13BISMILLA:HIRRAH:MA:NIRRAH:I:MRESEARCH PAPER (2,A)A CRITIQUE OF ALI MIRZA ON THE ISSUE OF H:ADI:TH/HADI:S:. OF AMMA:R RD.Engineer Ali Mirza is a Literalist, Rafid:iy and a Denounces all the principles of Interpretations. How ever he owes to interpretation when it pure literalism conflicts his views as in the case of a Hadis about the faith of the Prophets father, where he interprets the Arabic word for father for paternal uncle. But he did not follow any rule or principle for interpretation.He tries to attact all the three sects of AHLUSNNAH nounly a] ASHA:IRAH.b]Salafiah.c]Maturidiyah.He attempts to inject Rafidi Ideas in Salfaism in particular and in the other two Sunni sects in general.Before beginning the discussion it is Necessary to shew that the extreme literalism is deadly fetal to Islam and Ahlussunnah. We provide twelve examples which are just due to the extreme literalistic approach and hope that Respected Ali Mirza shall also accept their fatality against Islam and Ahlussunnah. But they are some cases not all the cases:=i) Sun revolve around earth and earth does not revolve around sun.[ See SEE IMAM OF BANS BARAILVI SECT IN FAUZUL MUBIN,(May Allah save us from this view)].ii) Sun sinks in a muddy lake on earth.iii) Moon has a light of its own.iv) Sun simultaneously revolves around earth and Throne Of Deity.v) First Heaven is the sky seen from earth.vi) God is like a beautiful young Man.vii) Qura:n is MAJU:L if not MAKHLU:Qviii) Deity [ALL-H]gains knowledge as time passes. [Strangely Dr Iqbal ALSO advocated this view In the third lecture of the book Reconstruction Of Thoughts in Islam]ix) Hadrat Ali Was JA-HU:L [Nauz:.Billah]x) Saiyiduna ABU BACR RD was a MAGHD:U:B OF DEITY [ALL-H] NAUZ:.UBILLAH.xi) Space travelling is impossible.xii) Earth is flat.These are some of the demerits of Pure literalist approach.GENERAL DISCUSSION:=As the H:ADI:S:. of AMMAR RD IS AUTHENTIC WITH RESPECT TO ITS SANAS AND ITS ASNA:D CANNOT BEDISCUSSED.The only thing which canbe discussed is the EXPLANATION OF THE H;ADI:S:.This H:ADI:S:. is of First Category i.e S:AH:IH: This H:adi:s:. is not much difficult . One have to discuss the difficult part of the text of the tradition .Based upon this part Rafavid EXPLICITLY argue that Saiyiduna Muaviah RD and his supporters are either in Hell or Shall Go InHell. AL AYA:Z:. BILLAH TAALA:.They further allege that He and his companions were Heretic, Heterodox and Hippocrates. Engineer Ali Mirza how ever seconds them but IMPLICITLY. How ever HIS implicity is strong .It does cannote what Ravafid had said in a very powerful manner.His words cannotes the very same sense which the RAVAFID: has said EXPLICITLY.In order to support his view he further reports that even his former teacher Shaikh Zubair Ali Zai was in trouble since he was unable to make any explanation of this H:ADI:S:. in harmony with the Traditional SunniAQAID about Sah:a:bah RD: This may be true since Shaikh Zubair Ali Zai was an extreme literalist and denied any non literal approach even if it was necessary. Due to his influence ALI MIRZA has tried to mix Salafism and Rafidiism both in himself. THE DIFFICULT PARTS OF THE H:ADI:S:.The Holy Prophet SAVS said that :=1]The killers of Saiyiduna AMMAR RD would be inviting him to Hell and Saiyiduna AMMA:R RD: would be inviting his killers to Paradize/Heaven OR SOHE SAID.[indirect narration].2] SAIYIDUNA AMMAR would be killed by an Insurrecting Group [Fiah Al Ba:ghiyah]It is tried by RAVAFID: to shew that the text means that Killers Of SAIYIDUNA AMMA:R RD SHALL go in hell in QIYAMAH and AMMA:R RD shall go in Paradize.Then RAVAFID: argue that as Muaviyah RD was the head of his army , and his army was the Fiah Al Ba:ghiyah who killed Saiyiduna AMMA:R RD: , they all shall go to Hell in QIYA:MAH. [NAUZ:.BILLAH].Very same sense is expressed by Engineer Ali Miaza of Jhelum. How everHis intelligent mind made a conspiracy to say in implicit statements.All his efforts are to distort the true picture of Saiyiduna Mua:viyah RD.He ascribed to him such evil acts which makes his companionship to ceaseAs if he has left Islam (strong case) or was a fasiq\ transgressor as if he was not worthy of being a S:AH:BIY(relatively a weak case) . AL AYA:Z:. BILLAH TAALA: In order to discuss Ali Miza of Jhelum we have adoptedThe pure literalistic approach of the H:adis:. stated above.CLAIM:=It is impossible that this Hadis is applied upon Saiyiduna Muaviah RD, Saiyiduna Amar Bin Al As RD on the literal basis.PROOF:=In order to prove that this Hadis in no way implies that Saiyiduna ,Saiyiduna Amar Bin Al As will go to hell or they were on the wrong side , or both we proceed as follow:=The Hadis does say that the :=A]Killer of Saiyidna Ammar RD belongs to Fiah Al Baghiyah.B]Saiyidna Ammar RD would be inviting them to Paradize/Heaven.C]These killers would be inviting Saiyidna Ammar to Hell.Assume that :1]One Who Invites Some One To Hell Shall Go In Hell and 2]One Who Invites Some One To Heaven/Paradise Shall Go In Heaven/Paradise.All the discussion is based upon these two assumptions.Consider the followings:= 1] A Killer is a person who is Practically and Actually involved in the Act Of Killing. In Arabic qatala yqqt-ly qatlan Fahu va Qa:tilun. It is a certain proof That One Who Is Not Practically and Actually Involved In The Act or Doing Of Qatl Is Not a QAATIL in Real[HAQIQAH]] meaning or Prime sense.To apply the word on a person or a group of persons who are not practically involved in the said act or stated doing is a Vertual [Majaz]meaning or secondary sense.As a literalist Ali Mirza cannot apply the Hadis on the Entire Army of Saiyiduna Muaviah RD. Since there are multitudes of men in His Army who were not involved in this stated above Act/Doing.2]If the Insurrecting Group [FIAH AL BA:GHIYAH]was a Sub-Set of a Larger Set [Army Of Muaviah RD] this Hadis is silent about the Super-Set.There are two logical possibilities about the Super set.a) The Super Set was also an INSURRECTING GROUP [FIAH AL BAGHIYAH]b) The Super Set was not.In any case The Hadith/Hadis\H:ADI:S:. DOETH EXCLUDE The Super-Set.[ A Pure Literalistic Approach]

3] Mathematical Representation [ Set Theory Approach in Morse Kelley Set Theory Approach]Note:- MKS is preferred over RFC since Cantors theorem is not provable in MKS, and not Grothendieck Universes. It may be recalled the RFC is usually used by Atheists to argue against the Omniscience of ALL-H SUBH:AN-HU VA TAALA:. [AL AYADH BILLAH TAALA:]Let A be a non empty set => A=\= {}Let A is the set of all the ARMY MEMBERS OF Saiyidna Muaviah RD including Him and Siyiduna Amar Bin Al A:s: RD.A={x|x is amember of ARMY of Saiyiduna Muaviah, and his supporters including Saiyiduna Muaviah RD}Let B is the set of all those persons who are practically and actually Involved in the Act/Doing of Killing of Saiyiduna Amma:r RD.B={| is person who is Practically and Actually involved in the stated above act/doing}Let it be supposed that B is the sub-set ofA.This implieth that A is the Super set Of B A Now suppose the set=A-BNow this Hadis cannot be applied to the Set Since the Hadis is perfectly silent on the Set and its speech is on set B THAT IS It speaketh ONLY on Set B in literal Sense.As this Hadis is Silent on the Holy Text Of Hadis is Silent over set A.Therefore this Hadis is silent on Set A.Thus it is a fallacy to Apply this Hadis/Hadith on sets A and ALHAMDU LIL LA:H it has been proved from the literal approach that this is a fallacyLOGICAL FORM :=According to the Science Of Logic This is a fallacy of the form given below:=If Some B are A then All B are A.[ OR If Some B are A then All B is A]This incorrect and invalid. Thus such deduction is not possible from the Holy Text Of H:adi:s:. MATHEMATICAL FORMMathematically this claim isIf B is Fiah al Baghiyah then A is Fiah Al Baghiyah ;Since B is SUB SET of A.Or in Symbolic Form:=If B A then B=A.But this is no argument. It is just a FALLACY. 5] POSSIBLE METHODS OF ARGUMENTS OF ALI MIRZA5,A]If Engineer Ali Mirza Insists to include All those members of Army of Saiyiduna Muaviah RD WHO were not Involeved in this stated above Act in the TEXT Of Hadis, then he must have to choose any one Of the following methods:=1]He has to generalize the word Qatl to all those in persons who either practically killed Saiyidna Ammar RD or were in the same Army which these persons also belonged to.If he does so then he takes a NON LITERALIST approach i.e an Interpretation [Interpreting Approach/Maja:z\Tavil in the term of Majority]2]He has to use the system of ANALOGY .Taking the literal meaning and applying the Analogy argumentOn the literal meaning.3]Taking the literal meaning and then applying the INDUCTION Argument on the literal meaning.There is no forth method possible in the science of logic.But all of them are incorrect.FIRST:= Engineer Ali Mirza is not an interpretist.So he cannot use this approach. He is bound to take the Literalist approach. So the literalist approach is left .How ever if the engineer confess that he some time uses this approach thenhe must have to tell the rules, terms and conditions of his interpretations.Other wise this approach shall not be accepted.SECOND:= Analogy and Induction are weak arguments and can not be appied to S:AH:A:BAH RD: and ANBIYA: AS. So they are rejected directly against any S:AH:ABIY OR ANY NABIY.5,B] It is possible that if some men of an army do an act it is generally applied to the Army in entirety.But this custom if can be only applied to Hadis/Hadith only in the case that the H:adi:s:. is held on MAJAZ instead of H:AQI:QAH . So this reverts to the first case of [5,A]stated above.COUNTER ARGUMENT [ AL JAVA:B AL ILZA:MIY]The group which insurrected against Saiyiduna US:.MA:N RD: ajoined the group of Saiyidna ALI RD.But the entire army of Saiyiduna Ali RD cannot be declair to be killers of Saiyiduna: UTH:.MA:N RD:,not even the supporters of the killer of US:.MA:N RD.Mathematical Representation Let ={| is a member of Army Of ALI RD or ALI RD himself} Let ={| is either a killer of Saiyiduna Uth:.ma:n RD or the supporter of the killers}Then from the available records of Ah:adi:s:. and HistoryBut this shall be a fallacy to argueIF THEN =LOGICAL FORM OF THE FALLACY:=IF some members of the army of Caliph ALI RD: are either killers Of Caliph US:.MA:N RD or US:.MA:N RD, then ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE ARMY OF CALIPH ALI are either killers or supporters of Killers Of Caliph USMA:N RD.THIS IS A GREAT FALLACY.If this is a fallacy in the case of Saiyiduna ALI RD and His Army , the same fallacy is in the case of Saiyiduna MUAVIAH RD and His Army.CONCLUSIONIF THE ARMY OF SAIYIDUNA MUAVIAH WAS FIATUL BA:GHIYAH,EVEN THEN THIS H:ADIS:. IS ABOUT A SMALL GROUP IN THE LARGER GROUP WHICH CONSISTED OF ONLY THOSE PERSONS WHO WERE PRACTICALLY AND ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN THE ACT /DOING OF KILLING OF SAIYIDUNA AMMA:R RD.One hath either to owe to other arguments like Induction or Analogy to support the claim that the subject of H:ADI:S:. is the Entire army of Saiyiduna Muaviyah RD including Saiyiduna Muaviyah RD or to interpret the Text .Some possible objection.In order to check the validity of these argumentations AND ARGUMENTS , it was tried to suggest some possible objection which may be raised by the rivals of S:ah:a:bah RD against their defence.OBJECTION 1:=A logical or a mathematical approach is not allowed in case of AH:DIS:. REPLY TO THE OBJECTION NO. 1This means that illogical approaches are allowed. AL AYA:Z:. BILLAH TA:ALA: . As for Mathematical Approach, it is a Mathematical representation of Logical Approach , the mathematical representation of the fallacy committed by RAVAFID: and their supporters and the entire objection against the S:AH:ABAH RD.OBJECTION 2:=It may be argued that there were only two opinions about the H:adi:s:. among S:Ah:a:bah RD.A] Opinion Of Saiyiduna Ali RD. This opinion says that as the killers were from the camp of Muaviah RD, They were Bugha:hB] Opinion Of Saiyiduna Muaviyah RD. The were two:-Initial Opinion:- Those who did bring him to war were his killers in the sense if the had not brought him in the war he would have not died.Final Opinion:- As an act of conspiracy some of the members of Army of Ali them selves killed Saiyiduna Amma:r RD and threw his body in the CAMP Of Mua:viah RD,To make a false impression that they had killed Saiyiduna AMMAR RD.To make any third opinion is agaist the IJMAA of S:AH:ABAH RD.Refutaion.If the opinions ascribed to respective personalities are proved with CORRECT Asna:d thenOne cannot deviate from Ijma: Of Sah:abah RD. As there is no unique opinion of :AH:ABAH RD on the issue and they were divided in several opinion [at least 2], there is no IJMA: . So they claim of IJMA:of S:ah:abah on a unique/single opinion is not only incorrect but false as well. A FURTHER DISCUSSION IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS PAPER.Objection 3Son Of Saiyiduna AMAR BIN AL A:S: also agreed that the killer of Saiyiduna AMMAR belonged to his camp.Further he did not entered in practical fight , He only remained with his father because he had made a promise with the Holy Prophet SAVS to obey his father.Refutation:-A personal opinion of a person is not decisive. That is why a number of S:AH:A:BAH RD did not agree with him.Further he only inferred some how from some H:ADI:S:. that Caliph ALI RD was on the right side in the war [RIGHTEOUSNESS OF IJTIHA:D]. But there is nothing which imply that he admitted that all the Army Of Saiyiduna Muaviyah RD including his NOBLE Father Saiyiduna ,AMAR BIN AL A:S RD and Saiyiduna Muaviah RD are in hell OR they shall go in hell. [AL AYA:AZ:. BILLAHI TAA:LA]. This is the FREEDOM of Ijtiha:d in the camp of MUAVIAH RD. Has some one seen this type of freedom?OBJECTION 4 SOME SAHABAH DID ADMITED THAT THEY WERE IN ERROR WHEN THEY REMAINED NEUTRAL IN THE WAR BETWEEN two Holies.ANS:- It is the belief of AHLUSSUNNAH that Saiyiduna Ali was on AL HAQQ AL IJTIHADI. A person have right to change is Ijtihadi views. But this cannot be a HUJJAH on other Muhaqqiqin and MujtahidIn particularly S:AH:ABAH RD.In the dispute if some S:ah:a:bah changed their sides or positions, this cannot be a proof that their final opinion was correct. It maybe the case that initially their position was more sound then the final position. Further Not All the S:ah:abah changed their views, and this is SUFFICIENT that the IJTIHADI opinion of any one of them was not the final JUDJEMENT on the disputed issue. If Caliph ALI was on Right IN THE War , even then it cannot be proved from the change of opinion of some S:ah:abah RD , who so ever they may be. There Nouns are not mentioned as it is beyond the scope of this discussion. But they are known to all those who have studied books of H:ADI:S:. AND HISTORY.Comments on objection 4 and objection 3 IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE OBJECTION IS IRRELATIVE AND TO CONSIDER IT RELATIVE IS A FALLACY. SUCH SHIFTING DOES NOT PROVE THAT MUAVIAH RD and his supporters SHALL GO IN HELL IN QIYAMAH as argued from the part of h:adi:s:. .It is possible that one may some how infer from the h:adi:s:. that saiyiduna muaviyah rd: was in error of ijtiha:d, but this is not the issue.The issue is that ravafid: explicitly and ali mirza [hemi/semi rafid:I] implicitly try tosay that this h:adis:. Says that muaviah rd ,his supporters and his army men who fought from his side are either in hell or shall go in hell [al ayaz billah taa:la:] . also the said inference is not so strong either.

OBJECTION 5A S:AH:ABI ABU GHAD-RAH RD accepted that he had killed SAIYIDNA AMMAR RD. And he belonged to the camp of SAIYIDNA MUA:VIYAH RD. So at least he is defenseless if not all the Army men of the huge army of Saiyiduna Muaviyah RD.ANS:= The purpose of this research paper is to refute the allegation that Muaviyah and a all his supporters and his army men are in Hell, which is argued from the text of the H:adi:s:. stated above. The purpose of this EXCOGITATION is not to defend the said S:AH:A:BI RD. The excogitation in the paper hath done its job. To discuss the S:AH:ABI stated in the OBJECTION 5 is beyond the scope of this work \ research paper. However it may be discussed latter.NOTE:-This response is under the supposition of lines 77 and 78 on page 3 of this research paper,assuming these two suppositions as true (FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENTS).A POSSIBLE EXCUSE OF HERETIC ALI MIRZA:Ali Mirza may attempt to defend his position by saying that he has not said that:A] He has never said that SAIYIDUNA MUA:VIYAH and His supporters shall go to hell.B] He has said several times that it is prohibited to say disgracing words against Saiyiduna Mua:viah RD and his supporters etc.So the accusation of RAFIDIAH [ or in new terms TARAFFUD:] is incorrect.ANS:-These are just tricks of ITHNA: ASHRI:YAH,Mirzaiyah, and missionaries, which are adopted by the intelligent mind of the Engineer. They provide materials without proper explanations and correct interpretations in intelligently designed contexts such that a person is likely to conclude from the literal meanings what so ever the desire to conclude .They actually compel a person to reach at a result which they wants to. This same trick is used by ENGINEER ALI MIRZA.Several SCHOLARS WHO HAVE read the research papers of the Engineer have agreed upon the fact that he is a Rafid:I and he arrange the materials in such a way that a person is compelled to conclude that:-A] All those who fought against Caliph ALI RD were heretic .[Thus a person is compelled to conclude that Saiyiduna Mua:Aviya RD, Saiyadatuna A:ishah RD etc. all are heretic. AL AYA:Z:. BILLAH TAA:LA;]B]Saiyiduna Mua:viah RD used to transgress the AH:ADI:S:. Of HOLY PROPHET S.A.V.S and Laws of Shariah. [This ALLIGATION directly imply that He was a FASIQ , AL AYA:Z:. BILLAH TA:A:LA: . A person who do not have any proper knowledge and accurate interpretation or is extreme literalist is compelled to conclude what is stated above. AL AYA:Z:. BILLAH TAA:LA:].C]Muaviyah RD IMPRECATED Ali RD. [ A person is compelled to conclude that this imprecation was reversed ALAYA:Z BILLAHI TAA:LA: , Since it is said that one who imprecates a person who does not deserve to be imprecated , the imprecation is reversed .Engineer Ali Mirza very cleverly attempts to shew that the Companion of the Holy Prophet was imprecated by his own act. Al AYA:Z:. BILLAH TAA:LA:]D] He deliberately used this H:ADI:S:. [WHICH IS ABOUT Saiyiduna AMMA:R] in very wrong context.E] All the false accusations against Muaviyah RD in the book KHILAFAH VA MULIKIYAH which were based upon incorrect and weak traditions of books of History, and lacked historicity, were attempted to be supported by the traditions of books of H:ADI:S:. with very dangerous contexts intelligently designed to misguide a person, based upon pure literal approach.F] He even try to ascribe errors to Saiyiduna Umar RD and some other S:AH:BAH RD see the paper about the event of Q-rtas and Qalam,G,1] He even tried to prove that all those S:AH:ABAH RD who said the word HAJARA in the H:adi:s:. Of Q-rt:a:s committed a DIS-GRACE for the Holy Prophet S.A.V.S.G,2] Engineer Ali Mirza either does make the prior context or the posterior context of his lecture or so called research paper in favour of Calif Ali RD embedded in Ultra Extremism by referring to Attainments and virtues [FAD:A:IL]of Caliph ALI RD in tradition of Ah:adi:s like MAN CUNTU MAULA..etc. Then suddenly he refers to some acts ascribed to ALI RD or Muaviah RD like Ali Impricated Muaviah RD or Muaviah RD imprecated ALI RD, with out any true explanation and with out proper INTERPRETATION of such ACTS and those FADA:IL, which does compel a person to reach on an INCORRECT result that neither Ali RD was a cordial friend of Muaviah RD nor Muaviah RD was a cordial friend of ALI RD. One does not stops hear but the inertia of his movement and thinking in this line of action, further compel a person rather make it imperative to conclude that Saiyiduna Mua:viah RD violated the AH:A:DI:S like MAN CUNTU MAULA. Etc. A the prior or posterior context [ or both] designed intelligently is expremely dangerous for a mind who does not understand the issue in its true perspective and is ignorant of USUL AND QAVAID [Principles and Rules/Laws]. Designed with evil intelligence, Engineer Ali Mirza induces Rafid;iah in minds of innocent Sunnis. [Innocence does not mean Infallibility]. How ever it is clear that such tricks of intelligent design of contexts is not his invention , but is adopted from Missionaries,Ravafid: and Mirzais[ both Qadya:nis and Lahoris\Lahorites]. This does shew that Ali Mirza is atleast a secret agent of any one of them or atmost all of them. In the latter case it is very alarming situation of all Sunni sects that the MUST neglect their intrinsic differences [in particular TAQLID AND ADAM ATTAQLID, etc.]and unite to face the new threat to the Truth of SunnismAli Mirza doesnot stops here , he proceeds further which are discussed below:=. [ I t well known that even the smallest act of DISGRACE of HOLY PROPHET S.A.V.S isCUFR/KUFR. Thus a person is compelled to conclude that All those who said the word HAJARA became Cafir\Kafir Immediaely as the uttered thi word of disgrace. This is certainly a FALSE ACCUSATION ON S:AH:ABAH RD] H] He even consider that Division of Thirty Parts Of Qura:n is a FLAW [ S-Q-M] in Copies of Qura:n . Al Aya:z:. Billah Taa:la:. .(A Muslim cannot say such a thing against the thirty division of Qura:n, and one who says such a thing against the said divisions of Qura:n cannot be a Muslim, even if he was a scholar of Islam before saying such a cufr/kufr.] . May ALL-H Punish such persons with out any exception . A:MI:N .One may see our research paper (1,A), and (1,B) in this regard.I] He declairs all those scholars Of Ahlussunnah who try to defend S:AH:A:BAH in general and Saiyiduna Mua:viyah RD in particular as NAS:IBI. And declairs their Apologies or Defenses or Refutations of such accusations as NAS:IBIYAH. AL AYA:Z:. BILLAHI TAALA: .J] He tries to prove that SAIYIDUNA MUAVIYAH RD and His Father Saiyiduna ABU SUFYA:N RD embraced ISLAM when they had only two choices. A] To accept Islam. B] To be killed. [This approach does compel a person to conclude that they[RD] embraced Islam unwillingly and in heart they had not accepted ISLA:M properly (relatively a weak case of RAFID:IYAH, but sufficiently strong to expel a person from the SUPER SECT OF AHLUSSUNNAH) or were Munafiq \hypocrite (strong case of RAFID:IYAH).AL AYA:Z. BILLAH TAALA: . So it is CRYSTAL clear that only an embedded RAFID:I: can say such a thing.]These accusations are so dangerous that if they are assumed to be true, then one has to conclude necessarily that Mua:viah RD and his companions were not worthy of being SAH:ABAH. [AL AYA:Z BILLAH TAALA:]. In this case it is clear that Engineer ALI Mirza is a Rafid:i.. Once a person agrees with him that Muaviah RD was a Fasiq [Nauz:.uBillah ], he shallNot listen to him and shall began to say it openly that Muaviyah RD was a fasiq and deserved to be cursed or impricatred.This is what Ali Mirza Of Jhelum wants to. A very dangerous Conspiracy indeed.K] He claims that translation of M-S:N-F IBN ABI SHI-BAH shall make an explosion [obviously in Sunnism (which is understood in his lectures) particularly in the article of faith Cull AS:HA:B ADU:L ,ie in the Article Of Faith about S:AH:ABAH , (AL AYA:Z BILLAHI TAA:LA:}],as if No Sunni Scholar have read the Original Arabic Text. AL AYA:Z BILLAH TAA:LA: , and as if he has discovered some thing which was in isolation since ages. Such tricks may convince his audience , but INSHA ALLAH cannot Harm any L] Last in our discussion but not in the lectures and so called research papers of Mirza Sahib , is as folow:Can Engineer Mirza STATE how he explain that MUAVIAH RD AND HIS SUPPORTERS would not go to hell, and the part of Hadis which says the Murderers of Ammar would be INVITING him to HELL (which according to Engineer includes Muaviah RD), if he really believe do not believe that Muaviah and his supporters Shall not go to hell even for a single moment of time in Qiyamah. The only possible answer which is anticipated from studying his so called research papers and fallacious lectures is that he most probably say , I cannot say what shall happen in Qiya:mah, whether Mua:viah and his supporters shall go to hell or not is not known to me, AND LET God decide on this day AL AYA:Z BILLAH TA:A:LA: .[ALLAH KNOWETH BETTER HOW THIS HERETIC ATTEPTS TO DEFEND HIS POSITION ON THIS OBJECTION BUT IT IS MOST PROBABLE SUGGESTED RESPONSE ]On the contrary We believe neither Ali nor Muaviah [RAD:I YALLAHU ANHUMA:] shall go in Hell. We believe ALLAH is RAD:I: with both of them as an IJMA: .It must be noted that dispute of heretics from anIJMA: from CANNOT MAKE the IMA: to cease. An interpreting approach [of H:adi:s:. AMMA:R RD etc] may be given latter. But this is beyond the scope of this research paper.Notes:- Although Zubair Ali Zai was a strict literalist and an extremist who even declaired that Imam Sh-cani RH was not an AHLULH:ADI:S:. [It is evident that he was reverted to Ahlussunnah from Shaiah Zaidiyah. Zubair Ali Zai is certainly wrong at this place.]. However inspite of his extreme literalism , it is very unlikely and strongly improbable that he was in trouble over this H:ADI:S: ,and was against MUA:VIYAH RD ].Engineer Ali Mirza has falsely ascribed to him what he has ascribed in this regard. But if he is truly ascribeing such words then , no one can accept Shaikh Ali Zai. Since Mua:viyah was so great that persons like Shaikh Ali Zai has no right to say such words against SAIYIDUNA Mua:viyah RD: . A request to all Muslims:=For the sake of Islam please do not Read the so called research paper of Heretic Engineer Ali Mirza , for he is very dangerous to Islam . He is denies the sanctity and sacraments of S:AH:ABAH RD. Engineer Ali is Mirza yet he addeth not an I after the last part of his noun, he is no less Dangerous than them.

13