A Lebanese priest says the word “martyrs” is a loaded term meant to incite. Watch this Memri video.
Here’s the snippet of his compelling argument:
Interviewer: Take, for example, the people who were killed in South Lebanon, while fighting the Israelis – should they be considered martyrs?
Father Samir Khalil Al-Yasou’i: Definitely not. They are not martyrs, because they were fighting. This is political defense…
Interviewer: So they are by no means martyrs? Is it wrong and inappropriate to use the word “martyr” in this case?
Father Al-Yasou’i:This word is used to incite people and to justify one’s positions. If I take my weapon and go to war against another armed person, this means that one of us could get killed. There are victims… In any case, I am considered an aggressor, just like him. Even if he managed to hit me, and I did not manage to hit him, it does not mean that I am considered a martyr and he is the executioner. Moreover, like Dr. Samir said, Gandhi should indeed be considered a martyr, because he was killed fighting for the sake of non-violence, and because he sought to unite the Muslims and the Hindus. In addition, some Buddhists, like those we are seeing now in Myanmar, can be considered martyrs.
Interviewer: They are victims of the lack of religious freedom.
Father Al-Yasou’i: Yes, because first, there must be non-violence. The violent cannot be considered a martyr . . . .
(Hat tip: Solomonia)
