Negation Requires Evidence
 

Someone says that he does not negate the issue of breaking her rib but he is not convinced.

Just as proving something requires an evidence, negating something also requires an evidence. Then he states his reasons why he is not convinced.

We have stated all these reasons in this book, proving the invalidity of relying on them, yet we would like to add here other issues:

 

FIRST: Let us say that he is not convinced that they broke her rib, but we would like to ask him this question: “Are you convinced of all the other things which took place to al-Zahra’ (A.S.), such as her being beaten, her miscarriage, the threat to burn her house and everyone inside it who were: her children and husband, then setting the fire on with the intention to burn them all?”

If he is convinced of all of this, having no doubts other than their breaking her rib, there is no harm in it because all other matters suffice to prove the indications that they did, indeed, break the rib of al-Zahra’ (A.S.) especially the texts stating that she (A.S.) died as a truthful martyr.

 

SECOND: There is no problem if someone is not convinced of a particular issue, but the problem is this: One who announces that he is not convinced of something exerts a serious effort to convince people that it does not exist, gathering what he considers as evidences from everywhere to prove such “non-existence” under the label of his being not convinced of its existence.

Someone once saw once a hunter slaughtering a bird. The hunter’s eyes were watering because he had an eye ailment. Someone said to another, “Look at this hunter and see how kind his heart is! He is crying for the same bird which he is slaughtering!” His companion said to him, “Do not look at his tears; rather, look at what his hands are doing.” So, how can someone convince us when he says that he does not deny that her rib was broken while bringing “a thousand and one proofs,” as he claims, for denying it and denying other issues?! This undermines the issue from its very foundations.

 

THIRD: A scholar’s mission is to solve the problems faced by people in their intellectual and educational lives, especially those relevant to his own field of specialization and falling in the heart of his responsibilities. So, he has to make up his mind to either provide a proof for either Aye or Nay[1] or simply withhold his answer till he makes up his mind and comes to a decision. He has no right to “educate” the people with what he doubts, with the issues which he could not finish researching, or those which he is not quite sure about, or he did not work hard to get to such a conviction. Otherwise, how can we explain his own statement wherein he says, “I asked Sayyid Sharaf ad-Din in the early 1950s during my study of the subject,” then he says in 1414 A.H., “I recently stumbled on a text in Bihar al-Anwar saying..., etc.” So, did his “study” continue for more than forty years till he was finally able to “stumble” on this text or that?! Can this be accurately termed as a “study” or a “research” while he did not consult except Bihar al-Anwar, and after so many years, and yet he “stumbles” on only one single orphan text despite the many, many texts of which Bihar al-Anwar is full as we will, Insha-Allah, demonstrate?!

If he “stumbled” on this text which he wants to show us as solving the problem, why did he not revert to doubting and to raising questions?

 

FOURTH: One who raises questions may be an ordinary uneducated person who did not graduate from a university nor attended one of the theological centers, so he is to be excused, and the knowledgeable scholar has to untie the knot for him and answer this question or questions. But what if the one raising such questions is the same scholar who answers people’s questions?! People understand from his abstention to answer their questions that he upholds the content of the question and all its requirements and outcomes.

[1]This is so especially since he himself says, “Negating, too, requires evidence.”