Glimpses from Some Reactions

I can cite samples of the reactions expressed by the front that concerned itself with this book. Here they are:

·                      Some people reacted emotionally on their pulpits, on the radio, and at private and public meetings trying to belittle the book and its author, regarding it as being written “illegally”...!

·                      Banning the sale of the book, its reading or handling, applying pressure on the public to do so. Moreover, some publishing houses as well as book-stores were coerced not to circulate this book. This happened although the same people had already expressed on the radio their rejection of boycotting “misleading” books, considering doing so as a mistake which should be avoided.

·                      Numerous and diverse rumors were circulated in more than one direction, without any religious or moral deterrent. Among them have been:

A. in the form of insinuations aiming at belittling the dignity of the author, casting doubts about his conduct and manners, religion and straight-forwardness.

B. condemnations, verbal abuses and insults aiming at belittling the writer’s scholarly status and position, depicting him as ignorant, backward, despotic in his views, unable to soundly com-prehend what some people say, etc.

C. doubts cast about the scholarly value of the book, or its style, or background, or even some-times authenticity.

D. discussions of imaginary backgrounds that supposedly caused the author to write this book at such a specific period of time.
 

·                      Indirect threats, death threats, methods of terrorism, oppression, hegemony, seeking the help of security forces to curtail the effectiveness of the book or the activity of those who read it or circulate it and those who sympathize with him or who voice their opinion regarding the issues discussed therein, have all been applied.

·                      Coercion to give the book a political stamp and to place it in the circle of balances, subjecting it thereafter to the environments of give and take in the market-place of benefits and auctions and even political interests when necessity forces them to resort thereto.

·                      Casting doubts about the objectives and incentives of the author, regarding the book once as indicative of personal ambitions and once as an answer to malice, and a third time as the result of a psychological complex which some people attached to the author.

·                      At any rate, the result, from their viewpoint, is that the goal of the book about al-Zahra’ (A.S.) is “political assassination” or scientific and social assassination of what they term as the “symbol” or “those charged with the Islamic status quo.” Such is a terrible crime that leads, as they view it, to the assassination of Islam itself in the name of Islam, so, Woe unto Islam! What a calamity! They have been depicting the issue to the public as a plan the chapters of which and the struggle and the threats thereof are cleverly woven by international or regional or local or even “Islamic” intelligence agencies, or even the Mossad!

·                      Their attempt to limit the subject-matter to “a historical issue,” and only to a historical one, in order to divert the attention from many statements relevant to the aspects of the creed and the belief and to theological issues with which the book deals.

·                      Their attempt to raise question marks about the viability of subjects such as this one, although they themselves are the ones who keep insisting on bringing them up, having depicted to the public that the matter does not exceed the very specific historical issue, that is, the issue of breaking the rib of al-Zahra’ (A.S.), setting aside all other injustices to which she (A.S.) was subjected.

·                      The attempt to link the subject in its entirety, for the sake, of course, of publicity, to certain fronts which plan the downfall of the authority of so-and-so because it sees itself as being harmed by the appearance of an Arab authority that is loyal to its nation versus the Persian authorities that perhaps are loyal to their Persian nation...![1] They accuse the grand religious authority of some Islamic countries of being behind stirring the struggle against them, depicting them as mere competitors to them in as far as the religious authority is concerned.

[1]There are many such indications. During this Summer, in a televised interview wherein Sarkis Na`oom participated, a certain individual expressed his pleasure with the statements made by Na`oom who concentrated on the subject of Persian and Arab religious authorities. He did not oppose him, nor did he express any reservations about his statements.