Ali mirza disgracing a clause of hadith: A critique of lectures 116 [a,b,c] of "Ali Mirza

1 “Ali Mirza said many words of Disgrace to the clause of a H:adi:th: KANA: YAKT-BU VAH:Y. The tradition is:

Sayyiduna Abdullah Ibn Abbas (Radi Allahu Anhuma) reported that the Prophet (SallAllahu Alayhi wa Sallam) told him: "Go bring Mu'awiyah to Me", because he did write down Allah's Revelation (Wahi) for the Prophet (SallAllahu Alayhi wa Sallam).

Dalail al-Nabuwwah, Vol. 6, Page 243 [M-snad Imam Ahmad 2651 , Dalail Al Nabuwwah of Bayhaqi vol 6 page 243 and confirmed to be authentic by Albani in Silsilat as-Saheehah 1-164 and It is mentioned in al Hadith of Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai that "Chain is Hasan" see Majallah Al Hadith no: 29 page 5] In M-sad the words are Kana: Katib-hu: . But this does not Contradict the truth of the statement /sentence He did use to Write Revelation. But it is desensitized by the sentence stated above.

Neglecting his mocking and Satire AS IT IS NECESSARY for pure logical and rational discussions , one must concentrate to the discussion of the Engineer “Ali Mirza.

This sentence KANA: YAKT-BU VAH:Y. doeth prove with Certainty that Saiyiduna: Mu”aviah RD: did write Vah:y.

But “Ali Mirza: disbelieves in it. He believes that Saiyiduna: Mu”aviah RD: did not write a single Vah:y.

His argument is that when Saiyiduna Mu”a:viah RD:embressed ‘Isla:m almost all or all of the Qur’a:n was reviled. This argument has been critically discussed and responded ,one may see it there.

His second argument which is actually irrelevant is that Saiyiduna: Mu”aviah RD: in the very same H:adith: did not come when Saiyiduna:‘Ibn “Abbas RD: informed him that Holy Prophet PBUH/S:”AVS is calling for him.

From this he wants to shew that Saiyiduna: Mu”aviah RD: did not write a single Vah:y [in his entire life].

He is so aggressive at this point that he even criticizes his former teacher Zubair “Ali Zai for using this small sentence of H:adith: when he argued that Saiyiduna: Mu”aviah RD: was a KATIB OF VAH:Y. “Ali Mirza the Engineer engineers an argument that if the entire tradition is read Saiyiduna: Mu”a:viah RD: is not found as a Katib of Vah:y.

But this is the most informal fallacy of “Ali Mirza and his argument is the most incorrect argument.

1

2 It is necessary to discuss in Preliminaries.

First Preliminary:= Either this sentence of the H:adi:th: is True or it is not True. Since by the Principles of Thought the Law of Ecluding the Middle/ Medium, any third option is Absolutely Absurd and Intrinsically Impossible.

Since this Sentence is a STATEMENT [KHABAR] and not an ‘Insha:’ .

It the sentence is true then this Sentence implies that” Saiyiduna: Mu”aviah Did Write Revelation Before this Event.

So at the time when Holy Prophet called for Mu”aviah RD: and did send Saiyiduna: ‘Ibn “Abbas RD:, Saiyiduna Mu”aviah RD: used to Write Vah:y Before this Event.

Mathematical Representation: Let it be supposed that Holy Prophet S:”AVS called for Sayiduna Mu”aviah at time β, the statement/sentence was true for the time α, such that α<β.

As it is a definite rule that the unity of time is Necessary for any contradiction, there is no contradiction in the rest of the sentences of the Tradition and this sentence under discussion.

Thus if Sayiduna: Mu”aviah RD:did not come , this does not imply in the least meaning of the word IMPLICATION, that he did not used to Write Revelation Prior to the Event of Calling stated above.

It is is assumed that this sentence is Not True then it is false. Since this sentence os a Statement [KHABAR] and if a KHABAR is not true then it is false.

If this is false then its Negation “ Ma Kana:……”: is true.

Since if a Statement is fasle then its Negation [Naqi:d:] is certainly true.

But if this negation is true then this means that ‘According to “Ali Mirzsa: a fasls sentence has been introduced in the Text of H:adi:th: .

This is a kind of Tah:rif [Corruption].

Since Holy Prophet S:”AVS Is Ma”s:um [Infallable] and Ibn “Abbas RD: is Mah:fuz: [Innocent/Not Guilty].

No S:H:A:BI can speak falsely in general and in regard to Holy Prophet in Particular.

This means that Engineer “Ali Mirza: considers at least this sentence OF THE H:adi:th: as false.

It is Impossible and Absurd to say that this sentence is True yet Mu”aviah RD: did not write Vah:y.

This is just like to say that : The sentence << “A is B” is True yet “ A is Not B”>>.

Since if A is Not B then the statement A is B is False.

2

3 So any one who says such a thing is changing the meanings of truth and falsehood, true and false , and right and wrong.

This does mean that the enmity of Saiyiduna: Mu”aviah RD: has gone to such a degree in the mind of “Ali Mirza: that he does not believe that the sentence He Did Writedown Revelation or He did use to write Revelation as false [ ‘Astaghfarullah].

Second Preliminary : If this Sentence is expunged from the tradition then what so ever of the tradition is left [ i.e all the remaining sentences of the tradition under discussion] cannot be void/empty [Kh-l-v] of two states [H:alain/ ‘Ah:va:l]. The remainder implieth the falsity of this sentence. The Remainder doeth not imply the falsity of this sentence. In the first case the tradition is Implied to be Self Contradictory. That is some parts of this tradition implies the falsehood of one part of the very tradition. This is incorrect and can only be said by a denouncer of H:adi:th: .

If it doeth not imply then every one hath to accept that Saiyiduna: Mu”aviah RD: did write Vahy prior to this event.

For sake of an argument we unwillingly write the following discussion.

Let it be true that Holy Prophet’s Order/Commandment was Fard: Let it be true that Saiyiduna: Mu”aviah RD: violated the Obligatory Orders/ Commandments Of Holy Prophet S:”AVS. Let it be true that to violate such an order was fisq.

But all these suppositions cannot contradict the sentence that Mu”a:viah RD: did write / did use to write Vah:y before this event of Ordering/ Commanding. Thus this sentence remains true .If this statement is true then Sayiduna: Mu”aviah RD: did write some Vah:y prior to this event. The posteriority of these events cannot imply the falsehood of the sentence in discussion and priority of the factuality and actuality of the act of writing of Vah:y Third Preliminary : If it is supposed just for the sake of an argument that “Ali Mirza’s objection is correct that there was no Vah:y to be written , then this implieth that this sentence in the tradition is false on the basis of this argument. It cannot be the case that the sentence is true and the argument is correct simultaneously.

3

4 This is the worst form of fallacy one have ever witness in the world. That is why those who have argued as such ,who so ever they may be have committed an Absolute Error in this regard beyond any shadow of doubt.

Forth Preliminary:= If Engineer “Ali: Mirza did not want to make a fallacy he would have clearly said that this part i.e sentence of tradition is false. But he did not have this courage. But the consequences of his remarks are inevitable. That is Either Saiyiduna: Mu”aviah RD: did use to write Vah:y or this sentence OF THE TRADITION of H:adi:th: is false. ‘ASTAGHFARULLAH Fifth Preliminay:= If Engineer “Ali: Mirza: does not accept the truth of this sentence based upon his self engineered reasonings and his own reasons this means he confesses that he knows events better then the narrators of the Tradition, including Siyiduna: ‘Ibn “Aabbas RD: ,and even the fisrst speaker of this sentence in the entire history of the world. This consequence is Necessarily Inevitable.

Conclusion: This shews that our beloved engineer has either once again made a terrible mistake or he has deliberately engineered a scheme of fallacies to mislead his audiences and viewers.

A REQUEST TO THE FOLLOWERS OF ALI MIRZA: FOR THE SAKE OF ALL-H PLEASE DO NOT BE MISGUIDED BY THIS PERSON WHO USES SUCH ENGINEERED SCHEMES. EITHER DO NOT LISTEN TO HIM OR MAKE RESEARCH YOURSELF AND ANALYSE HIS ARGUMENTS CLEARLY AND CRITICALLY.

SAIYIDUNA: MU”AVIAH USED TO WTITE VAH:Y IF THIS SENTENCE OF H:ADITH: IS TRUE AND IT IS TRUE.

4