we say that it does not matter to us whether Zainab was taken captive twice or a hundred times, What matters to us is that we, as human beings and land, are not taken captive twice, We have not been taken captive twice, but rather we have been subjected for half a century, or rather for centuries, to continuous captivity, escalating tyranny, corruption, killing, and assassination, And we have been subjected for two years to all of that, or even more than all of that, To reassure Nasrallah in his grave, we say to him that Zainab was not taken captive twice, because it is impossible for her to be taken captive twice, Zainab died once, and captivity is for the living, It is not correct to call tampering with the shrine of Lady Zainab, even metaphorically, “captivity.” It is tampering or aggression, etc.

There is no doubt that whoever employed Zainab and her shrine to fuel the Syrian inferno knew a lot about the situation and subject of Lady Zainab, and also knew that it is not honorable to involve Lady Zainab in justifying the killing and occupation, It is also known that Lady Zainab has been resting in peace for thousands of years, and her shrine has never been attacked. However, all of this did not prevent the charlatan Nasrallah from assigning her a task that is not befitting the granddaughter of the son of Abdullah or the father of Zainab. 

It can be said that the issue of Zainab and her dispute with Yazid and the killing of Hussein were matters that the average person does not know, and do not concern the average person, When this person hears about the captivity twice, he digs into history to learn about the subject more accurately, and learning about the issue of Zainab and Yazid shows a similarity to the current situation, and confirms the reality of these peoples, who are still breathing the dust of Karbala, and the sectarianism of those days is still alive and well in the present, and its reviver and refresher is none other than Nasrallah and his likes from the other Umayyad group, all of them with their sects and sectarianism are destroying what remains of the homelands.

How can someone who doesn’t want Zainab to be taken captive twice take tens of thousands of Syrians captive in Qusayr, Qalamoun, and other areas, in the context of defending Assad’s dictatorship, tyranny, and enslavement of the people? How can someone who disowns Yazid the Umayyad ally with Assad? Is Assad similar to Hussein, or is Assad an exact but undeclared copy of Yazid the Umayyad? Now the Syrians have an declared Umayyad version of Yazid, Was the Umayyad Yazid a rebel for the sake of truth, or was it Hussein who rebelled against hereditary rule? Didn’t Assad come to power through hereditary rule, just as Yazid did?

   Nasrallah recruited Zainab and armed her with a rifle and a bomb to aid him in his struggle against the infindel, The infidel, in his view, is anyone who doesn’t adhere to his ideology, He religiously condemns and politically betrays anyone who stands against the Syrian tyrant, Political infindel is more insidious than religious infindel, which Nasrallah also practiced with distinction, His feigned and contrived concern for Zainab’s shrine is nothing but a form of sectarian   infindel, which drove him to take up arms to kill Syrians who reject the totalitarian dictatorship based on plunder, exploitation, and marginalization, Nasrallah, who outwardly didn’t want Zainab to be taken captive twice, wanted Syrians to submit to the Assad regime’s sanctity by force and coercion, Even if we assume that Assad was nominally a secular and secular civilian, this doesn’t justify forced submission to him, There is no secularism within the embrace of religious sectarianism, The only thing that united Nasrallah, a Shiite to the core, and Assad was their Alawite faith, -The latter is Shiite, so Nasrallah found even in the Shiite communist a brother to him in doctrine, therefore an ally to him, the important thing is that he is Shiite!

 Nasrallah and Assad both emphasized that a minority dictatorship is necessary to protect minorities, Therefore, we had to accept Assad’s minority dictatorship to protect minorities. However, aside from some Alawites, other minorities do not feel protected by Assad, Instead, they feel the need to flee and leave, such as Christians, Druze, and others. Certainly, the Kurds do not feel any form of protection from Assad. This is in Syria, As for Iran, it seems there is no need to protect minorities in a religious entity that claims to be a Shiite state, knowing that the Iranian people are not exclusively Shiite, According to government statistics, Sunnis constitute 10% of Iran’s population. Some sources say they constitute 30% of the population, according to old statistics (during the Shah’s era), Independent sources say their percentage is between 15 and 20%. Regardless of the Christians, most of whom have emigrated or rather none of whom remain, there is a Turkmen percentage that equals 20% of the population, Arabs constitute about 8%, and then Kurds about 6%, The Persians constitute the majority, about 60%,, Shouldn’t Bashar al-Assad have defended the minorities in Iran?! There is no authority in Iran except the authority of the Shiites, There, Shiism must rule, whether it represents a minority or a majority, And whoever doesn’t like that can bang their head against the first wall they see!

    The history of the region has begun to repeat itself,Anyone who observes the events in the modern era will find a similarity to the Abbasid-Umayyad dilemma, It is the revival of the past or the continuation of the past in the present, Allowing the past to dominate the present does not represent anything but a great deficiency in the ability to create the future,Whoever does not create a future is considered dead or a walking corpse!