scholars, our sanctified Sayyed, His Eminence Sayyed Hashem, and all who were slain in the path of Allah from among the Resistance, we dedicate the reward of the blessed Surat al-Fatiha, preceded by blessings upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad.
On the Martyr Sayyed Suhail Al-Husseini [Sayyed Ahmad]
The martyred jihadi leader, Sayyed Suhail Hussein Al-Husseini—known as Sayyed Ahmad, may God’s mercy be upon him—was born in Burj al-Barajneh in 1966. From the very beginning of his path, he stood alongside Hajj Imad Mughniyeh [Hajj Radwan, may God’s mercy be upon him], accompanying him from the earliest steps of the Resistance’s formation. Hajj Radwan relied on him deeply, entrusting him with numerous sensitive missions, especially in the field of jihadi security work.
Sayyed Ahmad was appointed head of security for the Beirut area in 1991. In 1992, he became Hajj Radwan’s secretary, and between 1995 and 1998, he served as head of logistics, responsible for securing resources and operational support for jihadi missions. From 1998 until 2000, he oversaw counterintelligence operations—an essential and delicate role that reflected the full confidence placed in him by Hajj Imad, who personally supervised his work throughout those years.
In 2008, Sayyed Ahmad took charge of logistics and armament operations—overseeing weapons procurement, preparation, and the development of capabilities. He then became a jihadi aide to His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah [may God’s mercy be upon him]. By that time, Hajj Imad had already been martyred. Sayyed Ahmad managed budgets, resources, and the modernization of various units. He paid particular attention to the family life of the mujahideen and launched the “Qurrat A’yun” [“Delight of the Eyes”] project, dedicated to caring for fighters, their wives and their children. Those who knew him described him as a mentor, an educator, and a man of refined intellect and faith.
His Eminence Sayyed Hassan also entrusted him with following up on the socio-economic crisis. Sayyed Ahmad went on to establish the Al-Mustafa and Al-Sajjad initiatives, which provided essential goods at affordable prices to help alleviate people’s hardships. He always insisted on remaining an unknown soldier, far from the spotlight or public recognition. The Messenger of God [peace and blessings be upon him and his family] said:
“Indeed, God Almighty takes pride before His angels in the one who carries his sword in the path of God, and they continue to pray for him as long as he carries it.”
This saying perfectly embodies the life of Sayyed Ahmad—one of quiet devotion, dedication and sincerity in jihad.
Each of our martyred leaders, as we see, possessed unique traits. Sayyed Ahmad was distinguished by his competence and innovation, his jihadi, social, and intellectual awareness, and his high moral character. He was serious in fulfilling his duties, imbued with a spirit of sacrifice and selflessness. He combined strict discipline and secrecy with the ability to manage complex logistical operations. He was a model of endurance, humility and steadfastness, leaving a deep mark on the party’s organizational and operational work. Calm and unassuming, he preferred fieldwork over appearances, content to serve silently and effectively.
He held a Master’s degree in Islamic philosophy and was completing his doctoral studies under academic supervision. He spent ten years studying ‘irfan [spiritual mysticism] and Islamic theology.
Sayyed Ahmad was martyred in an “Israeli” airstrike on October 7, 2024, in the Koukoudi area. The strike targeted the home of his son, Ridha, who was martyred alongside him. Ridha’s wife, his nephew, his nephew’s wife, and several civilians in the neighboring home were also martyred due to the sheer magnitude of the bombing.
To the soul of Sayyed Ahmad, to all the martyrs who fell with him, and to all the righteous departed, we dedicate the reward of the blessed Surat al-Fatiha, preceded by blessings upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad.
On the Regional Situation—We Must Confront the Greater “Israel” Project
I will speak about the regional and domestic situations; I’ll begin with the regional picture.
There is a clear banner that must be in front of us so we do not lose our compass: “Israel” is working toward a Greater “Israel” project, and the United States is providing its full support. Any of the steps you see are part of that project. Any suggestion that there has been some real retreat is only a tactical withdrawal—circumstances did not permit more at the time, and they are waiting for better conditions. We have been saying for ten, twenty, thirty years: if you see “Israel” not expanding in a certain area, or if it appears to have pulled back [as with Sinai under the Camp David accords] or signed an agreement like Wadi Araba, it is because it could not yet absorb that level of occupation; it needed time to consolidate what it had taken before seeking further expansion.
What we have watched in Gaza over the past two years is an integral part of the same project that Netanyahu openly described about a month ago. We are therefore facing a Greater “Israel” project, and everything in the region is connected. You cannot separate what is happening in Gaza from what is happening in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the wider region, or Iran. The goal is the same; the central actor is the criminal enemy, “Israel”, backed by the American imperial power under Trump.
We all must confront this danger. Now, when we say we must confront the Greater “Israel” project, someone might say: “This has nothing to do with us — they are killing people in Gaza, but our country is far from it.” My brother, you are a target—whether in Lebanon or anywhere else. Gaza is the first step now, but other steps will follow according to “Israeli” calculations, and they will try to implement them.
So I say: when we confront “Israel”, each of us must do so from his own position, according to his capacity and plan. And even if someone is not fully persuaded of the absolute justice of the Palestinian cause, he should at least be convinced to remove the threat from his doorstep before it reaches him — for this project will reach him sooner or later, according to Israeli planning.
Trump’s Plan Is Fraught with Dangers
Today, Trump has put forward a plan for a so-called “solution” in Gaza, which he labeled a “peace plan.” In reality, this plan is riddled with dangers. Everyone understands by now that the American proposal—made up of 21 points—was initially presented to some Arab states, followed by meetings with Netanyahu, first by Witkoff and later by Trump himself. The plan was then amended in ways that completely suited “Israel’s” interests. Several points were altered to transform it into an “Israeli” project—one that “Israel” seeks to achieve through politics after failing to impose it by war, aggression, extermination, and starvation, and after committing countless atrocities in Gaza.
We are therefore facing a plan full of ambiguities and troubling questions. Even some Arab officials, surprised by its content, have demanded clarifications and raised objections. When such a plan allows “Israel” to take everything—to maintain full security control over the land, to impose total disarmament, to expel all fighters, and to place Gaza under international administration with no real Palestinian authority—while also ensuring that “Israeli” prisoners are released from the very beginning, it effectively strips the resistance of every remaining source of strength. After all the sacrifices and years of struggle, what would we have gained from such a deal?
The plan proposed by Trump, as Netanyahu himself admitted, aligns perfectly with the five principles set by the “Israeli” government for ending the war. In other words, it is an “Israeli” plan disguised as an American one.
In any case, I will not delve into the finer details. In the end, it is the Palestinian resistance—Hamas and all the factions—that will discuss and decide what they deem appropriate. But the real question is: why did Trump choose to announce this plan at this particular time? There are four key reasons behind it.
The Main Reasons Behind Trump’s Plan
First: This plan seeks to absolve “Israel” amid the global outrage condemning it. The world now sees “Israel” as a criminal, genocidal entity—one that cannot coexist peacefully and has committed atrocities beyond what any human conscience can bear. This image has become a heavy burden on “Israel”. Trump wanted to counter that by saying: No, look—Netanyahu can actually agree to a plan sponsored and imposed by the United States. In this way, attention shifts to the illusion of a “peace process,” as if the war has stopped, the famine has ended, and the crisis is over. In reality, this is an attempt to rescue “Israel” from the predicament it created, since it refuses to accept any solution that grants Palestinians their rights.
Second: The vast majority of the world’s nations—especially as reflected in the United Nations votes—support the establishment of a Palestinian state and oppose genocide. They do not agree with what is happening. If the UN General Assembly had authority over the Security Council, the overwhelming majority—more than 150 countries—would have already issued a resolution condemning “Israel” and affirming Palestinian rights.
Third: There is now an unprecedented wave of popular mobilization in the United States and across Europe. Previously, even the mildest criticism of “Israel” would have been met with accusations of antisemitism. Today, however, where has that narrative gone? It has collapsed entirely. “Israel’s” actions have left no room for anyone to defend it. Even among young Republicans in the U.S., the majority now oppose what “Israel” is doing. Trump’s plan, therefore, is an attempt to rehabilitate “Israel’s” image—to soften it and make it more palatable.
Fourth: The Global Sumud Flotilla—around fifty ships carrying volunteers from Europe, the Americas, and around the world—is heading to Gaza, with people offering their very bodies to break the siege, stop the famine, and end the genocide. This movement carries immense significance, both now and for the future. It exposes the depths of “Israel’s” moral collapse and decline.
And here, we must extend a special salute to Spain—for its courageous stance, both at the governmental and popular levels. Spain has carried this cause in a remarkable way, unlike most other nations.
For these four reasons, Trump is trying to polish the image of Netanyahu and the “Israeli” entity, portraying them as heading toward peace. In any case, we will wait to hear the Palestinian response. It is, after all, still a proposal and not an agreement—nothing will happen unless the Palestinians consent.
We know that surrender is not an option for the Palestinians—those who have sacrificed 66,000 martyrs and 169,000 wounded, who have faced genocide, starvation and displacement. This people will not surrender. This resistance will not yield. That must be clear to everyone.
This steadfastness—the immense perseverance of the Palestinian people—will surely bear fruit in time. How long can “Israel” endure? It is already losing ground internationally, even in its capacity to wage war through its repeated Operation Gideon schemes and their variants. “Israel” cannot defeat the Palestinians militarily—not when they possess such will and such determination.
If only the countries of the region—especially the Arab states—would follow Spain’s example. But my request is far simpler: I only ask that Arab states concerned with the Palestinian issue stop pressuring the resistance. If they do not wish to support the resistance, if they do not wish to stand with the Palestinian people in their fight against “Israel”—then at least, do not pressure them. Do not aid the “Israelis” by adding your weight to the pressure already coming from “Israel” and the United States.
I believe the Qatar message has been made clear through “Israel’s” aggression against it, and the statements of both Trump and Netanyahu have exposed their intentions in this region. At the very least, others should take note—and think of the future.
On the Domestic Situation in Lebanon
Now I turn to Lebanon. I will speak about three matters.
First: Lebanon stands at the heart of the storm because of the “Israeli” aggression, its overreach, and the ongoing crimes—all backed by the United States with full military, political, media and diplomatic support and pressure in every form. Yet it must be clear that “Israel’s” goals are not inevitable. Even if “Israel” sets objectives, works hard to achieve them, and the US and much of the world apply pressure alongside it, who says they can actually accomplish what they want? They cannot.
You know they expected that after the agreement and the passage of sixty days they might achieve some of their objectives politically. Since then, they have pressured us politically through the US, and they have pressed militarily through daily killings—targeting civilians, killing engineers, hitting families in Bint Jbeil, killing children, even striking bulldozers, crops, homes—attacking every form of life. Their aim is to pressure the Resistance and its people, to weaken Lebanon until it is powerless and stripped bare, so it becomes easier for them to enter and impose their plans, just as they do and meddle in Syria.
Five Things That Thwarted the Enemy’s Plan
Let me tell you so you understand: five things surprised them in Lebanon and undermined their scheme. I list them here so you know that “Israel’s” goals are not inevitable.
First: They expected we would respond to their violations with violations of our own — that when they began crossing the line, we would retaliate in kind, giving them room for continued incursions and letting the cycle escalate while they blamed us. We decided instead that the state is responsible and we must show restraint. That decision nullified their expectation.
Second: Through direct American intervention they tried to build Lebanon’s institutions — electing a president, forming a government, and so on — on the assumption that the Party [Hezbollah] would be weak, distracted by daily life, destruction, and hardship, and could be sidelined. They expected to shape the state as they wished. They were surprised to find that we engaged actively in the state; today we are an integral part of its structure, participating in reconstruction and public life.
Third: They tried to infiltrate the state’s institutions and manipulate internal politics to achieve by politics what they failed to achieve by war. But the internal balance did not allow that, because we fully represent our people. Hezbollah and Amal each have full parliamentary representation—27 out of 27. When a poll was taken on disarmament — whether people agreed to remove weapons — about 95% [and perhaps 96%] of Shi‘a opposed disarmament. Nationwide polling shows roughly 58–60% oppose disarming for reasons tied to national security and the protection of the homeland. That, too, surprised them.
Fourth: They wanted to create a confrontation between the Lebanese Army and the Resistance — to have the army fight the Resistance and the people of the Resistance under the pretext of exclusive state arms. But the Lebanese Army and its leadership acted with wisdom; there are minds and hearts committed to building Lebanon. Both the army and the Resistance were clear that sowing discord is cursed and must not happen. Everything between us remains open to understanding and cooperation.
Fifth: It is true that there is no military parity between us and “Israel”—they enjoy superior military capabilities—but there is also no parity in spirit and resolve. We are superior in our attachment to our homeland, in our conviction of the justice of our cause, in our readiness to sacrifice and fight, and in the steadfast will of our people. We have a noble, historic populace that cannot be defeated. That allowed us to create a level of balance sufficient to confront their arrogance and their projects and prevent them from achieving their aims.
These five factors took them by surprise, and therefore they could not advance. I tell you now: they could not move forward because you have a strong, brave, faithful people with will — a people who know that surrender is the path to political, social, and human annihilation, and that is something neither “Israel” nor the United States nor their collaborators can impose.
On Restoring Sovereignty—The Government Must Give This Priority
Second point: the government must focus on the central issues. What are the central issues? Restoring sovereignty is one of them. You must understand that the Taif Agreement is not merely a point of view—it is an agreement, not a tool to be bent to the balance of forces. Taif was meant to become a constitution, and parts of it have still not been implemented. They must be implemented.
True citizenship is what will free Lebanon and protect Lebanon. Whoever is an honorable, proud Lebanese citizen should work with his fellow citizens to defend this country.
Let me ask you: what have you done to restore sovereignty? The head of restoring sovereignty is expelling “Israel” from Lebanese soil and stopping the aggression. What have you done to restore sovereignty? Do you communicate with major powers? Do you try to exert pressure? Move more, speak more, bring proposals to the Security Council—leave no opportunity where you are not calling, in word and deed, for the necessity of restoring sovereignty, because that is the cornerstone of restoring stability and rebuilding the country.
The government is negligent in how it follows up on restoring sovereignty. What prevents you from raising the “Israeli” issue in every Cabinet session, placing it on the agenda, criticizing, submitting proposals, debating, and forming committees? Make it your daily bread: when a visitor comes to you, instead of asking, “What are you doing to placate them?” ask, “What must they do for you to be satisfied?” It is more important, in your position in government, that you are responsible for this people and for protecting the country.
And what about the other political forces — have they all gone mute? Brother, some parties do not say a single word about “Israel”; they do not criticize what is happening, they do not demand that “Israel” leave. They say, “We spoke once about this three or four months ago.” Oh, you spoke once? An incident occurs in the middle of a neighborhood and every morning, noon, and night, the media outlets stir things up — why? Because there is an attempt to inflame division, to score gains and dominate the other partner in the homeland. But when it comes to “Israel”, no — because “Israel” is backed by America, so these parties refrain from speaking. How can one find common ground in such circumstances? I say to you: get out of that posture. Political forces that defer to America and “Israel”, fearful of upsetting those two states, are creating a big problem. You have citizens you will live with forever. Getting distracted by small issues, whether within the government or among political forces, is not appropriate, and these small issues do not relieve the government of its responsibility.
Small matters can be resolved and negotiated; let’s not make them a huge drama. Let us join hands to confront “Israel” and restore sovereignty, especially since Taif explicitly calls for it: “by taking all measures and working to remove the ‘Israeli’ occupation completely”.
That is in the Taif Agreement: “To work for the implementation of Resolution 425 and other Security Council resolutions calling for the withdrawal of ‘Israeli’ forces”. Where is that full withdrawal? Are we working on it? We must work on it.
Reconstruction is a National Priority
The second point for the government: Reconstruction must begin.
In your ministerial statement, you declared your intention to rebuild—a responsible and wise commitment. But words alone are not enough; we need plans and detailed programs. Yet, we saw some members walk out of Parliament, dropping the quorum when discussions reached the $250 million World Bank loan meant for rebuilding infrastructure and key institutions. Why act this way? The focus of every political force and government body should be on one thing—rebuilding the country by any possible means.
Let me address the government directly: Without reconstruction, the country cannot recover, nor can stability take root.
And let’s be clear—reconstruction is not a favor to anyone. It is in your own interest, in the interest of citizens, and in the interest of Lebanon itself.
Do you know what reconstruction truly means? It means jumpstarting the economy from one end of the country to the other: engineers will work, laborers will work, suppliers and merchants will work. The entire economic movement will be revived — a true economic revival within Lebanon. Reconstruction also has a social dimension: it helps people return to their homes, find employment, and regain dignity. It alleviates poverty and strengthens the country’s financial resilience.
Reconstruction is also a political stance—a declaration of unity and defiance in the face of the enemy. No matter how much destruction the enemy causes, we will rebuild together. It is also a developmental necessity.
I say clearly: the government must place reconstruction at the very top of its priorities—with concrete programs and a dedicated section in the national budget.
On the Electoral Law
The third point concerns the laws that must be passed to ensure proper governance and stability in the country. We must work with greater determination than what we currently see. I am not only referring to financial and economic reform laws, which are indeed necessary, but to one law in particular now being discussed: the electoral law.
There is already an existing law; let us simply implement it. But no — some want to tailor a new one to their own measure, designed to secure victory for themselves or for certain parties. That is unacceptable. We cannot legislate an electoral law to fit one side’s interests. Are we not supposed to be partners in this nation?
If we are true partners, then we must uphold the principles laid out in the preamble of the constitution, which states that “Lebanon is a democratic parliamentary republic based on respect for public freedoms, foremost among them freedom of opinion and belief, and on social justice and equality in rights and duties among all citizens without discrimination or preference”.
So where is this equality without discrimination or preference? How can it exist when you insist that expatriates vote for all 128 parliamentary seats, while parties like Hezbollah, Amal, and others are unable to conduct electoral campaigns in most European and Arab countries, or even in the United States, whereas you enjoy full freedom to do so?
There are Lebanese abroad who cannot vote for us because they fear being labeled, exposed, and punished — their salaries cut off, their livelihoods threatened, or even being expelled from the countries where they live. So how do you expect us to agree to a law under which expatriates vote for 128 deputies, while we are denied the ability to campaign freely, and many of our supporters cannot express themselves due to the risks they face?
There is already a law that allocates six seats for expatriate representation — and that’s fine. Even though our ability to campaign abroad is limited, six seats are manageable. But 128? How can we operate under such conditions?
There is an existing, enforceable law. Let it be implemented, with minor adjustments if necessary. Yet, this is not happening. And what’s striking is that one political leader even said openly: “Yes, we want expatriates to vote for the 128 MPs so we can weaken Hezbollah and Amal and reduce their Shia support. Even if we gain one or two or three seats, that’s a win for us”.
So you’re admitting it — your motives are rooted in hostility. Why? Say you want your fair share — that’s your right. But why create an atmosphere of tension and division?
In any case, we stand for fair representation. And if others are calling for representation dictated by external pressures and tutelage, we say: that will not work, because it contradicts the very essence of true citizenship.
May God Almighty guide us always to the right path, to work for the good of our country, our people, and our dignity.
Peace and Allah’s mercy and blessings be upon you.
