Full Speech of Sheikh Qassem on the 2nd Passing Anniversary of Hajj Mohammad Yaghi

Translated by Al-Ahed News, Hezbollah Media Relations

Address by the Secretary General of Hezbollah, His Eminence Sheikh Naim Qassem, during the memorial ceremony marking the second anniversary of the passing of a prominent figure of jihad and Resistance, the founding jihadi leader, Hajj Mohammad Hassan Yaghi [Abu Salim] on Sunday, December 28, 2025.

All praise is due to God, Lord of the worlds, and peace and blessings be upon the noblest of creation—our master, beloved, and leader, Abu al-Qasim Muhammad—and upon his pure and immaculate household, his righteous and chosen companions, and all prophets and the pious until the Day of Judgment.

Peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you all.

Today marks the second anniversary of the passing of o prominent figure of jihad and resistance, the founding leader Hajj Abu Salim Mohammad Hassan Yaghi. On this occasion, we will speak about this great departed figure—his character, his qualities, and his contributions. We will then address the political dimension.

Hajj Abu Salim, from his very early youth, was committed to the path of authentic Muhammadan Islam. In March 1974, he was among those present at the Pledge Festival held for the disappeared Imam Musa al-Sadr, may God bring him and his two companions back. He then immediately joined the Movement of the Deprived, where he held several positions, the last of which was organizational official for the Beqaa region. It is well known that Haj Abu Salim was only 14 years old when he attended Imam al-Sadr’s festival, meaning that he embarked on this path at a very early age.

The late, great figure was among those who welcomed the vanguards of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in 1982, and he became known for saying, “These are the messengers of Imam Khomeini to us.” He held several responsibilities within Hezbollah, including heading the Baalbek headquarters. For a period, he served as deputy head of the Beqaa region when the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah [may God be pleased with him] was in charge of the region, and he later assumed leadership of the region himself. He also assumed responsibility of the Central Status Unit and the Central Media Unit within Hezbollah.

From 1989 to 1993, he was a member of Hezbollah’s Shura Council for two consecutive terms, and he also served as deputy head of the Executive Council under the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, Sayyed Hassan [may God be pleased with him]. It was clear that his relationship, coordination, and practical engagement with His Eminence the Sayyed—may his secret be sanctified—extended across multiple periods.

The Shura Council chose him to represent Hezbollah as a member of parliament for the Baalbek–Hermel region from 1992 to 1996, and then again from 2000 to 2005. In truth, he remained in various positions as an influential, active, committed, and steadfast jihadi figure. From 2019 until his passing in 2023, he served as Executive Assistant to the Secretary-General.

God Almighty says in His Noble Book:

“Indeed, those who believe, do good, establish prayer, and pay alms-tax will receive their reward from their Lord, and there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.” [Al-Baqarah, 277]

He was one of the living embodiments of this noble verse.

When we speak of the personality of Hajj Abu Salim as a founding commander, we speak of his role models—those whom this jihadi leader took as examples. His foremost role model was the supreme religious authority Sayyed Muhammad Baqir Al-Sadr [may God be pleased with him], followed by Imam Musa al-Sadr, then Imam Khomeini [may his secret be sanctified], and Imam Khamenei [may his shadow endure].

Thus, he lived within a deeply faithful environment shaped by great, founding leaders—scholars and preachers who worked tirelessly in the path of God and revived this religion in a profound way. During this period, he came to know Sayyed Hassan and stood alongside him in jihadi work across several arenas, whether within the Amal Movement or later within Hezbollah.

Their first acquaintance dates back to 1978—one year before the victory of the blessed Islamic Revolution in Iran, and four years before the emergence of Hezbollah. They met in Baalbek at the Imam Al-Montathar Hawza, which had been founded by the martyred leader, the Sayyed of the Resistance’s Martyrs, Sayyed Abbas al-Mousawi. There, he forged with him an outstanding relationship rooted in action and struggle, and at the same time developed a close bond with the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs.

In other words, Hajj Abu Salim was surrounded by an environment shaped by these great scholars—figures from whom he drew strength and guidance—and he worked closely with both Sayyed Hassan and Sayyed Abbas [may God be pleased with them both].

From his jihadi life, we conclude that the path of resistance was his life itself. He was a field commander who took part in demonstrations, raised slogans, chanted anthems, and engaged in ritual lamentation—so much so that he would even chant, “From us to Baqir Al-Sadr, our salutations.” In short, he was truly a leader on the ground.

All Hezbollah leaders are leaders on the ground, and everyone who works along this path is a field leader. What distinguished him was that he was an inseparable part of the practical march in every arena of jihad. He always looked toward the future horizon—toward becoming one of the soldiers of Imam al-Mahdi [may God hasten his noble reappearance]. He worked in preparation for this great anticipation, shaping his life and his movement entirely toward upholding the word of truth and spreading the justice that our Imam Al-Mahdi [AS] seeks to establish.

Hajj Abu Salim was a faithful, mission-driven believer—brave, resolute, and among those who possessed great fortitude. He was dignified, socially conscious, and deeply humble. He devoted his entire life to carrying the concerns of the people, especially the poor, to working alongside the mujahideen, and to participating in every integrated and interconnected jihadi effort of Hezbollah.

Praise be to God, I had the greatest share in being with him and working alongside him, together with the founding brothers of this party. We shared many stages and moments, and we always continued in consultation and cooperation. He was a dear and beloved brother from the founding generation, and a figure of trust for the Sayyed of the Nation’s Martyrs, Sayyed Hassan [may God be pleased with him].

I extend my greetings to the family of the departed Hajj Abu Salim, the founding jihadi leader—to his honorable family, his wife, his children, his brothers, and all those around him. He was a ray of this great light, and they too embody this path, for they never wavered for a moment from this course and this commitment.

Hajj Abu Salim also stands as an important example of how the people of the Beqaa and Baalbek–Hermel have embraced resistance, honor, dignity, and pride. One cannot mention Hajj Abu Salim and great leaders such as Sayyed Abbas Al-Moussawi without also mentioning the people of the Beqaa—the people of Baalbek–Hermel—who were among the earliest to confront the Israeli project and to support the resistance. They gave it everything they had.

Hezbollah’s emergence began in the Baalbek–Hermel region, whose people were always at the forefront in offering the sacrifice of blood, the sacrifice of giving, and the sacrifice of jihad. Today, we take great pride in seeing the Beqaa—Baalbek–Hermel—at the forefront of the confrontation, at the forefront of defending the South, Lebanon, the cause of Palestine, and the values of freedom, dignity, and honor.

To those great figures who have given so much along our path—to the soul of Hajj Abu Salim, to Sayyed Abbas, and to all those who offered martyrdom, sacrifice, and loss in order to uphold the word of truth and resistance—we dedicate the reward of the blessed Surat Al-Fatiha, along with prayers upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad.

Before addressing the political topic, I would like to mention three points:

First, we are marking the anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ, son of Mary—peace be upon him. He is one of the five resolute prophets [Ulul-Azm], who spread a message of tolerance, love, morality, and virtue across the world. Congratulations to the Christians of Lebanon and around the world on this blessed and auspicious birth. God willing, his heavenly teachings in upbringing, ethics, love, and virtue will prevail across this global space, which so urgently needs to be guided toward moral and ethical values.

Second, we are at the beginning of the month of Rajab. Rajab is the month of mercy—the month in which, as related in the narrations, God pours His mercy abundantly upon His servants. It is one of the three months of light: Rajab, Shaaban, and Ramadan. The Messenger of God—peace and blessings be upon him and his family—said: “Rajab is the month of seeking forgiveness for my nation, so seek forgiveness abundantly in it, for He is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

This month is distinguished by a number of births and martyrdoms of the Imams of the Ahl Al-Bayt [peace be upon them]: among them, on the first of Rajab, the birth of Imam Ali Al-Hadi [peace be upon him]; on the second of Rajab, the martyrdom of Imam Ali Al-Hadi in the year 254 AH; on the sixth of Rajab, the martyrdom of Imam Musa al-Kazim [peace be upon him] in 183 AH; on the tenth of Rajab, the birth of Imam al-Jawad [peace be upon him] in 95 AH; and on the thirteenth of Rajab, the birth of the Commander of the Faithful, Ali ibn Abi Talib [peace be upon him], who filled the horizons with his generosity and jihad and was the closest companion of the Messenger of God—peace and blessings be upon him and his family.

Third, I extend my condolences on the passing of the devout scholar, mujahid, and resistance figure, His Eminence Sheikh Rida Mahdi, who played a distinguished role in education, cultural development, and guidance in western Beirut through the Ilm Al-Huda Association, in building relationships with the people, and through the Gathering of the Scholars of Jabal Amel. He had a rich history of supporting the resistance fighters and maintained wide-ranging and diverse relations. He left a significant mark—may God have mercy on him. To his honorable family and to all who loved him, we offer our condolences, and we dedicate to him the reward of the blessed Surat Al-Fatiha, along with prayers upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad.

We begin with the political situation.

First, Lebanon today stands at the heart of a storm and a state of instability—but what is the cause? The cause is tyrannical America and the “Israeli” enemy. They are the primary, central, and foremost reason for the lack of stability in Lebanon, and for many of the problems and complications that have afflicted the Lebanese people. On the one hand, the United States has sponsored corruption in Lebanon and protected its leading figures. Since 2019, it has worked to sabotage the economic and social situation, to stir discord, impose sanctions, and exercise tutelage. Today, it controls many of Lebanon’s key levers, which is what generates instability and crisis in the country. The second cause is the “Israeli” enemy, which has never ceased its aggression and has always harbored ambitions toward Lebanon. It is a usurping, expansionist entity that has attacked Lebanon at various stages and has not halted its latest aggression despite the agreement reached in November 2024.

As for Lebanon’s internal problems—discord, corruption, and the well-known actors behind them—these, unfortunately, feed off the American presence and “Israeli” aggression. By contrast, there is Hezbollah’s course in Lebanon, a course that is entirely bright, luminous, and resplendent. Hezbollah and its Islamic Resistance liberated Lebanon—not only southern Lebanon, but Lebanon as a whole—of course in cooperation with all honorable resistance fighters from different parties and factions, and with the support present from the Lebanese Army and the people. In other words, Hezbollah was not alone, but it stands out for its role in liberation and for the sacrifices it made for the homeland and for driving “Israel” out of our country.

Hezbollah has also distinguished itself by integrity and incorruptibility in parliamentary and government work, in its dealings with the authorities, and in serving the people. Wherever you ask about Hezbollah’s MPs, its ministers, or those active in public life, the conversation invariably centers on sacrifice, integrity, tangible achievements, and meaningful practical capacity that benefits people. Hezbollah has likewise contributed to building the state, consistently striving to build, to operate within the law, and to steer clear of any populist practices that undermine legal commitment.

As for serving the people, this is a foundation and a core principle. God Almighty says:

“Have you seen the one who denies the [final] Judgment? That is the one who repulses the orphan, and does not encourage the feeding of the poor. So woe to those [hypocrites] who pray yet are unmindful of their prayers; those who [only] show off, and refuse to give [even the simplest] aid.” [Al-Ma’un, 1–7] 

We are a community of service—service to the people—not for elections, nor to claim representation, but to fulfill our duty before God Almighty toward these people.

Thus, the record, role, and standing of Hezbollah are altogether clean, radiant, and exemplary—in ethics, action, politics, state-building, resistance, and liberation. Today, we stand at a historical crossroads: either we give the United States and “Israel” what they want—namely full American tutelage over Lebanon and the beginning of Lebanon’s fragmentation and erosion through “Israeli” control of its land, at least in the South, and through complete security domination over the country—or we rise nationally, reclaim our sovereignty and our land, and build our state and our homeland.

We are facing a historical turning point between two options. Two issues are being raised clearly, prominently, and as top priorities. The first is disarmament, put forward by the United States and “Israel”, with the help of some internal actors in Lebanon. The second is restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty by expelling “Israel” and building the state—and this option, thank God, also has a broad and influential base of support.

As for the issue of disarmament, how do we view it? Disarmament is an American–“Israeli” project, even if at this stage it is labeled as “the exclusivity of weapons.” That change in terminology does not alter its direction, because the timing itself follows the American–“Israeli” agenda. If you say it has nothing to do with that, then postpone the issue of exclusive arms until the current situation is resolved, and only then can we discuss what to do about it. But to demand exclusive arms at a time when “Israel” is carrying out aggression, the United States is imposing tutelage over Lebanon, and Lebanon is being stripped of its sources of strength—this means you are not acting in Lebanon’s interest, but rather in line with what “Israel” wants.

And as everyone hears, just as we do, disarmament is part of a project aimed at eliminating Lebanon’s military capability altogether.

That is one aspect. Second, there is the targeting of the financial and social capacity of a significant segment of the Lebanese population.

Third, they seek to drive a wedge between Hezbollah and the Amal Movement in order to fracture this cohesive strength.

Fourth, they aim to sow discord between the Lebanese Army, the Resistance and the people, with the goal of undermining the country’s stability and rendering it extremely weak and dependent on others.

Fifth, they want to maintain the occupation of the five points—which have now become nine and more—and to allow this occupation to continue killing, destroying, and assaulting across Lebanon, while violating its airspace, sea, and land without any accountability or restraint.

What outcome do they seek from this path, whose central banner is disarmament? The outcome they want is to eliminate the resistance, annex part of Lebanon, and turn what remains of the country into a tool managed by the United States and “Israel”.

I will make a comparison—secondly, a brief comparison—to show you the difference between what we are demanding and working for, and what others are demanding. What we are calling for is sovereignty; what others are calling for is disarmament. I will compare “Israel’s” occupation of the Golan Heights with its occupation of southern Lebanon.

“Israel” occupied the Golan Heights in 1967, and it remained under occupation given the regional balances at the time. Later, “Israel” annexed the Golan, and the United States recognized the annexation, reaffirming it once again under President Trump. What caused this annexation after it had been an occupation? The central and decisive reason was the absence of resistance.

In southern Lebanon, however, “Israel” carried out an occupation in 1978 and began focusing on a strip of the South as a model for gradually separating it from Lebanon through conspiratorial and collaborator Lebanese tools, with the aim of annexing it later. Then came the 1982 invasion, when they reached the capital, Beirut, believing they could expand their occupation further. But it was the resistance that forced them out in 1985, and then expelled them completely through a great liberation in 2000. They were unable to consolidate the occupation in order to turn it into annexation—they simply could not. Over this entire period—42 years of confrontation, struggle, and fighting—the resistance prevented “Israel” from annexing even a single piece of land.

Today, “Israel” is occupying—this is true—but how long will that occupation last? It is true that an occupation tries to extract gains, but we have before us the experience of 42 years in which we thwarted “Israel’s” objectives. If today “Israel” manages, over the course of a year or two, to exert control in a certain way, that does not mean it will annex, nor can it annex in the presence of resistance. The conclusion is clear: the Lebanese state succeeded because it has a resistance, while the Syrian state failed because it does not. How long can “Israel” continue to occupy and aggress in the presence of the resistance, the army, and the people? “Israel” will withdraw—sooner or later.

Today, those following the “other line” try to tell us: “Okay, let’s act gradually, brother.” That is, these are people who share some understanding of nationalism and genuinely want to improve the internal situation—but they are not fully committed to supporting the resistance. They offer some support, but they are not fully immersed. They tell us: “Let’s give something to the ‘Israelis’, just to keep them quiet.”

But I ask: how much have we already given to the “Israelis”? For more than a year, since the agreement, we have made concessions and sacrifices, yet the “Israelis” have not reduced their demands, nor have they grown weary, nor have they stopped.

Lebanon implemented all the terms of the agreement, and the Lebanese government even gave additional free concessions to the “Israeli” enemy—but “Israel” gave nothing in return. So what does the agreement actually say? Some people are now trying to reinterpret it. What does the agreement say?

First, “Israel” and Lebanon will implement a ceasefire. Did it stop? Not from “Israel’s” side.

Second, “Israel” will not carry out any offensive military operations against Lebanese territory, including civilian or military targets or any state-affiliated objectives, by land, sea, or air.

Usually, when someone talks about an agreement, they start with the first two, three, or four articles. The first two articles say: cease all aggression; they say: no attacks of any kind—neither on civilians nor on military targets.

Then, we come to Article 12, which talks about the gradual withdrawal and deployment of the Lebanese army within sixty days, specifying that this applies south of the Litani River—it mentions south of the Litani five times.

Honestly, I am amazed at those who fail to see the “Israeli” withdrawal—or what is required from “Israel”—and who try to reinterpret the agreement as imposing additional demands on Hezbollah and Lebanon. Look at the other side! Look at what “Israel” is doing.

The resistance has fully adhered to the agreement alongside Lebanon. Lebanon, through the state and the army, together with the cooperation of the resistance and the people, has implemented the terms. Yet “Israel” continues killing, bombing, and carrying out security operations in Lebanon in various ways—through different nationalities—and most recently through the kidnapping of retired Captain Ahmed Shokor from the heart of Lebanese territory in the Zahle region.

Where is the Lebanese state and its responsibility? The state is responsible. Sovereignty means that this state cannot be violated—not through intelligence, security, aggression, or any other means. There is no intervention, no attempt to confront the “Israeli” entity from Lebanon’s so-called friends, as they claim.

So, if Lebanon does not have the ability to guarantee its own sovereignty, how can it be expected to give up its strength, its capabilities, and its morale?

Do you know why they accuse the army of not properly implementing the agreement south of the Litani River, or of being slow there? It’s because they want the army to act with harshness, to create a scene of chaos and fighting, so it appears as though the army is heavy-handed. They fail to understand that our Lebanese army is a national army. Our army is made up of the sons of this country. It is an army that wants to liberate the land, uphold sovereignty, and not work on “Israel’s” or America’s agenda.

What frustrates them is the cooperation by the resistance, which was ideal and exemplary, facilitating the army’s deployment and operations.

Third, you may want to ask—or some might say: “We want to know Hezbollah’s position now, after this month has ended. What is Hezbollah’s official stance?”

Our official stance is as follows: what the Lebanese army accomplished in deploying south of the Litani River during the past period was required only if “Israel” adhered to the agreement. If “Israel” had stopped its aggression, withdrawn, released prisoners, and begun reconstruction, then the army’s deployment would have been fully in line with its duties. Despite that we facilitated this matter.

However, since the “Israeli” enemy has not implemented a single step of the agreement, and has carried out more than ten thousand violations—including killings, destruction, and all kinds of heinous acts—Lebanon is no longer required to take any action on any level until “Israel” fulfills its obligations. “Israel” must first comply fully with everything required of it; only then can we discuss further measures.

Any additional concessions or “free offers” by the Lebanese state—or by anyone else—to “Israel” are irresponsible, dangerous, and threaten Lebanon’s major national interests. Do not ask us for anything more. The state is not required to act as “Israel’s” policeman or to give up its sovereignty.

Aggression must stop. Let me explain what “stop aggression” means: it must stop by air, land, and sea—no attacks, no flights, no spying, and no forms of aggression of any kind. There must be complete withdrawal, not just from one or two points, but full withdrawal as specified in the agreement. All prisoners must be released, not just some, and reconstruction must begin clearly, starting from the South, so that people can return to the villages.

This is the proper implementation of the agreement. First, we finish implementing the agreement; then we discuss, then we make demands; only then can anyone say that a second, third, or fourth step needs to be taken.

The U.S. ambassador in Lebanon reportedly tells some of those around him, when asked, “So why doesn’t' ‘Israel’ comply?” He replies: “That’s normal—‘Israel’ is stronger, and the strong impose their conditions.”

So is the idea that whoever has power can dominate the world, attack others, oppress them, and take whatever they want? We say: because this is our land, and because we seek justice, the aggression must stop and “Israel” must withdraw. Our position is about rights, not brute force—because there is an agreement, and because we have rights under that agreement. Let them implement it and give us our rights. As for saying, “Well, ‘Israel’ is stronger”—I’ll say this: “Israel” may be militarily superior, that is true, but we are superior in our right, our land, and our decision to resist.

“Israel” threatens war and inflicts damage, but it will not achieve its objectives. We will defend ourselves, we will endure, and we will achieve our goals—even if it takes time. Forty-two years of humiliating “Israel” and liberating our land point to the direction we are on. Two years of rampage will not overturn the equation of martyrs, land, and sacrifice. We remain true to our pledge.

I say to them: bring your strongest forces, cooperate with the worst of people, use all your brutality and criminality—but we will not retreat, we will not surrender, and we will defend. You have already seen some of our strength and steadfastness in the Battle of the Mighty [Uli al Baas Battle]. This is our path. This is our land, our country, and our rights—and “Israel”, America, and their agents will not take them from us.

Take heed from what happened: 75,000 “Israeli” soldiers and officers were deployed, yet they were unable to advance against the resistance on the front lines—thanks to those heroic, self-sacrificing fighters who stood firm and presented the world with a legend of steadfastness. You sought to block reconstruction in order to sow discord between the resistance and the people. So what did we do in response? We managed to provide shelter for and restore 400,000 family homes—meaning 400,000 families either returned to repaired homes or rented homes because theirs had been completely destroyed—and you failed to create that rift.

You also worked to create a split between the Amal Movement and Hezbollah, but thanks be to God, the relationship between Hezbollah and Amal today is strong and solid. The families of Amal and Hezbollah are one and the same; the land of Amal and Hezbollah is one and the same. The Lebanon that Hezbollah and the Amal Movement want—dignified, honorable, strong, sovereign, and independent—is one and the same in vision. We all have martyrs and wounded; we all share the same pain. We will remain one hand, despite you—enemies, haters, and those driven by malice.

All of this, of course, has taken place in cooperation with allies across sects and parties. We are not alone—Hezbollah and Amal are joined by parties, forces, sects, groups, civil society organizations, and others. All of them are moving in the same direction and along the same path, and this is a source of strength. Listen to what families in our community and our region are saying—those who were displaced, forced into displacement, and made to lose their children, their livelihoods, and their means. Listen to what the children say; listen to what the women say. They all speak with one voice: we want dignity, and we are ready to give more and more—but we will not concede and we will not retreat. Today, they are more committed than ever to arms, resistance and the right of self-defense.

We have the right to defend ourselves. We are not engaging in aggression; we are acting in self-defense, which is our natural and legitimate right. No one can take that away from us. At the same time, we are participating in building the state and offering the best example and model. Naturally, all of this has caused confusion, fear, and consternation for them.

Fourth: If you want a solution, then the “Israeli” enemy must implement what it owes under the agreement—withdraw from Lebanon, halt its aggression by land, sea, and air across all Lebanese regions and in all its forms, release all prisoners, and stop obstructing reconstruction, whether by “Israel” itself or by the United States. Once this is achieved, we can discuss a national security strategy with complete positivity and full cooperation, in a way that serves Lebanon’s interests and strengthens the country.

And I say to the Lebanese people: Lebanon will not survive if its South is lost, and all Lebanese are concerned with uniting their voice to save the country. It is unacceptable to say, “The burden is on us alone.” No—the burden must be shared by everyone.

Here I want to be clear: no one has the right to ask us, “Why are you defending yourselves?” We are the ones who should be asking them: Why don’t you defend Lebanon? Why don’t you protect the backs of those who are defending Lebanon? Why don’t you stand for Lebanon’s sovereignty and national dignity?

Those who do not defend—we want to question them. Those who do not stand up and confront—we want to question them. Those who do not work for national unity—we want to question them.

I assure you: Lebanon is one boat. Whoever thinks they can throw us into the sea so they alone can claim the spoils—I say to them: watch where you place your feet. Swimmers do not drown, no matter how deep the sea. And if swimmers do not survive a violent storm, then no one will survive and nothing will remain.

We are confident—as Hezbollah and as a resistance—that we will remain dignified, strong, courageous defenders, no matter the difficulties or the sacrifices. God is with us, the truth is with us, and our people are with us. And whoever is with God does not worry whether he falls upon death or death falls upon him.

Death’s appointed time is in God’s hands; our stance, however, is our responsibility—and we are committed to it. May God’s mercy embrace the departed founding mujahid, the great Hajj Abu Salim, and all the righteous martyrs. I ask God Almighty to heal the wounded and to grant freedom to the prisoners.

To the soul of our dear departed Hajj Abu Salim, to all the martyrs, and to all those we have lost along this path, we dedicate the reward of the blessed Surat Al-Fatiha, along with prayers upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad.