Inconsistency In the alleged solution of Tradition3597 Muslim that is proposed by Mirza: Jhelumi and

Ish:a:q Layallpu:ri.

Introduction

There are some very good responses to the allegation of Apostate allegation of Tah:ri:f of Sacred Qur’a:n

On the Holy Tradition No :3597 of S:ah:i:h: Muslim

In this work it is tried to shew inconsistency in the alleged arguments of the Apostate Mirza Jhelumi

First Preliminary

The Tradition 3597 of Holy Muslim saith that there was a verse in Sacred Qur’a:n that the relation of
Milk motherhood is established after ten Brest feedings.

Then this verse was abrogated IN REGARD TO recitation.

This verse was replaced by an other verse of five breast feedings.

But this verse is not found in the Text of Holy Qur’a:n.

This means that it is also Abrogated in regard to recitation .

But the Apostate Mirza Jhelumi alleges that this is a case of Tah:ri:f and not Naskh: ‘Att-la:vah,

His alleged arguments are as follow:

1] The Tradition says that Holy Prophet died and this verse was recited.

2] This verse is said to be from Qur’a:n.

3] An Abrogated in Regard to Recitation cannot be said to be From Qur’a:n since it ceaseth to be a Verse
of Qur’a:n.

So this verse is of Tah:ri:f and not of Qur’a:n.

The Apostate says that Qur’a:n was revealed in the house of Saiyidatuna: ‘:A:;ishah RD: and she did not
know that this verse was abograted since she used the prepositional phrase From Qur’a:n [Minal
Qur’a:n]. So how can a Commentator like Saiyiduna Navavi RH: could know that it was born in 631 AH

620 YEARS after the event stated in the Tradition.

The apostate declares that Saiyidatuna: ‘A:’ishah RD: did not know the reason of Naskh: ‘Att-la:vah.

Second Preliminary

According to the Engineer , if it is not the verse of Naskh: ‘Att-la:vah ., yet it is mission then it is a
Tradition of Tah:ri:f of Qur’a:n ; ‘Astagh:farullah.
But if he ascribes the belief of Tah::ri:f to Saiyidatuna: ‘A:’ishah RD” and Ima:m Muslim then he knows
that there shall be a very strong protest against his allegations to respective persons.

So he makes an other answer.

Third Preliminary

He proposed that this verse was a REVEALED COMMENTARY out side the Sacred Qur’a:n [like’Al H:adi:th
‘Al Qudsi:] .

But his answer is incorrect according to his own apostate standards.

1] If Saiyidatuna: ‘A:’ishah did not know that this verse is Abrogated in regard to recitation then she also
did not know that it is a revealed commentary outside Sacred Qur’a:n.

2]If it is incorrect to say for a verse as Minal Qur’a:n after it is abrogated in regard to recitation ,then it
is also wrong to say for an expression or a sentence as Minal QUR’A:N when it is never a Varse of Holy
Qur’a:n, on primarily reasons and grounds.

Forth Preliminary

If a sentence has never ever have been a part of Sacred Qur’a:n then it can not be said to be said as
Minal Qur’a:n.

Conclusion

Engineer of Jhelum attempts to refute the solution proposed by ‘Ima:m Navavi RD: then on similar
reasons Mirza: Jhelumi: is own solution is discarded.

This is an inconsistency in his alleged aguments.