Abiola's Will Palavar
Nwa Jesu
127 children? Na wetin?
Let's hope there are wo-men where the Bashorun is chilling now.
Tufiakwa!!!
SamChuks
++++++++
**To be ALMOST saved is to be TOTALLY Lost**
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:22:11 -0500
From: olorunfemi ojo <jo...@tntech.edu>
Subject: THE STORY OF ABIOLA'S STOLEN WILL
The Story of a Stolen Will
Tempo (Lagos)
September 12, 2000
Tony Egbulefu, Nick Nwafor, Idowu Akinrosoye, Ben Eguzozie and Yinka Ijabiyi
Lagos
The high-octane rancour in the family of the late Chief Moshood Kashimawo
Olawale Abiola may not have been his wish. But the will which would have set
the rule of inheritance at the demise of the business mogul allegedly
disappeared from a safe. BAMIDELE JOHNSON tells the gripping story of the
stolen will
Even the most gifted of Hollywood's scriptwriters would have been proud to
have a work having the semblance of the current crisis rocking the family of
the late Bashorun M.K.O Abiola, acclaimed winner of the June 12, 1993
presidential election.
Ignited by the release of the billionaire politician's purported Will in
August, last year, the crisis has all the ingredients of a monster box
office hit-high-octane family rancour, gripping suspense and an unwieldy
dog-fight, over inheritance, between Abiola's 124 children and his harem of
wives.
Already a subject of litigation in a London court, the disputed will keeps
sparring fresh revelations. Early this week TELL, a Lagos-based weekly, ran
a cover story entitled, Abiola's Will: The Great Forgery, setting off
reactions like a fire-crackers in a string.
Is the will, read last year by the law chambers of Chief F.R.A Williams,
real or dud? Or Did Abiola write any will at all? At best, answers to these
questions appear cryptic as more doubts, even outright rejection trail the
contents of the will. Already, the execution of the will has been halted by
the monition of a London court, until 6 February, 20001. The London court's
monition was obtained by Zainab Duke-Abiola, one of M.K.O's wives, who,
together with her three children from her marriage to the late politician,
was excluded from the provisions of the Will. It was on this ground that
Zainab Duke-Abiola rejected the provisions of the Will and headed for the
court through which she obtained a suspension of the implementation of the
Will's provisions. The exclusion of Zainab Duke-Abiola and her three
children is, however, less jarring than the omission of Hon. Lola
Abiola-Edewor, the politician's eldest child and member of the Federal House
of Representatives. TEMPO's attempt to get her to comment was futile.
Another aggrieved party, Alhaji Mubashiru Atanda Abiola, the only blood
brother of the late billionaire, however, gave an insight into what sparked
the controversy over Abiola's will.
According to Alhaji Mubashiru, Bashorun Abiola never spoke to him about the
existence of any will whether in or outside Nigeria. "What M.K.O usually
told me was that though I did not go to any university but I will hire a
university graduate as secretary," he told TEMPO.
Mubashiru's perception of the Will veers from suspicion to ambiguity, with
no room for negotiation in-between. This he traces to a particular event
which occurred on the day Abiola's corpse was brought to Lagos from Abuja,
preparatory to his burial.
On that day, Mubashiru said, Kola and Agboola Abiola, two of M.K.O.'s sons
from his first marriage to the late Alhaja Simbiat Abiola, went into their
father's apartment where his corpse was lying, opened his safe and removed
vital documents. The safe, Mubashiru said, was accessed because it was only
Agboola who knew the combination to its lock, because it was he that brought
the safe for their father. "They locked themselves up in the apartment,
opened Abiola's safe and looted it. May be there was even a Will there,
nobody knows," said Mubashiru. A similar view was also expressed by Chief
Mohammed Muritala Olanrewaju Abiola, half brother of Bashorun Abiola and
younger brother to Alhaji Mubashiru. Alhaji Abiola told TEMPO though he
could not claim to know the whereabouts of the original Will he believes
that Kola must have taken it away from his father's apartment.
"Kola sent everybody out of the house and looted his father's room. He did
not only make away with vital documents which must have included the
original Will but also went away with hard currency," he stated. He is of
the view that it was probably the original Will that Kola took to London, in
the company of Alhaji Mubashiru, for the doctoring which yielded the current
crisis.
Mubashiru, Olanrewaju claims, went along with Kola's plans on the agreement
that a chunky share of the assets would be given to him after the Will must
have been altered by R.M Timpson, Abiola's lawyer in London. When the
agreement broke down, he added, Mubashiru became annoyed and started selling
Bashorun Abiola's property within his reach. Mubashiru, however, denies the
allegation that he sold any property. "There is nothing I know about this. I
was not told about the sale of aircraft. The only one I know of was the one
in London. That was early last year. We went to a meeting with R.M. Timpson
and he told us that he could not raise money to liquidate M.K.O's legacies.
He requested for permission to sell the aircraft so he could use the money
to liquidate the legacies. So I gave him the go, ahead to sell, provided
that the money would be used for that purpose." Adding that "I later read in
the newspapers that the aircraft was sold for Pounds1.8 million. Since then,
I have been expecting to hear from Timpson or any other person around him
because Kola and Deji were there when he was asking. I was expecting them to
call a meeting and make an arrangement for that payment. Up till today, the
payment has not been made," he explained.
The first hint of the current crisis started manifesting shortly after the
fortieth-day prayers for the repose of Abiola's soul. Then, some members of
the family were invited to London where most of the billionaire's assets
are, for a meeting. The family members met with Abiola's lawyer, Timpson at
Abiola's London home. Timpson said there was a Will, the details of which he
would not reveal. He, however, fed the family with the details of Abiola's
legacy and read out the amount bequeathed to each individual.
According to Alhaji Mubashiru, the lawyer quoted Bashorun Abiola's Will,
written in 1989, as saying that, as at the time of writing the document,
Bashorun Abiola stated that he had already sired 77 children. He also stated
that the Will prescribed equal treatment for all the children.
However, the meeting that had gone so promisingly in London was to produce a
grimily infernal sequel in Lagos. Held on 21 August last year, at the
chambers of Chief F.R.A Williams, the meeting was held to intimate all
concerned parties with the degree of the bequeathments, according to the
purported Will of Abiola faxed to Chief Williams by Timpson, Abiola's
lawyer. In place of the earlier prescribed equality in the treatment of all
the children was a redefinition of the status. The document also threw up
another shocker. Children were classified as 'qualifying children' and
'excluded children. The Will also demanded that every child, with he
exception of the five from Simbiat Abiola, should go through the DNA test to
establish if they truly are children of Bashorun Abiola. These amendments
produced a grim mix of hysteria and outrage from those present.
Alhaji Mubashiru told TEMPO that he was not present at the chambers of Chief
Williams but was told that the Will was read to them like "a speech at a
launching. Kola and Deji (the late Simbiat's sons) also nominated themselves
as executors of the Will as against the previous appointment of Kola, Lekan,
Ayobami and Olaoye (from different mothers). "I told them it was not
possible to take two children from the same mother as executors of a Will of
such a large family," explained Mubashiru. Excluded in the list of wives was
Zainab Duke- Abiola and her three children as well as Hon. Lola
Abiola-Edewor. More significantly, the omission of Lola Edewor, Abiola's
first child, casts huge doubts on the fidelity of the Will.
Mrs. Titilayo Abiola, another wife of the Bashorun, explained that the
omission of Lola Edewor was not a big issue "Abiola never doubted that Lola
is his daughter. Her name as not included in the Will because Abiola had
given her all he wanted to before he wrote the Will in 1989. He had sent her
to school, bought two houses for her in London. What else does she want,"
she queried.
TEMPO's numerous attempts to get Mrs. Edewor's reaction were futile. Phone
calls to her Lagos and Abuja homes were only replied once by Mrs. Edewor who
told us to meet her in Abuja. She was, however, unavailable to our
correspondent in Abuja. Kola Abiola was equally evasive as his secretary
prevented TEMPO from having access to him Titi also dismissed Zainab's and
two of her three children's claims for inclusion in the Will. According to
her, Zainab had only one child for Abiola in 1994 and not three as she
claims. Titi claims that Zainab only used TELL magazine's report to court
recognition for the legal battle she is waging over her non-inclusion.
Zainab claimed that she was told by the family doctor in London that Abiola'
s DNA was not available. That, Titi explained to TEMPO, was because the
doctor did not see any reason why he should have anything to do with Zainab.
Titi insists that the Will that was read was the original one. She described
Kola as 'a snake' who only pays her children's school fees when he feels
like but insisted that he has not forged any Will. "Kola has not forged any
Will. The only problem he has is that of communication. The fact that he
pays my children's fees when he likes does not mean I won't tell the truth,"
she said.
Alhaji Mubashiru Abiola also reacted to Zainab's claim of three children
with a measure of incertitude. "Sidikat, the last one is the only one I know
as my brother's child. I don't know when she gave birth to the rest. May be
I was away in London when she delivered them in Nigeria. Sidikat was named
after my sister," Mubashiru said. He, however, agreed that Zainab was Abiola
's wife whom he married according to Islam.
For Alhaji Mubashiru Abiola, his preferred reaction to the Will crisis is
somewhat cryptic. When asked if Abiola told him what he was bequeathing to
his family, Mubashiru said yes.
"But the position he would put me nobody could say. But now they haven't
allowed us to know the truth I'm not saying that anybody is lying but I am
not equally saying that they are not lying. That is my own," he told TEMPO.
Despite the claim of ambivalence on the issue, Mubashiru gave hints that
Abiola's lawyer, R.M. Timpson, is not a forthright man. He claims to have
known Timpson since 1985." He was never a sincere person," he said.
Timpson, Mubashiru claims, was sacked by Abiola some time in 1985. The cause
of Timpson's sack was said to have been in connection with a house he bought
on behalf of Abiola. Abiola later found out that the house was bought at a
hugely inflated price. This was said to have angered Abiola who fired
Timpson. Abiola was said to have engaged the services of another lawyer.
Inexplicably, Timpson crept back into Abiola's employ. "I don't know how he
again became M.K.O's lawyer," Mubashiru said. He added that when some
members of the family visited London, Timpson told them that there could be
another Will in Nigeria but that was the one (the one in London) he knew
about since he drafted it.
Mubashiru described Abiola's bankers, NAT WEST Bank's claim that it has no
knowledge of the Will as untrue. In the report carried by TELL magazine, one
Abraham Adoo, Zainab's Lawyer, had on 18 May, written to the bank requesting
details of Abiola's estate. As the executor of the Will, the bank was also
requested, by Adoo, to furnish him with the exhaustive information on the
aggregate of Abiola's assets in its custody. The same request was also sent
to Timpson. A couple of weeks later, the bank replied Adoo that it had no
Will or asset in its possession. However, Mubashiru offered an explanation
that could have informed such a denial. According to him, he has a letter,
written by the bank, indicating that it had handed over all documents to R.M
Timpson. "May be the bank denied because it was an individual making the
request. If it was the family that wrote to the bank, it wouldn't have given
such a reply."
To Dr. Ore Falomo, close friend and personal physician to Abiola, the
politician left a Will. He, however, admitted that he had not seen the will.
"I know he made a will up to 1993, some of us who were close to him know
that he made some will immediately before his arrest. When I said some of
us, I was referring to a very close friend of Abiola who was with him in
London when that will was being made," he saidHowever, Falomo declined
mentioning the friend's name but described him as one of the few people
Abiola confided in. The physician insisted that Abiola made wills 'but I
never saw them.' He claims that if he had seen a copy he would have been
able to say if it looks like a copy of Abiola's will.
However, Falomo added that modern technology could actually make
identification of documents difficult. "The difference between a photocopy
and the original is not much. That shows the level of modern technology. We
must be careful about this kind of thing," he cautioned.
Of great worry to Falomo is the exclusion of Lola Abiola-Edewor from the
allegedly forged will. "This is a rather sad aspect of the will and one does
not want to hold brief for Abiola but I found it rather sad that he did not
mention anything about Lola," he said regretfully.
Falomo, however, took a different view of the DNA tests prescribed by the
contentious will. Falomo explained that many of the children had undergone
the DNA test including those of the slain Alhaja Kudirat Abiola. "The
question now rises. Why do they want them to have the test repeated. A DNA
tests that is properly done will be the same whether you do it 10 or 20
times. Those people who did it have a good reason to be annoyed," the doctor
explained . The instance of fresh DNA tests, TEMPO gathered, is not
unconnected with alleged failure of the tests by one of the children said to
have been fathered by Abiola. According to a TEMPO source, the child named
Lakunle is the son of Mrs. Dupe Onitiri-Abiola. He was said to have flunked
the DNA test conducted on 1 April 1 1986.
Another wife, Seki Folashade Abiola was at a point locked in a legal battled
with the late politician, over the paternity of the three children she
claimed to have had for Abiola. However, only one of them, Ademola, scaled
the DNA hurdle. Mrs. Kemi Abiola's (nee Onabolu) case takes the cake. Not
even one of the four children she claimed to have had for the late business
mogul passed the DNA test. Those cleared by test include all the children of
the late Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, Mrs. Debisi Abiola, Mrs. Labisi and Titi
Abiola. The tests were allegedly conducted by Abiola's doctor in London.
For now, the Abiola family is in disarray as stinging comments and gallons
of vitriol flow freely. The crisis gets increasingly tangled with no
solution yet in sight. The bitter struggle over Abiola's inheritance, if not
deftly handled, may provide a sequel to the grim 'soap opera' into which
that of late Chief Festus Okotie-Eboh, has become.
Late Chief Okotie-Eboh, flamboyant First Republic finane minister was killed
during the nation's first military coup of 1966. Till date, members of his
family still shuttle around the courts in a bid to determine who gets what.
While the Abiola family case appears somewhat labyrinthine, the Okotie-Eboh
have two clearly defined camps. In one camps is Mrs. Alero Jadesimi, the
only offspring of the late Chief's subsisting marriage while in the other
camp are her other 13 half brothers and sisters. The bone of contention is
the Pounds909.424.228 cash believed to be the amount held in just one of the
several bank accounts of the late First Republic finance minister. His
estate also includes several choice properties in exclusive locations all
over Lagos. The No. 1. Milverton Road, Ikoyi, Lagos property is one over
which the fight is prominent as it has been the centre of furious
litigation.
Additional reports by Tony Egbulefu, Nick Nwafor, Idowu Akinrosoye, Ben
Eguzozie and Yinka Ijabiyi.
Publication Date: September 14, 2000
___________________________________________________________________________
Visit http://www.visto.com/info, your free web-based communications center.
Visto.com. Life on the Dot.
IG...@aol.com
Have all of the children done DNA tests yet?
How many wives? How many concubines. How many countries of the world?
Those who fault Chief Obasanjo for not elevating Chief Abiola to sainthood
would do well to remember that it was during the reign of Obasanjo the first
that Abiola got his billion dollar contracts that catapulted him from a
Division Acountant to CEO/VP of ITT(Southern Hemisphere). He made Billions of
Dollars from Nigeria. What exactly did he produce or install to earn so much
money? 127 I suppose!
sincerely,
Chuk
In a message dated 9/12/00 10:40:03 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
otasco otanda
As a note, Alhaji MKO Abiola earned his billions as a
middleman negotiating telecommunication contracts for
ITT from FG. He got 10% of every contract money
awarded to ITT by the FG, and that was in billions of
dollars. He was not responsible for doing the actual
work. Today, especially considering the recent senate
leadership contract scandal, Abiola is "Oyi Oyi", but
we dare not say that.
Now to SamChuks: Not being able to control sexual
urges runs deep in Islamic religion. Believe it,
Muhammad, the prophet of islam, had more wives and
concubines than MKO, and at least two of his wives,
Aisha and Zainab, were wedded to him direct from God
in Heaven. Aisha was 9 years old when Muhammad
started having sexual intercourse with her; Zainab was
wife of Zaid, Muhammad's son, but was later "snatched"
away from him and wedded to Muhammad by God from seven
heavens. It sounds like soap opera, but believe it,
muslims believe it is part of revealations from God
Highly Exalted. For more info on Muhammad and his
truck of women, please see:
http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/reveal/
I have taken the liberty to paste Chapter Twenty-Seven
of that book for you.
Ofcourse I have always regarded the "multi-woman"
sexual intercourse or polygammy wahala of Islam with
much disdain. I think the whole thing is ocultic,
especially when a so-called prophet was the champion
of it all. Any body who have had a communion with God
will agree that the Joy that that mere Divine Presence
of God generates far surpasses the joy of sex. That
joy is simply overwhelming, and it is such that it
sustains continually from joy to joy, so much so that
one hardly remembers the joy of sex, but is rather
captivated and firmly gripped by the aura of God
continuously, that is, the more Joy of God one has,
the more Joy of God one desires and gets, and this is
heaven. This was impossible for Islam, and it is
impossible for it today, and it will be impossible for
it tomorrow.
-K.O.
--- <Ig...@aol.com> wrote:
Rev. NwaJesu:
Have all of the children done DNA tests yet? How many
wives? How many concubines. How many countries of the
world? Those who fault Chief Obasanjo for not
elevating Chief Abiola to sainthood would do well to
remember that it was during the reign of Obasanjo the
first that Abiola got his billion dollar contracts
that catapulted him from a Division Acountant to
CEO/VP of ITT(Southern Hemisphere). He made Billions
of Dollars from Nigeria. What exactly did he produce
or install to earn so much money? 127 I suppose!
sincerely,
Chuk
--- Nwa Jesu <Nwa...@visto.com> wrote:
If this BF man controlled his sexual hard
ons/desires, this yeye rofo-rofo nonsense will not
be happening. Or will it?
27 children? Na wetin?
Let's hope there are wo-men where the Bashorun is
chilling now.
Tufiakwa!!!
SamChuks
++++++++
**To be ALMOST saved is to be TOTALLY Lost**
http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/reveal/
CHAPTER TWENTY SEVEN
The Story of Muhammad's Marriage to Zainab Bint Jahsh
as the Qur´an Expositors See it
Muhammad's marriage to Zainab Bint Jahsh has become a
profound problem for the old expositors, and needs
justification and explanation due to the strange
incidents involved.(1) These incidents are not in
harmony with the ethics and conventions that Muhammad
introduced to mankind, as Muslims claim. But before we
delve into the opinions and the arguments that the
expositors used to justify what happened, it is
worthwhile to quote here what Ibn Sa`d and al-Tabari
said concerning this story:
Muhammad Ibn Yahya Ibn Hayyan narrated, "The Messenger
of God came to Zaid Ibn Haritha's house seeking him.
Perhaps the Messenger of God missed him at that time,
that is why he said, 'Where is Zaid?' He went to his
house seeking him and, when he did not find him,
Zainab Bint Jahsh stood up to [meet] him in a house
dress,(2) but the Messenger of God turned away from
her. She said, 'He is not here, Messenger of God, so
please come in; my father and mother are your ransom.'
The Messenger of God refused to come in. Zainab had
hurried to dress herself when she heard that the
Messenger of God was at her door, so she leapt in a
hurry, and the Messenger of God liked her when she did
that. He went away muttering something that was hardly
understandable but for this sentence: 'Praise be to
God who disposes the hearts.' When Zaid came back
home, she told him that the Messenger of God came.
Zaid asked, 'You asked him to come in, didn't you?'
She replied, 'I bade him to, but he refused.' He said,
'Have you heard [him say] anything?' She answered,
'When he had turned away, I heard him say something
that I could hardly understand. I heard him say,
"Praise be to God who disposes the hearts." ' Zaid
went out to the Messenger of God and said, 'O
Messenger of God, I learned that you came to my house.
Did you come in? O Messenger of God, my father and
mother are your ransom. Perhaps you liked Zainab. I
can leave her.' The Messenger of God said, 'Hold on to
your wife.' Zaid said, 'O Messenger of God, I will
leave her.' The Messenger of God said, 'Keep your
wife.' So when Zaid left her, she finished her legal
period after she had isolated herself from Zaid. While
the Messenger of God was sitting and talking with
`A´isha, he was taken in a trance, and when it lifted,
he smiled and said, 'Who will go to Zainab to tell her
that God wedded her to me from heaven?' The Messenger
of God recited, 'Thus you told someone whom God had
favoured and whom you yourself have favoured: "Hold on
to your wife." ' `A´isha said, 'I heard much about her
beauty and, moreover, about how God wedded her from
heaven, and I said, "For sure she will boast over this
with us." ' Salama, the slave of the Messenger of God,
hurried to tell her about that. She gave her some
silver jewellery that she was wearing."(3)
Zainab used to boast over the wives of the Prophet and
say, "Your families married you off, but it was God
who married me off from above seven heavens."(4)
Expositors are in unanimous agreement that this
incident that took place between Muhammad and Zainab
on the one hand, and between Muhammad and Zaid on the
other hand was the reason why this verse was revealed:
"Thus you told someone whom God favoured and whom you
yourself have favoured: 'Hold on to your wife, and
heed God,' while you kept to yourself what God had
disclosed and you dreaded people's [opinions],
although it is more correct for you to dread God. Once
Zayd has accomplished his purpose with her,(5) We
married her off to you so that there would be no
objection for believers in respect to their adopted
sons' wives once they have accomplished their purpose
with them. God's command must be done!" (Sura al-Ahzab
33:37).
Muhammad's marriage to Zainab, who was the wife of his
adopted son, led to many accusations against Muhammad.
The dissimulators said, "Muhammad prohibits the wives
of the son while he himself marries the wife of his
son Zaid."(6) `Abdullah Ibn `Umar narrated: "We have
always called him [namely Zaid] Zaid Ibn Muhammad."(7)
So this charge that the dissimulators, among others,
levelled against Muhammad necessitated the revelation
of yet another verse: "Muhammad is not the father of
any of your men, but [he is] God's Messenger and the
Seal of the Prophets. God is Aware of everything!"
(Sura al-Ahzab 33:40). `Abdullah Ibn `Umar said, "We
only called him Zaid Ibn Muhammad till the verse
'Muhammad is not the father of any of your men' was
revealed."(8)
The interpretation of the verse by Muslim expositors:
Muslim expositors explain the verse (Sura al-Ahzab
33:37) as follows: Remember, Muhammad, when you said
to Zaid,(9) "Hold on to your wife, and heed God in
regard to her, and do not divorce her owing to
necessity or offering her haughtiness as excuse."(10)
In fact Zainab Bint Jahsh appealed to the Messenger of
God when he saw her, as is told, when she was under
the bond of his next of kin, so God placed in his
heart aversion toward her when he knew that the heart
of his Prophet was so stricken by her. So Zaid wanted
to leave her and he told the Messenger of God. The
Messenger of God said to him, "Hold on to your wife"
even though he desired him to be finally divorced from
her so that he could marry her, "and heed God" namely
fear Him in the duty you owe Him for your wife.(11) A
tradition by Wahb, "Ibn Zaid said, 'The Prophet had
married Zaid Ibn Haritha to Zainab Bint Jahsh, his
cousin, and the Messenger of God went out one day
seeking him. On Zaid's door was a curtain which the
wind moved to show her unveiled in her chamber. The
heart of the Prophet was filled with admiration for
her. When this happened, she became undesirable to the
other [namely to Zaid], who came [to the Messenger of
God] and said, "O Messenger of God, I want to leave my
wife." He replied, "Did she do anything to arouse your
suspicion?" He said, "No! She did nothing to arouse my
suspicion at all, O Messenger of God, and all I have
seen from her was good." Then the Messenger of God
said to him, "Hold on to your wife, and heed God."
This is why God said, "Thus you told someone whom God
had favoured and whom you yourself have favoured:
'Hold on to your wife, and heed God,' while you kept
to yourself what God has disclosed." [This means that]
you hid in yourself that you would marry her if he
leaves her.' "(12)
`Ali Ibn Husain narrated: "God, may He be blessed and
exalted, had made known to His Prophet that Zainab
will be one of the wives, so when Zaid came to him
complaining of her, he said, 'Heed God, and hold on to
your wife.' But God said, 'You kept to yourself what
God has disclosed.' " `A´isha narrated: "Had the
Messenger of God kept to himself any part of the Book
of God that was inspired to him he would have kept
'You kept to yourself what God has disclosed and you
dreaded people['s opinions], although it is more
correct for you to dread God.' "(13)
Al-Hasan said, "None of the verses that were revealed
to him was more burdensome to him than this: 'You kept
to yourself what God has disclosed. And you dreaded
people's [opinions], although it is more correct for
you to dread God.' The Prophet of God dreaded what
people would say."(14) There only remains Ibn Kathir
(A.D. 1373) among the old expositors who rejects the
oldest traditions about the incident that took place
between Muhammad and Zainab. He does that without
resorting to any modification or justification to his
claim. He says, "Ibn Jarir and Ibn Hatim related many
stories in this regard which we discard on the grounds
of being incorrect."(15) Ibn Kathir, however, who
contests the accuracy of those stories claiming that
they are incorrect, finds no fault in citing a late
tradition that says: " 'You kept to yourself what God
had disclosed' means that God told you, Muhammad, that
Zainab will be one of your wives and therefore you
said to him " 'Hold on to your wife.' "(16)
The greatest problem that faces al-Razi is the "dread
of the Messenger of God," since the Qur´an says, "You
dreaded people's [opinions], although it is more
correct for you to dread God." But this does not point
out that the Prophet dreaded the people and did not
dread God, it rather means: "God alone is worthy to be
dreaded, and you should not dread any of the people
together with him. So dread Him alone."(17) It is no
secret that this interpretation of al-Razi has not
been known before him, and that it was, no doubt, a
product of his imagination.
Al-Zamakhshari, on the other hand, treats other
aspects in his analysis of the story. `A´isha
narrated:
Had the Messenger of God kept anything to himself of
what has been revealed to him, he would have kept this
verse hidden. If you ask, "What then did God want him
to say when Zaid told him he wanted to leave her,
knowing that it was improper for him to tell him to do
so because he wanted to marry her?" I would answer,
"It seems that God, may He be exalted, wanted him to
hold his peace or to tell him, 'You know better what
to do,' so his inward [intention] should not be
contradictory to his outward [expression], since God
requires of the Prophets that their inward
[intentions] and outward [expressions] be equal, that
they should be firm in [pursuing] matters, responding
according to circumstances and persisting on a settled
course. In the Hadith, when the Messenger of God
wanted to kill `Abdullah Ibn Abi Sarh, and when
`Uthman interceded for him, `Umar said, "My eye was
facing yours, will you make a gesture with your eye so
that I should kill him?" Muhammad replied, "The
prophet should not give orders through an eye-gesture;
their inward [intention] and their outward
[expression] is the same." If you say, "How did God
reprove him for refraining to express something that
he disapproved of expressing? The Prophet would not
disapprove of expressing something unless it is worthy
of disapproval for him and the people talk only
against that which is considered loathsome to the
intellects and habits. And why has He not reproved him
concerning the same matter, ordering him to repress
[his] lust and quell [his] soul to keep it from
desiring and chasing after Zainab? Why has He not kept
His Prophet free from anything that would attach fault
to him and expose him to gossip?" I would say, "How
often a man is cautious about something and is ashamed
to let people know about it, while it is inside him
allowable, appropriate, absolutely lawful,
indisputable, and God finds no fault in it! And
perhaps entering into that which is allowable serves
as a ladder whereby one can attain duties that leave a
great effect on religion for which a man is rewarded.
Unless he is cautious regarding this many people
spread rumours about him, except those who have favour
with God, knowledge, religion and God-given insight
into the true state of affairs and into their essence,
not their outward appearance. Do you know that when
they would feast in the houses of the Messenger of
God, reclining in their seats, not [showing desire] to
leave, indulging in conversations, and the Messenger
of God would be hurt by their sitting feeling upset by
their speech, but constrained by shyness? Had the
Messenger of God revealed what was hidden in his
breast, and commanded them to disperse, they would
have found it difficult [to receive] and there would
be some defamatory talk. This is like man's ambition
for certain objects, such as a woman. It is a desire
not characterised by ugliness in intellect or in
religion, since it is not one of free choice. Also
achieving what is allowable through legal means is
nothing ugly; namely proposing to Zainab and marrying
her without Zaid's suggestion that the Messenger of
God marry her, or to console him for leaving her
knowing firmly that Zaid's soul was not attached to
her at all, but was rather indifferent to her, and at
the same time the soul of the Messenger of God was so
attached to her. It was not offensive among them that
a man would relinquish his wife for his friend so that
the latter could marry her. When the Migrants entered
Medina, they were consoled by the Helpers [al-Ansar]
in everything, to the extent that if a man had two
wives, he would relinquish one of them to the Migrant.
So then, the matter was allowable on all sides, and it
was not offensive at all. It also has not hurt or
demoralised Zaid or anyone else. On the contrary, it
has been the source of goodness; to mention only one
of them, a cousin of the Messenger of God [that is
Zainab] secured herself [a marriage with] a close
relative and high honour. As to the general good in
his saying, "so that there would be no objection for
believers in respect to their adopted sons' wives once
they have accomplished their purpose with them," God
should rather have reproved His Messenger when he kept
it to himself by saying to him, "Hold on to your wife,
and heed God." Since God approves for him only
conformity of conscience and outward [expression], and
standing firm in the issues of truth so that the
believers would follow his example and not be ashamed
of fighting for their rights, even if it is bitter [to
do so].(18)
Muslim writers have added nothing to the list of
apologies that al-Zamakhshari (A.D. 1144) and al-Razi
(A.D. 1209) presented, as they use the same arguments
trying to interpret this story, and even defend it.
They believe that it involves hidden wisdom that the
understanding of mankind is not yet mature enough to
fathom.(19) We also observe a bizarre agreement
between the rigorists, who call themselves
traditionalists, and those who maintain reform and
progress. Muhammad Husain Haikal, for one, in the
course of "refuting" the claims of V. Vacca in the
Encyclopaedia of Islam regarding Zainab, speaks about
a "glorious deed" of Muhammad, which the orientalists
and missionaries have turned into a romance. He says,
"As to Zainab Bint Jahsh, who has been wrapped up by
orientalists and missionaries in an imaginary picture
of romance and infatuation, true history judges that
[Muhammad's act with] her was one of the glorious
deeds of Muhammad. Being the perfect example of faith,
he applied to her the Hadith that says, 'Man's faith
is not made perfect till he loves for his brother what
he loves for himself.' It is enough to destroy the
story that it was he who betrothed her to his adopted
son, Zaid."(20) The scholar Haikal does not fail to
add that "we could have spared him all these sayings
by saying, 'Let it be true!' Why would this detract
from the greatness, message, and prophethood of
Muhammad? The laws that bind [ordinary] people have no
power over the luminaries, so how much more the
messengers and prophets! Hasn't Moses seen a dispute
between two men; one was from his sect and the other
from the enemy's sect, so he thrust the enemy and
killed, committing an unlawful murder? So Moses broke
the law, and was not subject to it. Yet this did not
detract from his prophethood or message, and did not
diminish his greatness. The way Jesus broke the law
[of nature] was even greater than Moses, and thus with
Muhammad and the rest of the prophets. For his
condition is not bordered by a certain limit of power
or desire, he rather went beyond the laws of nature by
his birth and life!"(21)
Putting all these points aside, let us ask Muslims to
find the relation between the murder that Moses
committed, on the one hand, and the birth of Jesus
from a virgin, on the other hand, and the relation
between these two people and the story of Muhammad and
Zainab! The strangeness of the matter lies in the fact
that the scholar Haikal presents Muhammad's giving
Zainab in marriage to Zaid as a cogent argument to
refute the claims of his opponents who hold that the
matter was merely romance and infatuation! It is
unbelievable that Haikal has no knowledge of the fact
that "the heart of the Prophet was deeply moved by her
after her marriage with Zaid"(22) which is found in
trustworthy Islamic reference books. Al-Sabuni,
however, excludes any love affair or romance from this
marriage, as he says, "How can a man give a virgin
woman to [another] person, and then desire her after
she is deflowered?"(23) Al-Sabuni attacks the
fraudulent "orientalists" and "missionaries" who
claimed that God reproved Muhammad for his hidden
desire for Zainab. Yet, these "slanders" of the
orientalist and missionaries have already been listed
in Tabaqat Ibn Sa`d and al-Tabari's works, as they
have been quoted in the books that were written after
them. Ibn Sa`d and al-Tabari were neither the enemies
of Islam nor "fraudulent orientalists". They did not
know that Muhammad only married her to cancel and
abolish the act of adoption.(24) This argument was not
known at all at the time of al-Tabari!
On the other hand, there are some Muslim
fundamentalists and writers whose work wins the favour
of fundamentalists, who discovered a further virtue in
the Prophet- his fondness for women! The Prophet has
proven through this fondness that he was a man in the
full meaning of the word.(25) It was `A´isha `Abd
al-Rahman who was the first to express this
argument.(26) Her frankness is to be considered a
criticism of the writers who endeavour to rid the
Messenger of all human feelings. She comments on what
Haikal said in regard to the Prophet's marriage with
Zainab, "Am I then right in saying that Dr Husain
Haikal was wrong in his attempt to defend the
Messenger? Indeed, when he denied the Messenger's
fondness for Zainab and refused the fact that he was
attached to her, he cast upon the matter many dark
shades of suspicion that would make us believe that
this attachment was forbidden for the Messenger and a
flaw that we should free him from. This has nothing to
do with the matter at all. It is just human nature
that is subject to passions it cannot drive away. So
it rises high in nobility and self-control,
determining to continue refraining from what God
permitted in order to escape the gossip of the people.
But God insisted that His Messenger should embark on
such a marriage that has been permitted by law and
necessitated by the general good, which is 'that there
would be no objection for believers in respect to
their adopted sons' wives once they have accomplished
their purpose with them.' The other private good was
that Zainab should secure herself [a marriage with] a
close relative, of high honour, and become one of the
mothers of believers. Hence God reproved him when he
kept it to himself by saying, 'Hold on to your wife,
and heed God.' Since God approves only conformity of
conscience and outward [expression], and standing firm
when it comes to the issues of truth so that the
believers would follow his example and not be ashamed
of fighting for their rights, even if it is bitter [to
do so]."(27)
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
Nwa Jesu
This polygamy thing has been with us from old. The Old Testament is replete with Kings having hundreds of wives and concubines. Look at King David and Solomon for example.
The "zipper" problem started with the very man whom Christians trace their "blessed ancenstry" to, Abraham. There will not be Islam today if Abraham kept his yeye penis under wraps and not listen to his wife Sarah. Remember God promised to bless Abraham with a Child? But after long waiting, Abraham getting old, and Sarah not trusting her womb anymore due to old age, encouraged Abraham to make it out with their slave girl Hagai. Well, Hagai became pregnant and gave birth to Ishmael,"The Son of the Flesh."
Sarah became jealous when Ishmael was born and katakata started in that family. The rest is now history. You can trace Islam and the Arabs back to Ishmael. And that my brother is why the Jews and the Arabs will never reconcile. Don't mind the peace talks going on in the Middle East today. This Middle East problem did not start in 1945 with the creation of Israel. It started with Isaac and Ishmael, the son of Promise vs. the Son of Flesh.
Now, going back to polygamy, man always wants more. Even those who profess monogamy often "eyes" other women. Ahha, President Clinton comes to mind? Well, most men are like that. I used to be like that too.
Just imagine the friction, animosity, and hatred that Chief MKO Abiola has left behind. Do you think all those children from the different mothers will ever love one another as to trust one another?
Today, Islam is traced to Ishael and Christianity traced to Christ and to Abraham.
SamChuks
++++++++
**To be ALMOST saved is to be TOTALLY Lost**
Chuk and Samchuks:
http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/reveal/
sincerely,
Chuk
> allegation that he sold any property.. "There is
___________________________________________________________________________
otasco otanda
What you wrote below are true. However, neither in
judaism nor in christianity is a "bagful of several
women" to a man considered ordained or weded from God
Almighty. David, Solomon, etc., had a remorse one way
or the other, and they never commanded their followers
to gulp up women. That is not the same in islam, and
that is the problem; every act or life activities of
Muhammad is considered revealed from God and must be
practiced to the end. In so doing, islam coded God as
sharia. Now who but a spiritual fool can think that
God can be coded to any imaginable extent? Let us all
continue to pray that they all in islam will one day
wake up from spiritual slumber.
-K.O.