Arguments Regarding the Angel’s Species

 

It is said or, say, rumoured, that the book’s subject-matter is marginal and not serious; so, why do we concern ourselves with it while others concern themselves with what is more important and more beneficial?! Is not doing so similar to arguing about what sort of species the angels are while others have already reached Mars?! Is not doing so short-sightedness, close-mindedness and intellectual backward-ness?!

 
My response is the following:
 

1)         I wonder about who initiated this issue as well as many others, insisting on them in his information media, exerting a great deal of effort, exhausting material and non-material resources as well as manpower just to lay emphasis on them and firm their foundations?! And he has been assaulting the scholars and the religious authorities of the nation, launching against them various accusations specifically because of these issues, keeping the public and the scholars for many months and years concerned with them?

 

2) The dispute with some people is not about what species the angels are, nor is it anything like that. Rather, it is regarding sensitive and weighty issues some of which touch upon the subject of Imamate, infallibility, the characteristics of the prophets (A.S.), the Imams (A.S.) and their role, in addition to other theological topics.
 

As regarding the issue of al-Zahra’ (A.S.), these same folks deny that any violence took place against her, at her home, except threats of burning. This contradicts what a certain individual himself had stated in his sermon at the Husainiyya of Martyr [Muhammed Baqir] al-Sadr wherein he said verbatim, “... History and hadath are fraught, and narratives are consecutively reported, that she was beaten, that she miscarried, and that she..., and that she...”[1] Yet he went back to deny it all over again, making his denial public many times. On Sawt al-Iman Radio, he said that he never apologized nor retracted; rather, he had spoken in agreement with the view of others, being apprehensive of “dissension.” After the dissipation of such “dissension,” he went back to Qum to deliver the said sermon which has contained what the reader already knows! This is why we, after a lengthy period of hesitation and many attempts to open the door for a debate with him, as well as many attempts to confine the subject-matter to a specific sphere, decided that all such attempts failed and their failure forced us to write this book: Tragedy of al-Zahra’ (A.S.): Doubts and Responses. Some people faced this book in an emotional manner, some provocatively. Then he kept spending funds and encouraging the publication of responses containing many misleading lies, trying to firm his statement and fix it in people’s minds, claiming that no injustice befell al-Zahra’ (A.S.), exonerating the oppressors.

In this book, we have proven that there were more than just threats against al-Zahra’ (A.S.) in addition to other issues relevant to the creed which we once explained in detail and once in general as it becomes clear for anyone who reviews the said book and looks into it equitably and without prejudice.

[1]This lecture was published in Qad_y_ Islamiyya magazine of Qum, Vol. 1, p. 13, and it is recorded in his own voice on an audio cassette which many people already have. He had delivered this sermon/lecture at Husainiyyat al-Shah_d al-Sadr in the sacred city of Qum on Sha`b_n 21, 1414 A.H./February 3, 1994. It was reprinted on p. 22, Vol. 3, of Ru’_ wa Maw_qif magazine and was also published on May 16, 1997 by Bayyin_t newsletter, with two alterations:

1. The lecture was dated 1995 instead of its real date especially since he never went to Qum in that year anyway.

2. His statement was altered and underwent editorial additions in order to the removal of the contradiction in the stand made by the same person who delivered it. The statement was made to read as follows:

“History is fraught with various ah_d_th (claiming) that she was beaten, and that she miscarried, and that she..., and that she... Yet these do not deny that her sanctity was violated as well as that of the Prophet’s house which was assaulted, and threats were made to burn it even if F_tima (_) was inside it.”

The purpose of the substitution of one word for another is quite clear. All narratives pour down in one venue which they all confirm and which we, too, want to prove in this book. His statement does not emphasize one particular issue at all. The addition to the statement came to emphasize the same. Such alteration and falsification provides us with the evidence that we cannot trust what they transmit to us. This is only one simple example. We have many more such examples.