ASK DR.ZAKIR NAIK : {JESUS CLAIM DIVINITY ? “I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE”: BIBLE JOHN JOHNCH 10 VERSE 30}

ASK DR.ZAKIR NAIK: 

{JESUS CLAIM DIVINITY ? “I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE”: BIBLE JOHN CH 10 VERSE 30}

(QUESTIONER)

 Assalaam Alaikum – My name is Haji Muhammed. Brother Zakir… Brother Zakir, you mentioned in your talk that Jesus never claimed Divinity. But it is mentioned in the Bible that Jesus said…  ‘I and my father are one’ Does this not simply that he claimed Divinity?

ANSWER:

(DR. ZAKIR)

Brother has asked a question that I said in my talk, that nowhere does the Bible say ‘that Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) claimed Divinity’ - And he gave a quotation of the Bible, that Jesus said ‘I and my father one’. What the brother is quoting is, a verse from the Bible, in the Gospel of John, Ch. No.10, Verse No.30, which does say… ‘I and my father are one’. But when you ask the Christian missionaries, that… ‘What is the context?’ I have not yet met a Christian missionary, who can tell you the context without opening the Bible. He knows ‘I and my father are one’, but he does not know the context. For example, if I quote to someone, that the Qur’an says, ‘Does not pray’ - Most of the Muslims would be shocked - what am I saying? And if you open it up, it says… ‘Do not pray’ - but its half the verse. Surah Nisa Ch.4, Verse No.43, says ‘Do not pray with your mind befogged’ - Do not pray when you are intoxicated. So if I only quote… Do not pray - It will mean Qur’an says, ‘Don’t pray’ – half the quotation. So for the context, ‘I and my father are one’ - you have to go to the Gospel of John, Ch. No.10, Verse No. 23, and I am quoting from my memory, that ‘Jesus walked into the temple, in Solomon’s porch’.

Verse No. 24 says, and the Jews came around him and asked him. ‘How long does thou make us doubt? - If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly’. Verse No.25 says, ‘I told you, but you believe me not - the works that I do in my father’s name, - they bear witness of me. Verse No.26 says that, ‘you believe not because you are not my sheep, as I   said unto  you’. The Jews, they are asking Jesus Christ  (peace be upon him) that ‘Why don’t you speak plainly?’. So he tells them that…‘Yes I am the Messiah - I have told you clearly, but because you are not my sheep, you don’t believe in me. Verse No.27 continues…Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) continues saying that… ‘My sheep - they hear my voice, and I know them - and they follow me. Verse No.28, that… ‘I give them eternal life - no man can pluck them out of my hand, and they shall not perish’. Verse No.29 says ‘My father who giveth to me, He is greater than all - No man can pluck them out of my father’s hand. Then Verse No. 30 says, ‘I and my father are one’ – ‘Any person who has little bit sense can make out,  ‘I and my father are one’ doesn’t mean one - as one person. It means one is purpose. Verse No.28 says, ‘No man can pluck them out of my hand – Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) says- ‘No man can pluck them out of my hand’. Verse No.29 is saying. ‘No man can pluck them out of my father’s hand’. Verse No.30 says  ‘I and my father are one’ -In purpose. Both Jesus Christ  (peace be upon him) and Almighty God - they are one in purpose. If I say that my father is a doctor… and he is a doctor… Alhamdulillah - Even I am a medical doctor. If I say, ‘I and my father are one’ - What does it mean? It means one in purpose - As medical profession, my father is a doctor - Even I am a doctor. It doesn’t mean that ‘I and my father are one’.

It means my father is a medical doctor - even I am a medical doctor. But Christians say ‘No.. No – it means ‘one’ - actual Unity. So we say… ‘Okay, you say actual unity… let us read further’. If you go ahead in the Gospel of John, Ch. No.17, Verse No.21, it says that, Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) said that… ‘Ye all of them are one - My father in me, and I in thee, we all are one’. ‘Does it mean that God Almighty, is in Jesus Christ… and Jesus Christ is in all his 12 disciples. So there will be 14 gods - Jesus Christ, God Almighty, and 12 disciples. The same ‘one’ is used there, and here. If you go to the source, the same word is used - If you go to the Greek… the same word is used - So does it mean you have 14 gods? And among those disiples, Judas was a traitor -. Even he is God? Thomas doubted Jesus Christ (peace be upon him )  - is he God? - ‘Peter’ - Jesus Christ says … ‘is satanic?’-  Is he also God? No, - all of them, God Almighty - Jesus Christ and the  Apostles, are one in purpose - they are  same. Again if you go 2 verses  ahead - Gospel of John, Ch.  17, Verse 23, says that, ‘I am in thee, and you are in me’… he tells the disciples. Does it make all them God? No! It means one in purpose. But then Christians will say, ‘I have quoted the first part... why don’t you quote after that... after Verse No.30 - Gospel of John Chapter 10. Lets go ahead - Gospel of John, Ch. No. 10, Verse No.31. says, ‘And Jews picked up stones  again, to stone at Jesus  (peace be upon him) Verse No. 32, says… ‘And Jesus (peace be upon him) asked them - for which of the good works of my father, do you stone me?’ Verse No. 33, says that…‘We don’t’ stone you for any good works, but because you blashpheme – being a man, you call yourself God – that is why we stone you’. Verbatim…I am reading from my memory - Any person who wants to check up, can check up. 

It is there in the Bible - Gospel of John, Ch. 10, Verse 23 onwards… I am quoting. So Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) gives the answer - the Jews say that see he is trying to blaspheme, calling himself ‘God’. Good riddance - they want to kill him - good riddance. The Christians say ooh! the Jews called him God Almighty - See they understood him correctly - for redemption. One wants for redemption - they are calling him God - the other group of people for good riddance. But the answer is given in the next verse - Verse no. 34, of John Ch. 10, Gospel of John, Ch. 10, says that…‘Is it not mentioned in your Scriptures that ye are gods? - and if the person to whom the word’ of God came … if he says… ‘god’ - the Scripture is not broken. If you check up in the Bible, in the Psalms, Ch. No. 82, Verse No.6, does say that, ‘Ye are gods’. So Jesus Christ gave the answer, that the person to whom the ‘Word’ of God came, if you call him ‘God’, it is not blaspheme. It is meaning that… they are one in purpose.

Hope that answers the question. 

CAN YOU STOMACH THE BEST OF RUSHDIE? "The Satanic Verses" unexpurgated By Ahmed Deedat THE PEN AND THE SWORD

CAN YOU STOMACH THE BEST OF RUSHDIE? 
"The Satanic Verses" 
unexpurgated
By Ahmed Deedat
THE PEN AND THE SWORD

So far 'Satanic' Salman has succeeded in causing the death of 40 Muslim men, widowed Muslim women and orphaned Muslim children with his poisoned pen, proving the old saying (if proof was needed) that "The Pen is Mightier than the Sword!"

Despite all my anger, sorrow and bitterness i still plead with my fellow Muslims in travail - "Stop crying", "Don't wail!", "No more protest marches or book burning!" All our visible signs of pain and anguish are giving the enemies of Islam gleeful sadistic pleasures. I say, STOP IT! Turn the Tables!

TURNING THE TABLES

Let us learn a lesson from the life of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him). His detractors came to him again and again with posers - and riddles as recorded in the Christian New Testament. His own people, the Jews, came to him, whit mockery on their lips and mischief in their hearts, saying "Master, we caught this women in the act of adultery, what must we do to her?" [Pick up your Free copy of the book - "ARABS and ISRAEL - Conflict or Conciliation?" from the Centre for a detailed exposition of these episodes] Jesus turned the tables on the Jews. Again, on another occasion, they said, "Master, must we pay tribute (taxes) to Caesar or not? Once more again Jesus turned the tables on the Jews in the temple of Solomon on his triumphant march into Jerusalem with his disciples, he physically overturned the money-changers´ tables and, with a corded whip, whipped them out of the Temple [ For full details get your Free copy of "CRUCIFIXION or CRUCIFICTION?" When ordering by mail, please consider enclosing postage money. Don't kill the goose that lays golden egg.] We shamefully acknowledge that we lack the potency to whip anybody, but every Muslim who reads these words and understands what he is reading can turn the tables on every Westerner who defends Rushdie.


UNEXPURGATED RUSHDIE

There is no way of cleaning the stable without dirtying your hands. I have seen numerous TV programmes debating Rushdie´s "Satanic Verses." But not one, I repeat again NOT ONE, Muslim defender of our Cause grappled with the nettle. One who came nearest was one of our intellectuals who, when prodded as to what in Rushdie´s book created such terrible umbrage in the Muslim minds, in Rushdie´s work, timidly quoted the word "bhaenchud" Satanic Salman´s "The Satanic Verses."

What did this word "bhaenchud mean to some 50 million American viewers on ABC or was it PBS TV network? Absolutely NOTHING!

"Bhaenchud" is only for starters. You have been warned. This publication , the word "UNEXPURGATED" , which means that Rushdie´s text in his original "The Satanic Verses" are not tampered with. That nothing is done by me to remove, expunge, erase any obscene or pornographic word or phrase. If you can´t stomach Rushdie´s "shit"[ This is a very mild expression from Rushdie's book. See and hear me on video "Is Jesus God?", a debate with Dr Shorrosh in which I was hard put skirting round and round this word and yet never coming to uttering it: in deference to my audience.] in print, please tear up this publication and throw it in your toilet pan. In all my lectures on Rushdie, I had warned my audiences in advance that my talks were "Definitely not for Prudes, children and Bashful Men and Women"!

From now on, you can look forward to sharing the "gems" (the shit which Rushdie has excreted) whit your Western friends and neighbours. Create opportunities to expound "The Satanic Verses".
A NOVEL APPROACH

Begin like this - "Admitted that Rushdie has many filthy, dirty and obscene things to say about Islam and its heroes and heroines: but sir, do you know what he has to say about you, his benefactors and protectors, what thanks he gives you for his upbringing, cultural and moral deportment, and unsolicited refuge and hospitality?"

On the very first[The actual first page of chapter One is numbered 3. Because this Satan has counted Nos 1 and 2 without enumerating them, ie. No 1 is a dedication to his living companion in "Hell" (of his own making) with just two words "FOR MARRIANE" his second spouse, on the whole page and No 2 is a prologue on "SATAN" by Daniel Defoe from his Book "The History of the Devil" which astonishingly enough is Rushdie himself. Read the reproduction on page 6; you can't help agreeing, how "prophetic" are those words!]page of "The Satanic Verses", Rushdie calls his god-fathers the British- "PROPER LONDON, BHAI![ . "BHAI!" What is "bhai" Satanic Salman has used a dozen exotic Hindi words on the first page alone in his the very first chapter, gleaned from the gutters of Bombay. But wait for what he spews out from the sewers of his birthplace. He scatters his obscenities a hundred times without translating them to tantalise his Western dimwits.] HERE WE COME! THOSE BASTARDS DOWN THERE WON'T KNOW WHAT HIT THEM."

Bastards! He could have said those sons of bitches. But wait, let Rushdie get warmed up.

The first time i ever uttered the word "bastard" was in the early sixties at a public meeting in the City Hall of Durban, at question time, I happened to quote a verse from the Holy Bible to illustrate a point; I had read:

"The bastard shall not enter the conregation of the Lord; even unto the tenth generation...?" Deuteronomy 23:2

This one word - bastard, nearly brought the roof down on me! How could Deedat utter such a word? Remember, I was only quoting! My audience did not know that this Anglo-Saxon unsavoury word bastard was repeated in the "Book of Books" only three times, in nearly 1,500 pages. Rushdie does it 29 times in his bid to beat all records for all times in his tome of 500, double-spaced, sparasely typed pages. Observe this evil genius constructing a one-word sentence out of it.

"THAT, AND ALSO HER, THE ICEWOMAN, BASTARD. (note: this b-a-s-t-a-r-d is a sentence by itself) NOW THAT I AM DEAD I HAVE FORGOTTEN HOW TO FORGIVE. " Page 8 of the Devil's "The Satanic Verses" (in short TVS in all future references.).

This Devil incarnate has learnt from his British peers the art of staccato sentences. Now watch him do the impossible whit words. He can introduce THREE "bastards" in a single short sentence..."THAT BASTARDS, THOSE BASTARDS, THEIR LACK OF BASTARDS [Rushdie's own emphasis] TASTE" (PAGE 137 TSV).

WHAT A PRIZE!

Could Viking/Penguin, the publishers of this filth, have given Rushdie eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000) as advance money for this? Not likely! They have good (?) business sense. They smelt their "PIECE OF PIG EXCREMENT" (Rushdie's words: page 7 TVS), "ROTTEN COCKROACH DUNG" (page 13 TVS). Not smelly enough? Rushdie excretes his shit quite late in his book; in his own words - "THE SHIT STARTS" (page 434 TVS). Please check up! "THIS SHIT, YOU CUNTS," "IT'S SHIT," "IT'S FUCKING SHIT," "SHIT DINNER," Four "shits" on one page alone (p441 TVS), page 449 "THREW SHIT." Page 461 "WHIT MAN'S SHIT," there must be something special in it for this Brown Britisher, because he says, "BLACK SHIT IS BAD," on page 529 of his bullshit book TVS, and also on page 461 "NIGGER EAT WHITE MAN'S WHIT," and he shuns his reasons, as to why!
PROLOGUE 

Satan, being thus confined to a vagabond, wandering, unsettled condition, is without any certain abode; for though he has, in consequence of his angelic nature, a kind of empire in the liquid waste or air, yet this is certainly part of his punishment, that he is ... without any fixed place, or space, allowed him to rest the sole of his foot upon.
Daniel Defoe, The History of the Devil
All this shit of Rushdie will not satiate Peter Mayer the Director of Penguin and his fellow gluttons. They need something more sicky and stinky to satisfy their depraved tastes. And, Rushdie is their man of the hour. There will never be another to get away whit the lampooning of Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Jews. Blacks as well as all Whites! Not even sparing the "Iron Lady" nor the Queen of Great Britian. If you, the reader, have come thus far, you might as well go the whole hog. Finish this book!

SELECTIVE SENSITIVITY

Everyone in the West, British and American, giants of the literary world, are not impervious to sacrilege, insults and profanities as contained in "The Satanic Verses". Roald Dahl, a British author and member of the Literaray Guild had some pertinent remarks as reproduced from "The Daily News" dated March 1 st, 1989 (see next page). Cynical supporters of Rushdie's rights of freedom of speech and expression might say that for Dahl it was a question of "sour grapes", not having been nominated for the short-list of the prestigious "Book Award" himself.

CHRISTIAN AND JEW UNITE

What would they say of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Robert Rucie, who has said in the first official statement by the Church of England "ONLY THE UTTERLY INSENSITIVE CAN FAIL TO SEE THAT THE PUBLICATION OF SALMAN RUSHDIE'S BOOK HAS DEEPLY OFFENDED MUSLIMS BOTH HERE AND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD." The Anglican Primate continued: "I UNDERSTAND THEIR FEELINGS AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT OFFENCE TO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF THE FOLLOWERS OF ISLAM OR ANY OTHER FAITH IS QUITE AS WRONG AN OFFENCE AS TO THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF CHRISTIANS."

And what have the dullards on the Rushdie bandwagon to say of the Chief Rabbi of Britain, Lord Jakobovits, who has the first religious leader in Britain to "DEPRECATE....THE OFFENCE CAUSED" by the book, has reiterated his view that it "SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED." In a letter to The Times (4th March 1989) the Chief Rabbi also agreed on the need for "PROHIBITING THE PUBLICATION OF ANYTHING LIKELY TO INFLAME, THROUGH OBSCENE DEFAMATION..." What motives can we attribute to the three above? Nothing other than the Love of God and Love of Man based on Eternal Thrust. The Holy Qur'an describes these godly men as "And among them (the Jews and Christians) are Mu'mins, (meaning Faithful, Sincere People)..." Holy Qur'an 3:110

But lest we are deluded into complacency, the All-Wise Merciful God reminds us in the concluding phrase of the above verse "But the majority of them are perverted transgressors."

How amply are the words proven true, again and again! Are these atheistic and materialistic so-called Jews and Christians beyond redemption? No! We are never to despair! There is still much good in them. Learn to talk to them rationally, not emotionally. Give them living examples from their day-to-day affairs.

MPs ANGERED
Datelined from London, on the 22nd May, 1989, was a roaring headline in "The Daily News."
I sympathise with the British in their righteous indignation. Though the English-speaking people, both British and American, bandy around not only four-letter words, but five- and seven-letter profane words in their normal cultural and social relationships. Yet they are highly sensitive when the same words are used in connection with their own heroes and heroines.

DOUBLE STANDARDS
What grates me most is the rank hypocisy of the one thousand and one Poets, Playwrights and Pimps; Editors, Essayists and Eunuchs; Novelists, Newspaperman and Non-Conformists who signed and paid for adverts in the National Newspapers in support of Rushdie's right to absolute freedom of speech and expression.

Yet not a single one of those thousand will raise an eyebrown in defending Rourke's right to use just a four-letter word even once. Not against Mrs. Thatcher in person but against her economic Policies. Their hypocrisy is unbearable!

What was that "four-letter" word wich roused such fury and ire among a people reputed for their calm, placid, sagacity? It is downright silly to beat around the bush. That emotive word is F-U-C-K! Because of this single four-letter word, Lady Chatterley-s Lover was banned in South Africa for twenty years! Even the dullest of the English-speaking people conjure up the word "fuck", when the expression "four-letter" is used.

A TETRAGRAMATTON

The Jehovah's Witnesses, a very active and most militant evangelistic Christian sect, never use the expression "four-letter word" in any of their literature though a four-letter word is the kingpin of their preaching.[ Obtain your FREE copy of the book "What is his name?" from the Centre for fuller explanation.] They have invented a fourteen-letter word to describe a four-letter word. Imagine! They ever and anon substitute "TETRAGRAMATTON" instead of simply the word "four".

Rushdie has overcome this typical British aversion by making a "four-letter" word into a seven-letter word by simply adding the present participle suffix to the word FUCK by adding I-N-G, making it FUCKING. See how adoritly he made the whole British nation swallow the word FUCKING while Rourke's "FUCK" was gettting stuck in their throats.

"OH. SHE'S (Maggie) RADICAL ALL RIGHT. WHAT SHE (Maggie) WANTS - WHAT SHE (Maggie) ACTUALLY THINKS SHE (Maggie) CAN FUCKING ACHIEVE IS LITERALLY...FROM FUCKING SURREY AND HAMPSHIRE...NOBODY'S EVER TRIED TO REPLACE A WHOLE FUCKING CLASS BEFORE...THIS COUNTRY THAT'S STUFFED FULL OF FUCKING OLD CORPSES. (Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" page 270).

It is strange that the British can stomach four "fuckings" in one paragraph from Rushdie but one "fuck" from Rourke infuriates them. Is it because Rushdie is there brother-in-law and son-in-law combined? (Remember! His divorce first whife was British.) A cursory count will give you 5 FUCKS and 52 FUCKINGS in this what the Western world has called a literary masterpiece! Don't forget, only 52, just one "FUCKING" for every week of the year!

One can't help agreeing that "The Satanic Verses" is a masterpiece for fucking-up the English language. He has conjoined his word "FUCKING" with every letter of the alphabet. Here is a quick summary of some of them. Verify the rest at leisure.

With the Letter a: Pages from TVS


"FUCKING A" 245
"FUCKING ALLIES" 269
"FUCKING AMERICANS" 280
"FUCKING ARGENTINA" 268
"FUCKING BEATLES" 163
"FUCKING BEDPAN" 169
"FUCKING CLASS" 270
"FUCKING CREEP" 178
"FUCKING CLOWNS" 101
"FUCKING COMMANDOS" 80
"FUCKING DIFF?" 262
"FUCKING DYNASTY" 265
"FUCKING DOGS" 410
"FUCKING DREAMS" 122
"ENJOY FUCKING" 149
"FUCKING GUITAR" 269
"FUCKING HORNY" 158
"FUCKING HELLHOLE" 180
"FUCKING IDIOT" 526
Please forgive me, if it is getting too boring. Here is a little variation:
FUCKING TANK FUCKING PEE AITCH DEE FUCKING COUNTRY All this from a single page: 268 TVS FUCKING LIFE FUCKING NATION THE BASTARDS


Why you enjoy fucking with this one p 149
You are fucking my woman p 207
Don't holy men ever fuck? p 278
God's own permission to fuck p 386

I have had enough of this "fucking shit" (words borrowed from Satanic Salman). Let me end with a last bit "WILD DONKEYS FUCKING WEARILY AND DROPPING DEAD STILL CONJOINED" (page 479 TVS).

Dear reader, if any pervert, dolt or dullard protests that the foregoing quotations are out of context, then obtain the text (Satanic Salman's Satanic Verses). If you already have it then please buy three highlighters - red, yellow and green, and go to town in colour-coding Rushdie's shit. RED for all the "fuck" and "fucking" words. YELLOW for all the Hindi exotic words, like "bhaenchud", "yaar", "haramazada", etc. And GREEN for quotable verses: I'll refer you to them later.

Thus armed with a colour-coded "The Satanic Verses", you can plaster the cynics and mockers of Muslims With Rushdie's excrement. They ought to relish it, never mind how much they protest. It's food for the maggots! Like randy hooker Pamella Borders; Mother India also gave birth to Salman Rushdie, alias Satanic Salman, also "Saladin Chamcha" or "Spoono" and "Gibreel Farishta" all are one and the same - Rushdie of "Satanic Verses" fame. Nurtured in the Western culture, both Pamella and Salman spurned their faiths. At the tender age of thirteen, Rushdie was thrown into the laps of the West. He studied at Rugby and Cambridge in England and imbibed its culture. He went the whole hog. Listen to his philosophy, page 211 TVS ie "The Satanic Verses". He wrote –

"BUT TO BE RAISED IN THE HOUSE OF POWER IS TO LEARN ITS WAYS, TO SOAK THEM UP, THROUGH THAT VERY SKIN THAT IS THE CAUSE OF YOUR OPPRESSION. THE HABIT OF POWER, ITS TIMBRE, ITS POSTURE, ITS WAY OF BEING WITH OTHER. ITS IS A DISEASE, BILAL, INFECTING ALL WHO COME TOO NEAR IT. IF THE POWERFUL TRAMPLE OVER YOU, YOU ARE INFECTED BY THE SOLES OF THEIR FEET." TVS p 211

It is worth highlighting the above quotation in GREEN. Rushdie is giving here the source of his own inspiration and nourishment. He has imbibed the worst of both worlds! Now see, how he repays his British god-fathers for all their kind and generous hospitality.

He charges his British benefactors as an incestuous people. He calls them "THE SISTER FUCKING BRITISH." [All emphases in this quote, are Rushdie's own!] TVS p 80. This is the unkindliest cut of them all. He marries Pamela Lovelace according to his story in the TVS. And according to his own philosophy she was destined "FOR FUCKING AND THROWING OVER," which he did by divorcing her.

Where did he get the information from that the British fuck their own sisters? Perhaps his Pamela may have confided in him, and maybe he betrayed her trust.

THE IRON LADY

My wife has a special liking for Mrs. Thatcher. She cannot explain. She does not understand her politics. Perhaps it is the clarity of her voice and forceful speeches that attract her to the "Iron lady."

Islam forbids the giving of offensive nick-names to anybody. I take it that "Iron Lady" is not offensive. If it is, my apologies. I owe Mrs. Thatcher nothing. But my wife and I were offended on learning that beside disparaging her successful economic policies with obscenities (refer page 10 herof), now he makes his character to say "I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU-KNOW-WHO," VALANCE EXPLAINED HELPFULLY. "TORTURE. MAGGIE THE BITCH." TVS p 269.

Mickey Rourke (p 8) used only a four-letter word for Mrs Thatcher's POLICIES and Britain was incensed, but when Rushdie applies a five-letter title (B-I-T-C-H), it becomes Kosher [ Kosher: The Jewish term for what they consider to be Halaal or permissible ] Halaal, Permissible! Strange. Oh British, how did Rushdie bewitch you with b-i-t-c-h?

IS "TVS" A NOVEL?

Rushdie claims that his TSV is only a novel, it is a dream within a dream. Don't you remember that every movie before its screening, at one time, displayed a notice, to wit "All characters in this film are fictitious and the similarity of any name to persons living or dead are merely coincidental." Tell that to Mark Thatcher or Carol Thatcher, Mrs Thatcher's son and daughter, and see what they do to you! Nobody will blame them for any grievous bodily harm. Try! Try!

In the house of Islam, anyone traducing the fair name of any lady, living or dead, will be required to produce four "EYEWITNESSES" to the alleged indiscretion to qualify as a "bitch", and if under cross-examination one of them fails, all four witnesses will receive 80 lashes each. Cruel! Barbaric! you say. You would not say that if your mother's integrity was involved, I bet! If Rushdie himself was an eyewitness to his wife's adultery, he may divorce her on that ground but he would not be allowed to have her arrayed before an Islamic Court without three other impeccable eyewitnesses to corroborate his charge, failing which he too will receive eighty lashes.

NEW MEANING

The Western world has developed an art of glamorising filth and sin. IMMORALITY is now termed "new morality!" A BASTARD is now called a "love-child!" and a BITCH, which normally meant a female dog, when applied to a woman it implied that she was like the bitch in season (rut) - given up to unhibited sexual abandon, free to all comers. This word is derogatory no more if you apply a superlative to it, ie simply add the adjective "super" and make it "SUPERBITCH".

SUPER BITCH

It is defamatory and libellous to call a woman a bitch, but not if you call her a "Super Bitch".

My country South Africa is an industrial giant. It produces 50% of the total electricity of the African continent. 60% of Africa's total industrial output. It is like a part of the United States in Africa. At the moment it is out to outshine Hollywood. She is on the verge of completing a soap opera for TV called "WHIRLPOOL" to compete with Dynasty and Dallas and later export it to America. Our leading lady for Whirlpool is Jane Cillers our own. She is being advertised as "SUPERBITCH"; "The Daily News" dated March 17, 1989. See reproduction on page 17.

Would the British people be happier if another upstart changed Rushdie's "MAGGIE THE BITCH" to "Maggie the Superbitch!"??


THE QUEEN NOT SPARED

I was born British. I still cherish a British passport over 60 years old. I don't know what's its worth. English has become my mother tongue. I dream in English and I also swear in English. I have visited Britain a dozen times. More than once I was tempted to visit the Speakers' Corner, Hyde Park, London, enjoying the many passionate and vehement harangues. It's free for all. One is allowed to curse, abuse and swear anybody and everybody. The law of libel and defamation does not apply in this haven of free speech and unbridled expressions. Yet I am told that Her Majesty the Queen of England is above any abuse or tirade. She is sacrosanct! Not only in Hyde Park but throughout Britain either by word of mouth or through the media, "THOU SHALT NOT DENIGRATE THE QUEEN."

A retired employee at Buckingham Palace wrote a book entitled "Officially Speaking" about the goings-on in the Royal precincts. About drunken orgies and sexual frolics among the Royalty. The publication of this piece of Royal gossip has rightly been suppressed by Mrs Thatcher's government. Amazing England! Rushdie prevails where a blue-blooded Englishman fails. Thanks to Maggie and her British votaries of free speech.

ONLY DERAMING SEX WITH QUEEN

Chamcha (another name of Rushdie in the TSV, see page 12) he found himself dreaming of the Queen, of MAKING TENDER LOVE to the MONARCH. She was the body Britain, the avatar of the state, and he had chosen her, JOINED WITH HER; she was his Beloved, the moon of his delight." [ Mark this quotation with green marker and memorise it. ] (Page 169 of TSV.) What is Rushdie telling his readers, if not that he fucked her Majesty. "Joined with her," above compare with his expression "STILL CONJOINED," on page 12.

I expect some British blockhead of the literary world to cry "Oh! Rushdie only fucked our Queen in his dream." It is all fiction. After all, we can´t hold a man accountable for his dreams. That is true, but "O pervert!" Rushdie was not dreaming when he penned those words!

ALL "WHITE" WOMEN!

Lest the commoner say that "Rusdie only lampoons the high and mighty like the Prime Minister of Britian - Maggie - and the Monarch of Britain - The Queen!" Let me remind them that he has not forgotten you, the plebeian - the ordinary Whites in the country. Nay, he honours all whites, wheresoever they abide.

This choicest piece of racism should also be highlighted with a glowing green pen and memorised:

"WHITE WOMEN - NEVER MIND FAT, JEWISH, NON-DEFERENTIAL12 WHITE WOMEN - WERE FOR FUCKING AND THROWING OVER. "(PAGE 261 TVS)

In Rushdie´s perverted mind, the fate of every "white women" was for fucking and throwing over. The only qualification required by Rushdie is that they be "WHITE". It does not matter their shape or size. Whether with a hooled Jewish nose or an Anglo-Saxon angular nose. Whether you can recognise their nationality or not. Whether they be English, or Irish; Scottish or Weish; German or French; American or Canadian - provided they are white! "THEY ARE ONLY GOOD FOR DISCARDING AFTER FUCKING" SAYS RUSHDIE!


ALL WHITE - "NON DEFERENTIAL" Rushdie (TVS p. 261)
PUBLIC READING OF TVS

The Satanic Verses were being read in Britain and America. One Susan Sontag of the Literary Guild among others read this with religious regularity in New York to her doting audiences, both, black and white, young and old. Some Afro-American [Rushdie calls them "Niggers!" see page 461 TVS "Nigger eat white man's shit." And on page 446 "Niggerjimmy" and "mushroom". ]youths imbibed the message. "WHITE WOMEN ARE FOR FUCKING AND THROWING OVER!" For after all, what is reading if not brain-washing. We are what we eat and we are what we read! Dr Vernon Jones, an American psychologist of great repute, carried out experiments on groups of school children to whom certain stories were being read, and at the end of his experiments he concluded "that these stories made certain slight but permanent changes in character, even in the narrow classroom situation."

SATANIC INSPIRATION

Susan Sontag, a white woman, relished her reading of "The Satanic Verses". So did her admirers. One young listener was inspired! He was waiting for an opportunity to put Rushdie´s idea into action. It didn´t take long. Soon afterwards with five others - the gang of six - one Muslim and five Christians were prowling at night in Central Park, looking for adventure.

They saw a "WHITE WOMAN" jogging. She triggered their imagination! They went a "W-I-L-D-I-N-G" [ WILDING: A new word meaning, went berserk sexually; like a pack of wolves scenting blood! ]as the "Times" magazine, of 8th May, 1989, reports. They bashed the poor woman into unconsciousness, and fell on their prey like a pack of wolves.


WOVES DON'T GO A "WILDING"!


They gang-raped her one by one in turn which no wild beast ever does. The blood and the sweat and the gore titillated their libido!

That poor jogger was an innocent victim. It should have been Susan Sontag, or Marriane Wiggins (Rushdie´s second wife) who says that if she was not Rushdie's wife then she too would have read "The Satanic Verses" to her clientele, in public from city to city.

TVS SHOULD BE READ TO ALL BLACKS!

If I was a sadistic racist, I would have liked to have "The best of Rusdie" read in Harlem, New York; and in every ghetto in America and in Notting Hill in the U.K. and among all the blacks of the world, in Africa and in Asia and in Eskimo-land. Let the non-Whites of the world know that according to Rushdie's new Bible - "WHITE WOMEN - NEVER MIND FAT, JEWISH, or NON-DEFERENTIAL WHITE WOMEN - WERE FOR FUCKING AND THROWING OVER"!

You, Peter Mayar! Director of viking/Penguin, you son of a bitch, you gave Rushdie 800,000.00 Dollars as advance money for this filth.

All those whites - Poets and Playwrights, Essayists and Editors, Novelists and Newsmen who are in support of Rushdie's smut, let them read the above quotation from the shit of Rushdie to their mothers, to their wives and daughters. Make their mouths water, that Rushdie wants them to be fucked by black people and thrown away. Rushdie has already set the example, he has FUCKED AND THROWN AWAY (one British girl, his first wife) and perhaps before you get this into your hands, he would have done the same to another (American girl - Marriane Wiggins) also FUCKED AND THROWN AWAY [STOP PRESS:Prophecy fulfilled end August. Wiggins wiggles out of marriage!]

I am asking all those sons of bitches who rushed to Rushdie´s support without really reading his TVS, the real reason for their unqualified support. Did they not come across these "tasty eats"?

"MOTHER-FUCKING AMERICANS" TVS p 80
"MOTHER-FUCKING SPARKS" TVS p 85
"MOTHER-FUCKING DREAMS" TVS p 122
"BHANCHUD [Bhanchud:Means "sister-fucking" in the gutter lingo of Bombay. Rushdie wisely questions on page 441 TSV "How are you supposed to understand a man who writes a made-up lingo of his own?"] NIGHTMARE" TVS p 109.

COMPARED WITH WHORES

There is no end to Rushdie´s shit. He has 547 pages full of it. Though he has some brilliant things to say at times. He equates himself, and all the writers, authors, novelists etc. With hookers and harlots, prostitutes and pimps. He makes one of his characters to utter:
"WRITERS AND WHORES. I SEE NO DIFFERENCE HERE." TVS p 392

TRIBUTE TO RAJIV

Before I end this most agonising little essay I had ever written, I must thank Rajiv Gandhi for being about the first (?) country in the world to ban "The Satanic Verses." Stop attributing motives to people! My own country, the Republic of South Africa, was in the forefront on banning the book, as well as debarring Rushdie from entering the country. This was in early October 1988! Long before many a Muslim nation!

I congratulate the Prime Minister of India for his sagacious move. The devilish book would not only have wounded his Muslim subjects in India but it would have also seared his Hindu coreligionists as well. The devil Rushdie has spared no one.

RAMA REVILED

Nobody has yet drawn the attention of Rushdie's Hindu admirers as to what he has to say about the gods and goddesses of their faith. "HERE WAS A LECHEROUS, DRUKEN RAMA AND A FLIGHTY  [ Does not mean "full of flight", as one running away from illicit sexual advances, but as one who is sexually frivolous and irresponsible. Easily excited, easily sexually. ] SITA: WHILE RAVANA, THE DEMON KING, WAS DEPICTED AS AN UPRIGHT AND HONEST MAN "GIBREEL (that's Rushdie himself again in this TVS) IN PLAYING RAVANA," GEORGE EXPLAINED IN FASCINATED HORROR. "LOOKS LIKE HE'S TRYING DELIBERATELY TO SET UP A FINAL CONFRONTATION WITH RELIGIOUS SECTARIANS, KNOWING HE CAN'T WIN, THAT HE'LL BE BROKEN TO BITS." TVS P539.


Rama the 7th incarnation of god, according to the Hindu religion, venerated and worshipped by hundreds of millions of Hindus in India, is character - assassinated as a lecher, one given to excessive sexual cravings and debauchery, and the demon-king is portrayed here as a righteous man. And Sita is painted as a flirt. This is typical Rushdie. He turns gods into devils and devils into saints! And the Swiney confesses that the likes of him "WILL BE BROKEN TO BITS!" - "GUY SEEMS HELL - BENT ON A SUICIDE COURSE." TVS page 538. He has uttered here words of wisdom, but alas, he has learnt nothing from them himself.

BEFITTING END

Mired in misery, may all his filthy lucre choke in his throat, and may he die a coward's death, a hundred times a day, an eventually when death catches up with him, may he simmer in hell for all eternity.

WHO KILLED AL-HUSSAIN?

WHO KILLED AL-HUSSAIN?

Retelling the tragedy of Karbalâ has traditionally been an important feature of Shî‘î spirituality. The passion plays of Iran and the Indian subcontinent, the literature, both prose and poetry, composed upon the subject of the martyrdom of Sayyidunâ Hussain (radiyallâhu ‘anhu) and the general atmosphere of mourning that reigns amongst the Shî‘ah during the month of Muharram, all bear eloquent testimony to importance of that event in the Shî‘î calendar. To the Shî‘ah, ‘Âshurâ is probably the most important day of the year. 

However, it is regrettable that despite the huge amount of attention the subject of Karbalâ enjoys, the event is persistently portrayed as two-sided. It is always depicted as Hussain against Yazîd, Right rising up against Wrong, the Quest for Justice against the Forces of Oppression. Many an opportunist has even gone to the extent of superimposing upon the event the theme of Shî‘ah against Ahl as-Sunnah.

In this partial retelling that concentrates upon what actually happened at Karbalâ, and conveniently draws attention away from the other guilty party in the ‘Âshûrâ tragedy, lies another tragedy in itself. For while Hussain's martyrdom has been oft commemorated, and his physical opponents and killers identified, cursed and eliminated, no one has spared a moment's anger for those who deserted him at the crucial hour.


It is these men in the shadows, who squarely deserve to be called the real villains of Karbalâ, upon whom this article seeks to cast light.


The People of Kufaa invite al-Hussain


It was in Ramadân 60AH that the letters from Kûfah started to arrive at the house of ‘Abbâs ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib in Makkah where Hussain ibn ‘Alî was staying after his flight from Madînah, letters urging him to lead the Kûfans into revolt against Yazîd ibn Mu‘âwiyah, and assuring him of their loyalty and allegiance. Mu‘âwiyah died two months earlier, and there was much resentment for his son Yazîd for whom the bay‘ah was taken as his successor. The people of Kûfah especially were looking at Hussain for leadership, and soon there was stream of letters coming in from Kûfah. On certain days there would be as many as 600 letters, with messengers who enthusiastically described the support he would receive from the Kûfans.


Kûfah was a unique place, and the Kûfans a peculiar people. In 37AH Sayyidunâ ‘Alî (radiyallâhu ‘anhu) shifted his capital from Madînah to Kûfah, and ever since that city became the home of those who claimed partisanship of the Ahl al-Bayt. After the reconciliation between Hasan and Mu‘âwiyah in 41AH many of those who had been in Sayyidunâ Hasan's army settled in Kûfah. At the time of Mu‘âwiyah's death in 60AH pro-‘Ali sentiments were still to be found in abundance in Kûfah. At the time of Mu‘âwiyah' s death in 60 AH Kûfah was still very strongly pro-‘ Ali. Thus when the opportunity arose the Kûfans, who still regarded themselves as the Shî‘ah (supporters) of the Ahl al-Bayt, turned to Hussain to lead them against Yazîd.


Sayyidunâ Hussain decided to send his cousin Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl to investigate the situation in Kûfah. If he found it feasible he would write to inform Hussain, who would depart with his family from Makkah to join him in Kûfah. Muslim arrived in in Dhul Qa‘dah. The Kûfans, when they learnt of his arrival presented themselves at the residence of Muslim ibn ‘Awsajah al-Asadî where he was staying. Soon there were 12 000 Kûfans who had given their solemn pledge to support and protect Hussain with their lives and all they possessed. When this number rose to 18 000 Muslim felt confident enough to dispatch a messenger to Hussain informing him of the bay‘ah of the Kûfans, and urging him to proceed from Makkah.


Yazîd replaces the Governor of Kufah with Ubaydullâh ibn Ziyâd
Rumours of what was happening in Kûfah soon reached Yazîd in Damascus. He immediately replaced Nu‘mâ n ibn Bashîr, the governor of Kûfah, with the ruthless ‘Ubaydullâh ibn Ziyâd with orders to find Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl and kill him. Ibn Ziyâd entered Kûfah early in Dhul Hijjah, accompanied by seventeen men on horseback. With the end of his turban drawn over his face he was unrecognizable, and the people of Kûfah, who were expecting Sayyidunâ Hussain, mistook him for Hussain. " Peace upon you, o son of Rasûlullâh," they hailed him. Thus it was that Ibn Ziyâd learnt the truth of the rumors. It was only when one of his mounted men shouted at them, " Stand back! This is the governor ‘Ubaydullâh ibn Ziyâd!" that the Kûfans realized the seriousness of their blunder.


Soon after reaching the governor's residence ‘ Ubaydullâh sent a servant of his own with a bag containing 3000 dirhams to pose as a newcomer from the Syrian town of Hims eager to join the imminent revolution, and thereby discover the whereabouts of Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl. He located Muslim in the house of Hânî ibn ‘Urwah, and took the pledge of allegiance at his hands. The money he handed over to Abû Thumâmah al-‘Âmirî who was acting as Muslim' s treasurer. After staying with them for a few days, during which he learnt most of what there was to know about their intrigue, he returned to Ibn Ziyâd and informed him. Hânî ibn ‘Urwah was arrested. At first he denied all knowledge of Muslim' s whereabouts, but when the " newcomer from Hims" was brought before him he confessed. But he still refused to reveal where Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl was.


In the meantime Muslim came to hear about the arrest of Hânî ibn ‘Urwah. Realizing that the hour for a decisive encounter had arrived, he raised his battle cry " Yâ Mansûr" , at which 4000 of the men who had given him their oath of allegiance and loyalty to Hussain gathered around him and proceeded towards the governor' s fort. When he saw Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl with the Kûfans at his gate, ‘Ubaydullâh sent some of the tribal leaders of Kûfah to speak with their people and draw them away from Muslim and warn them of the wrath that would descend upon them when the armies from Damascus arrived.


Soon Muslim's army was called upon by mothers telling their sons, "Come home , there are enough other people here," and fathers ominously warning their sons, "What will happen tomorrow when the Syrian armies start arriving from Damascus? What will you do?"
The resolve of the men who had taken a sacred oath to support and defend the cause of Hussain and the Ahl al-Bayt against Yazîd and his Syrian armies could not hold in the face of such threats and discouragement, even though Hussain was on that very moment making his way to Kûfah with his nearest and dearest relying upon the promises of the Kufans.


The Kufans start deserting one by one


One by one the Kufans deserted Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl under the gates of the governor' s fort. At sunset he was left with only 30 men. He led them in Maghrib, and then moved away to the doorway of the Kindah quarter of Kûfah. He went through that door with no more than 10 men, and before he knew it, he was all on his own in the streets of Kûfah. Of all those who had so anxiously and enthusiastically written to Hussain to come and lead them in revolt against Yazîd, and out of the 18 000 men who but days before placed their right hands in his, solemnly pledging allegiance to the cause for which they had invited the grandson of Rasûlullâh , not a single one was there to offer Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl the solace of their company or refuge from the night.

Eventually, parched with thirst, he knocked at a door. The occupant, an old lady, took him in when she learnt that he was Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl. She hid him away in her house, but her son, from whom she extracted a promise not to tell anyone of his presence there, waited only till the morning to take the news to the governor' s residence. The next thing Muslim realized was that the house was surrounded. Thrice he managed with his sword to drive the attackers out of the house, but when they started putting fire to the house he was forced to face them outside. It was only when ‘Abd ar-Rahmân ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ash‘ath, one of those sent to arrest him, promised him the safety of his life, that he lowered his sword. It was a mistake, for they took away his sword and mounted him upon an ass to be taken to Ibn Ziyâd.


Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl fears for Al-Hussain's life


Muslim knew his death was at hand. Tears flowed from his eyes, not at his own fate, but at the thought of Hussain and his family traveling through the harsh, merciless desert towards a fate much more harsher and merciless, to an enemy firmly resolved to bring an end to his venture, and to the most treacherous of partisans whose desertion at the hour of need had brought his life to this tragic end. He begged Ibn al-Ash‘ath to send someone to Hussain with the following message: “Ibn ‘Aqîl has sent me to you. He says to you: ‘Go back with your family. Do not be deceived by people of Kûfah. They are those same supporters of your father from whom he so dearly wished to part, by death or by being killed. The Kûfans have lied to me and have lied to you, and a liar has no sense.’ ”


Later that day —the Day of ‘ Arafah, the 9th of Dhul Hijjah— Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl was taken up to the highest ramparts of the fort. As he was being led up, he recited the tahlîl, tasbîh, takbîr and istighfâr. His last words reflect his intense disappointment with the people of Kûfah, "O Allâh, You be the Judge between us and our people. They deceived us and deserted us." From high upon the ramparts his head fell down in the dust, in full view of those whose invitations and oaths of allegiance had given him so much to hope for, but whose cowardice and treachery had left him with nothing but despair. And Hussain was on his way…

‘Ubaydullâh ibn Ziyâd had entered Kûfah with only seventeen men. For each man that came with him there was over a thousand who had taken the oath of allegiance at the hands of Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl. Yet not a single sword was raised in his defense. Not a single voice had the courage to protest his execution. And these were the same men who had been telling Hussain, “Come, we are with you.”


Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl's letter reaches Al-Hussain


Upon receipt of Muslim’s letter, Sayyidunâ Hussain started making arrangements to travel to Kûfah. He immediately dispatched a messenger, Qays ibn Mus-hir, to inform the Kûfans of his imminent arrival. This messenger was captured by ‘Ubaydullâh ibn Ziyâd, who ordered him to mount the walls of the fort and publicly curse Hussain and his father. Instead he praised Sayyidunâ ‘Alî and Sayyidunâ Hussain, telling them that Hussain was on his way, and exhorting them to assist him as they had promised. He ended his brief address by imprecating curses upon Ibn Ziyâd. Upon the order of Ibn Ziyâd he was flung from the ramparts and killed. Despite this impassioned plea, the men of Kûfah were unmoved.

In Makkah, a number of the eminent Sahâbah and children of Sahâbah tried to dissuade Hussain from going to Kûfah, and reminded him of the fickleness of the Kûfans with both his father and his brother. ‘Abdullâh ibn ‘Abbâs, ‘Abdullâh ibn ‘Umar, Jâbir ibn ‘Abdillâh, Abû Sa‘îd al-Khudrî, his own brother, Muhammad, and his brother-in-law and cousin , ‘Abdullâh ibn Ja‘far all remonstrated with him and tried to persuade him not to go to Iraq. His mind, however, was made up. He set out from Makkah on the 8th of Dhul Hijjah, not knowing of the sad end of Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl.


Al-Hussan reaches Iraq


After an arduous journey of almost a month, his party reached Iraq. It was there that he first heard of the treachery of the Kûfans and the death of Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl. Later he also learnt of the death of Qays ibn Mus-hir. A large number of desert Arabs had by that time attached themselves to his party, thinking that Kûfah was already practically his. Hussain addressed them, saying, "Our Shî‘ah have deserted us. Therefore, whoever wants to leave is free to do so." Soon he was left with only those who left Makkah with him. With them he continued towards Kûfah.
Meanwhle Kûfah was placed under heave surveillance by Ibn Ziyâd. When news of Hussain’s approach reached him, he dispatched a 4000 strong contingent, which was on its way to fight the Daylamites, to stop Hussain. This contingent was put under the command of ‘Umar ibn Sa‘d. There can be little doubt that the Kûfans witnessed the departure of this force from Kûfah with their own eyes. This would be their last chance to honor the oaths of allegiance to Hussain which they had taken upon the hands of Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl. This was the final opportunity to rush to the side of the grandson of Rasûlullâh . It was after all their invitations and assurances of support that encouraged him to abandon the safety of Makkah for the precarious battlefields of Iraq. But once again faithfulness, courage and commitment was found lacking in the people of Kûfah. Only a handful emerged to join Hussain at Karbalâ.


Al-Hussan is Martyred


And when the sun set on the 10th of Muharram, it was too late for the faithless Shî‘ah of Kûfah to make amends, for the sands of Karbalâ was stained red with the blood of Sayyidunâ Hussain and his seventy-one followers.

Four years later the Shî‘ah of Kûfah attempted to make amends for their desertion of the family of Rasûlullâh . There emerged a group of Kûfans calling themselves the Tawwâbûn (Penitents) who made it their duty to wreak vengeance upon the killers of Hussain. On their way to Syria in pursuit of Ibn Ziyâd they passed by Karbalâ, the site of Sayyidunâ Hussain' s grave, where they raised a great hue and cry, and spent the night lamenting the tragedy which they allowed to happen four years earlier. Had they only displayed that same spirit of compassion for Hussain when he was so much in need of it the history of Islâm might have taken a different course.

The Sheites seek to hide their Treachery


There have been attempts by certain writers to absolve the Shî‘ah from the crime of deserting Hussain. Some find an excuse for them in Ibn Ziyâd’s blockade of Kûfah. S. H. M. Jafri writes in his book The Origins and Early Developments of Shi’ah Islam:
…it should be noted again that the blockade of all the roads coming into Kûfa and its vicinity made it almost impossible for the majority of those Shî‘îs of Kûfa who were in hiding, and also for those residing in other cities like Basra. [2]


This explanation of their desertion does not seem plausible when one considers the large number (18 000) of those who had taken the bay‘ah at the hands of Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl. Ibn Ziyâd, as we have seen, entered Kûfah with only 17 men. Even the force that he dispatched to engage the party of Sayyidunâ Hussain at Karbalâ consisted of only 4000 men. [3]


Furthermore, that force was not recruited specifically for Karbalâ; it was only passing through Kûfah on its way to fight the Daylamites. It is not at all credible to assume that Ibn Ziyâd was able to cow the Kûfans into submission with forces such as these, whom they outnumbered by far. It was rather their own treacherousness and fickleness that led them to abandon Sayyidunâ Hussain. This can be clearly seen in the manner they deserted Muslim ibn ‘Aqîl.


There is also the tendency of claiming that those who deserted Sayyidunâ Hussain were not of the Shî‘ah. Jafri writes:
… of those who invited Hussain to Kûfa, and then those 18,000 who paid homage to his envoy Muslim b. ‘Aqîl, not all were Shî‘îs in the religious sense of the term, but were rather supporters of the house of ‘Alî for political reasons - a distinction which must be kept clearly in mind in order to understand the early history of Shî‘î Islam. [4]


Jafri' s motive in excluding the deserters of Sayyidunâ Hussain from the ranks of the “religious” (as opposed to the “political”) supporters of the house of Sayyidunâ ‘Alî is quite transparent. He is clearly embarrassed by the fact that it was the Shî‘ah themselves who abandoned their Imâm and his family after inviting him to lead them in revolt. What leads us to reject this distinction between “religious” and “political” supporters is the fact that Sayyidunâ Hussain himself, on more than one occasion, referred to the Kûfans as his Shî‘ah.

There are also the numerous references to the people of Kûfah as the followers (albeit capricious followers) of his father and brother. And were we to assume that many, or even most of them were not Shî‘ah in the “religious” sense, the question which next presents itself is: Where were the real Shî‘ah when their Imâm required their help?


Were they only that handful who emerged from Kûfah? It is strange that while there is so much reluctance on the part of the Shî‘ah to accept the deserters of Kûfah as their own, they are quite proud and eager to identify themselves with the movement of the Tawwâbûn. The speeches made at the inception of the movement of the Tawwâbûn very clearly prove that they were the same people who invited Sayyidunâ Hussain and then deserted him. [5]


Their very name is indicative of their guilt in this regard. The attempt by the Shî‘ah to absolve themselves from the crime of deserting Sayyidunâ Hussain is therefore at best nothing more than pathetic.


The Sheite Treachery against Zayd ibn ‘ Alî ibn Hussain
Karbalâ was not to be the last act of treason by the Shî‘ah against the Family of Rasûlullâh . Sixty years later the grandson of Sayyidunâ Hussain, namely Zayd ibn ‘ Alî ibn Hussain, led an uprising against the Umayyad ruler Hishâm ibn ‘Abd al-Malik. He received the oaths of allegiance of over 40 000 men, 15 000 of whom were from the very same Kûfah that deserted his grandfather.


Just before the battle could start they decided upon a whim to ask his opinion about Abû Bakr and ‘Umar. Zayd answered: “I have never heard any of my family dissociate himself from them, and I have nothing but good to say about them.”


Upset with this answer, they deserted him en masse, deciding that the true imâm could only be his nephew Ja‘far as-Sâdiq. Out of 40 000, Zayd was left with only a few hundred men. On the departure of the defectors he remarked: “I am afraid they have done unto me as they did to Hussain.” Zayd and his little army fought bravely and attained martyrdom. Thus, on Wednesday the 1st of Safar 122 AH another member of the Ahl al-Bayt fell victim to the treachery of the Shî‘ah of Kûfah. [6]

This time there could be no question as to whether those who deserted him were of the Shî‘ah or not.


The fact that the thousands of Shî‘ah who deserted Zayd ibn ‘Alî looked upon Ja‘far as-Sâdiq as their true Imâm shows that by and large they were the same as the Ithnâ ‘Asharî, or alternatively Imâmî or Ja‘farî Shî‘ah of today.


Why then, if he had so many devoted followers, did Imâm Ja‘far not rise up in revolt against the Umayyads or the ‘Abbâsids? The answer to this question is provided in a narration documented by Abû Ja‘far al-Kulaynî in his monumental work al-Kâfî, which enjoys unparalleled status amongst the hadîth collections of the Shî‘ah:
Sudayr as-Sayrafî says: I entered the presence of Abû ‘Abdillâh ‘alayhis salâm and said to him: “By Allâh, you may not refrain from taking up arms.” He asked: “Why not?” I answered: “Because you have so many partisans, supporters (Shî‘ah) and helpers. By Allâh, if Amîr al-Mu’minîn (Sayyidunâ ‘Alî) had as many Shî‘ah, helpers, and partisans as you have, Taym (the tribe of Abû Bakr) and ‘Adî (the tribe of ‘Umar) would never have had designs upon him.” He asked: “And how many would they be, Sudayr?” I said: “A hundred thousand.” He asked: “A hundred thousand?” I replied: “Yes, and two hundred thousand.” He asked again: “Two hundred thousand?” I replied: “Yes, and half the world.” He remained silent.


Then he said: “Would you accompany us to Yanbu‘?” I replied in the affirmative. He ordered a mule and a donkey to be saddled. I quickly mounted the donkey, but he said: “Sudayr, will you rather let me ride the donkey?” I said: “The mule is more decorous and more noble as well.” But he said: “The donkey is more comfortable for me.” I dismounted. He mounted the donkey, I got on the mule, and we started riding. The time of salâh arrived and he said: “Dismount, Sudayr. Let us perform salâh.” Then he remarked: “The ground here is overgrown with moss. It is not permissible to make salâh here.” So we carried on riding until we came to a place where the earth was red. He looked at a young boy herding sheep, and remarked: “Sudayr, by Allâh, if I had as many Shî‘ah as there are sheep here, it would not have been acceptable for me to refrain from taking up arms.” We then dismounted and performed salâh. When we were finished I turned back to count the sheep. There were seventeen of them. [7]

It seems from this narration that the tragedy of Karbalâ taught Imâm Ja‘far as-Sâdiq something about those who claimed to be his followers which the Shî‘ah of today are still refusing to come to terms with: that in the trials and misfortunes of the Family of Rasûlullâh the role of the Shî‘ah was as great, if not greater, than that of their physical enemies. It therefore does not come as a surprise that none of the supposed Imâms after Hussain ever attempted an armed insurrection against the rulers of their times. Karbalâ had taught them the fickleness and treacherousness of those who claimed to be their Shî‘ah.


It is about them that Imâm Ja‘far is reported to have said: "No one bears us greater hatred than those who claim to love us." [8]
Imâm Ja‘far is also reported as having said: "No verse did Allâh reveal in connection with the Munâfiqîn, except that it is to be found in those who profess Shî‘ism." [9]

Before Sayyidunâ Hussain, his elder brother Sayyidunâ Hasan was the victim of the treacherousness of the Kûfans. In his book al-Ihtijâj the prominent Shî‘î author Abû Mansûr at-Tabarsî has preserved the following remark of Sayyidunâ Hasan: "By Allâh, I think Mu‘âwiyah would be better for me than these people who claim that they are my Shî‘ah." [10]

When Sayyidunâ Hasan eventually became exasperated at the fickleness of his so-called Shî‘ah, he decided to make peace with Mu‘âwiyah. When someone protested to him that he was bringing humiliation upon the Shî‘ah by concluding peace with Mu‘âwiyah, he responded by saying:


"By Allâh, I handed over power to him for no reason other than the fact that I could not find any supporters. Had I found supporters I would have fought him day and night until Allâh decides between us. But I know the people of Kûfah. I have experience of them. The bad ones of them are no good to me. They have no loyalty, nor any integrity in word or deed. They are in disagreement. They claim that their hearts are with us, but their swords are drawn against us." [11]

Imâm Mûsâ al-Kâzim, the son of Imâm Ja‘far, and the seventh of the supposed Imâms of the Shî‘ah, describes them in the following words:

"If I had to truly distinguish my Shî‘ah I would find them nothing other than pretenders. If I had to put them to the test I would only find them to be apostates. If I were to scrutinize them I would be left with only one in a thousand. Were I to sift them thoroughly I would be left with only the handful that is truly mine. They have been sitting on cushions all along, saying: " We are the Shî‘ah of ‘Alî."


Conclusion:


If today ‘Âshûrâ will be commemorated as a day of struggle and sacrifice, let it also be remembered as a day of treachery and desertion.


When the names of Yazîd ibn Mu‘âwiyah, ‘Ubaydullâh ibn Ziyâd, ‘Umar ibn Sa‘d and Shamir ibn Dhil Jawshan are mentioned and curses invoked upon their memories, then let us not forget the treachery of the Shî‘ah of Kûfah. The time has long been due for the Shî‘ah to reintroduce into their ‘Âshûrâ ceremonies an aspect that was in fact part of the very first commemoration ceremony of the Tawwâbûn. That lost aspect is the admission of their own guilt, along with that of Ibn Ziyâd, Yazîd and others, in the shedding of the holy blood of Sayyidunâ Hussain ibn ‘Alî radiyallâhu ‘anhumâ.
___________________________________________________________________
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. The historical material for this study has been taken largely from al-Bidâyah wan-Nihâyah of Ibn Kathîr. The Shî‘î source Maqtal al-Hussain by ‘Abd ar-Razzâq al-Mûsawî al-Muqarram (5th edition published by Maktabah Basîratî, Qum in 1382) was also consulted.
2. See S. H. M. Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi’ah Islam p. 198 (Ansariyan Publications, Qum, n.d.)
3. The figure of 80 000, given in certain Shî‘î sources, and quoted recently on local radio, is clearly fictitious. Apart from contradicting reliable historical sources, its origin in the emotionally charged hyperbolism of the Shî‘ah is self-evident.
4. Jafri, p. 195
5. ibid. p. 223
6. Muhammad Abû Zahrah, Târîkh al-Madhâhib al-Islâmiyyah, p. 613 (Dâr al-Fikr al-‘Arabî, Cairo, n.d.)
7. al-Kulaynî, al-Kâfî (Usûl) vol. 2 p. 250-251 (Dâr al-Adwâ, Beiru1992)
8. ‘Abdullâh al-Mâmaqânî, Miqbâs al-Hidâyah vol. 2 p. 414 (Mu’assasat Âl al-Bayt li-Ihyâ’ at-Turâth, Beirut 1991) quoting from Rijâl al-Kashshî.
9. ibid. vol. 2 p. 407
10. Abû Mansûr at-Tabarsî, al-Ihtijâj vol. 2 p. 290-291 (Mu’assasat al-A‘lamî, Beirut 1989
11. al-Kulaynî, Rawdat al-Kâfî vol. 8 p. 288
Download or read urdu book below

Waqia Karbala tareekh ke aine me - Urdu Book


The view of Aima karam, Muhaddiseen and Islamic Scholars about Hazrat Yazeed bin Mu'awaia (R.A)

Allama Ibn-e-Kaseer kehtey hain:

“Ek dafa Yazeed (Rehmatullah Alaih) ney Abdullah Ibn-e-Abbas (Razi Allah Unho) k saamney
taqreer ki aur jab Yazeed (Rehmatullah Alaih) wahan sey uth gaye to Abdullah Ibn-e-Abbas (Razi
Allah Unho) ney fermaya Banu Harb {Harb:Yazeed k perdada ka naam} aur Yazeed
(Rehmatullah Alaih) agar Duniya sey chaley gaye to Duniya sey Ulma uth jaayegein” (Albadaya
Wannahaya Vol. 8 pg. 229)

Imam Zehbi aur Allama Ibn-e-Kaseer likhtey hain:

“ Aur Yazeed (Rehmatullah Alaih) ki zaat main qabil-e-sataish sifaat halm-o-karam, fasahat-o-
shergoi, aur shujaat-o-bahaduri ki thiin. Aur mamlaat-e-hukumat main umda raye rakhtey they aur
woh khubsoorat aur khush seerat they.” (Albadaya Wannahaya Vol. 8 pg. 220, Al Islam by Imam
Zehbi Vol. 3 pg. 93)

Allama Ibn-e-Hajr Asqalani likhtey hain:

“ aur ibn-e-shozab ney biyan kya k main ney Ibraheem bin abi abad sey yeh baat suni hay woh kehtey they k main ney Khalifa Umer bin Abdulaziz ko Yazeed bin Mavia (Rehmatullah Alaih) per ‘Rehmatullah Alaih’ kehtey suna hay” (Lisaan-ul-Meezan Vol. 6 pg. 294)

Musab Zubairi (Rehmatullah Alaih) kehtey hain k:

“Yazeed (Rehmatullah Alaih) ek swaleh mard-e-mumin they” (Tehzeeb Vol. 6 pg. 300

Isi tarah Encyclopedia of Islam main likha hay k:

“ Ameer Yazeed (Rehmatullah Alaih) hud darja haleem-o-kareem, sanjeeda, mateen, ghuror-o-
takabur sey mubbarra, apni zer-e-dast riyaya k mehboob, tazk-o-ehtishaam-e-shahi sey
mutannafir they. Aam sheharyoon ki tarah saada maashrat sey zindagi basar kerney waley aur
muhazzib insaan they.” (Encyclopedia of ISLAM pg. 1163)

Isi tarah Allama Ibn-e-Kaseer likhtey hain:

“Ameer Yazeed (Rehmatullah Alaih) ney 51 hijri, 52 hijri aur 53 hijri main logoon ko Hajj keraya aur ameer-e-Hajj k faraiz anjaam diye” (Albadaya Wannahaya Vol. 8 pg 229)

Sahih Bukhari ki hadees hay:

“NABI (SAW) ney fermaya k meri ummat ka pehla lashkar jo Qaysar k shehar Qustuntunia per jihad kerega un k liye Allah ki taraf sey Maghfarat hay” (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 1 pg. 410) “Qustuntnuia per sab sey awwal jihad Yazeed (Rehmatullah Alaih) bin Mavia (Razi Allah Unho) ney kya aur un k saath sadaat-e-sahaba misl Ibn-e-Umer, Ibn-e-Abbas, Ibn-e-Zubair, Abu Ayub Ansari (Rizwanullah Ajmain) aur ek jamaat thi” (Hashia Sahih Bukhari Vol. 1 pg. 410)

When Imam Ghazaali was asked if it was all right to curse Yazeed, he replied No. He was asked was it all right to say rahimahullah? He said Yes it is Mustahab (highly recommended).
[Qaid as Shareed min Akhbar e Yazeed pg 57-59].

Imam Ghazaali further said, Yazeed was a Muslim and when we pray for the Muslims Allhummagfirli Muslimineen was Muslimaat (O Allah forgive the Musilms men and women) he is also included in our prayers.
[Qaid as Shareed min Akhbar e Yazeed pg 57-59]