Part 4

(TN: "Serpent" is a name and serpent for snake)

Truly, this story has personally exhausted and sickened me.

The Demon snake "Serpent", is a symbol of temptation. The Torah states that it is the serpent that tempted Adam and Eve, leading to their expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

But the truth is different. It was "Lucifer" who seduced Adam and Eve, not the serpent. "Serpent" is a demon specialized in destroying beliefs, igniting discord, and spreading fires in any land He descends upon.

I am no longer surprised by the scenes I constantly see on the screen of some Jews in Israel killing children and slaughtering them in cold blood. The truth I have come to know is that the Jewish soldier does not believe he is killing a human being. According to the Talmud, he believes he is killing an animal disguised it his God in human form.

This animal also competes with him on his land. So killing him is a duty.

However, not all Jews believe in the Talmud, of course. There is a sect that believes only in the Torah, and they are a sect of Jews called the Karaite Jews.

(TN: Literal translation is the reader Jews.)

They even believe in Jesus and Muhammad as prophets of God. Even the Prophet Muhammad himself said about the Jews of his time that they knew him as they knew their own children, even before he was born.

Regarding the theory of humans being animals in human form, there are scientific theories that emerged within the Masonic circles and under their sponsorship, the most prominent of which is Darwin's theory. It claims that humans originated from apes.

If you want the experienced opinion, they adopted this theory to deepen the idea in the minds of non-Jews or Gentiles that their ancestors were monkeys. But the Jews themselves do not believe in this theory. For them, this theory only explains the true origin of Goys.

As for my personal opinion on this theory, I would say that only a person with an animalistic mind finds solace in the bestial origin.

As for the deeds done by the serpent to Christian doctrine, I say that despite all the excessive distortion, I have read the Gospel thoroughly in all its versions, and I haven't found a single word in which Jesus (Isa) refers to himself as God, or as the son of God, or commands people to worship him.

In fact, I noticed that he once refused to be called a good man and said that only God is good. I know that a man must present his claims for me to either believe or refute them, but this Jesus, Isa, did not present any claims at all. He never said he was God or the son of God in any word or even a hint.

It is expected that a human being has reached a level of intelligence that prevents him from claiming that someone is God. So where was this God before he was born, and how will he die when his time comes? If this God doesn't eat or drink, won't he die? They say that he died for humanity, so how did he die if he is God? Furthermore, I read that he was circumcised when he was young. So the "wise" man took hold of him and circumcised him, Was he circumcising God? How did he hold GOD and circumcise him? And when he was on the cross, they say he cried out, looking up to the sky, and said, "Why have you forsaken me?" Can it be believed that God would say to anyone, "Why have you forsaken me?" Then how do they say that God is something, and Christ is something, and the Holy Spirit is something, and yet they say they are all one thing, which is God? Truly, I don't know how "Serpent" did it, but he clouded the minds of these people before clouding their hearts.

Perhaps I haven't told you, but I am a Muslim. Although I wasn't always one, I became one after I learned everything I learned. And after delving into the realms of Freemasonry and magic a deep delve. Although the "Serpent" completely failed to destroy the beliefs of the Companions as he did with the disciples, after the first three centuries, his venom finally succeeded in penetrating the souls, because those were a golden generation that demons were truly afraid of.

After the first three centuries, the venom of the serpent "Serpent" succeeded in creating a large faction called the Shi'a, separating them from the Muslims. The emergence of this sect specifically occurred after the martyrdom of "Husayn ibn Ali" in Karbala.

In the beginning, there was a faction called the Zaydis, which was the only faction that adhered to authentic Islamic teachings. These followers followed the ideology of "Zayd ibn Ali ibn Husayn," a valiant man who agreed with the majority of Muslims in everything but believed that "Ali ibn Abi Talib" was more deserving of the caliphate than "Abu Bakr." He recognized the virtues of "Abu Bakr" and "Umar" just as all Muslims recognized their virtues, and he prayed for them before his death.

After the death of "Zayd," some people refused his prayer "Abu Bakr" and "Umar," and that's when deviation began. They were called the "Rafidites" (Rejectors) by those who rejected the caliphates of the first three 'Abu Bakr', 'Umar', and 'Uthman'. These factions then split into around seventy-some groups.

Their entire history is filled with betrayals against the Islamic State and alliances with its enemies. I was very surprised by how all these Shia principles emerged despite Muslims being very meticulous in transmitting Hadiths with their chains of narrators from the Prophet.

They never left any room for manipulation. But the unfortunate truth that dispelled this astonishment is that Muslims in the early centuries indeed focused on transmitting Hadiths, jurisprudence, and interpretation, but they forgot an extremely important science—they forgot to document history.

When Muslims forgot to document history, the Shia excelled in it. They extensively documented the events of the conflicts among the Companions of the Prophet. If one examines the chains of narrators of the narrations about the conflicts, one will find that all the narrations that criticize "Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan" or other Companions during the period of conflicts were fabricated by four Shia individuals known for their fabrication of false narrations.

The sad part is that their narrations have made their way into the curricula of Muslim countries, and students there are taught that "Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan" did such and such, and his son "Yazid" did this and that, and his father "Abu Sufyan" did this and that...

Regarding the narrations that criticized "Yazid ibn Muawiyah," all of them, without exception are fabricated Shia narrations, baseless whit no reliable sources. The awful thing is that these narrations and others like them have distorted history, altering its course radically and fueling conflicts among later generations of the Ummah (the Community).

'Yazid ibn Muawiyah' was accused of being a drunkard, a slave trader, and a debaucher, and it was claimed that he had no right to the caliphate after 'Muawiyah'.

They asserted that "Husayn ibn Ali" was more deserving of the caliphate, and they accused 'Yazid' of ordering the killing of 'Husayn' at Karbala.

The strange thing is that the only authentic narration about Yazid was narrated by "Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib" himself, the brother of 'Hasan' and 'Husayn'. He said, "I have lived and interacted with 'Yazid ibn Muawiyah', and I have never witnessed any misconduct from him."

What is more astonishing is that later generations believed these accusations against 'Yazid', as if the golden generation of the Companions who lived during that time and established the State would accept their leader being a debaucher and a slave trader. It is as if this is an insult to all the Companions.

It is enough to mention that "Abdullah ibn Umar," a jurist among the Companions at that time, came forward and declared, "I dissociate myself from whoever did not pledge allegiance to Yazid ibn Muawiyah."

Interestingly, only three Companions objected to Yazid's succession to his father Muawiyah; "Husayn ibn Ali," "Abdullah ibn Zubayr," and "Abdul Rahman ibn Abu Bakr." Even when they objected, they only raised the question of whether succession should be based on lineage or merit.

If there were any criticism of Yazid's character, as is currently propagated, it would have been appropriate for them to mention it at that time. However, Shia narrations, of course, mention many fabricated statements attributed to their own narrators, and the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, are from them innocent.

Now, let's leave all these complex theological discussions aside and return to the table. We have this time just two cards in front of us.

The first card is the hallucination paper, with a picture of a man with closed eyes due to a headache, and his head is filled with hallucinations.

The second card is the assassination paper.

This story will not be narrated by any of the demons. Let's set the demons aside. The truth is that I have delved into the matter of the Shia because the one who will narrate this story is one of them, specifically from the Nizari sect, a member of the dangerous group known as 'Al-Hashashin' (The Order of Assassins or simply the Assassins). And once again, don't ask me how he will narrate it.

Just listen.

(TN: Helloooo! anyone?)