✿ Critical Review of Ayaz Nizami’s Discourse on Freedom and Equality ✿
This article presents a summary of the dialogue between Ayaz Nizami and Arman Ali, primarily revolving around the themes of “human freedom” and “equality.” Throughout the discussion, both parties presented their arguments on various points, yet the conversation failed to reach a logical conclusion.
➊ Topic Selection:
Ayaz Nizami offered to discuss any article from his website “جرأت تحقیق” (Jurrat-e-Tahqiq). Arman Ali chose the topic “Freedom of Thought and Human Rights.”
➋ Terms of Discussion:
It was agreed that only the two individuals would participate in the dialogue, and comments from others would be deleted.
Arman Ali’s Objections:
✔ Unrealistic Claim of Freedom:
The claim is contrary to reality and is ambiguous.
✔ Illogical Claim of Equality:
All human beings are not equal, and this statement is also inconsistent with facts.
✔ Contradiction Between Freedom and Equality:
Freedom and equality are in conflict with each other. If everyone is equal, then not all can be free; and if all are free, then not all can be equal.
➋ Ayaz Nizami’s Response:
Instead of addressing these objections, Ayaz Nizami kept repeating his original claims without providing any clear evidence.
➊ Repetition of Claims:
Rather than substantiating his assertions, Ayaz Nizami repeatedly presented them as proof themselves.
➋ Focus on Metaphysics:
Instead of addressing the actual topic, Ayaz Nizami remained entangled in metaphysical discussions.
➌ Mention of Ethics and Sociology:
He attempted to connect the concepts of freedom and equality with ethics and social sciences, but avoided responding to questions related to the various aspects of these fields.
➍ Claim of Nature's Equality:
Ayaz Nizami asserted that nature treats all human beings equally.
Arman Ali questioned the meaning of “nature” and what was implied by “equal treatment,” but these questions were not answered.
➎ Claim of Unfalsifiability:
Arman Ali pointed out that Ayaz Nizami’s claim is unfalsifiable—it cannot be proven wrong—and such claims are not acceptable as valid arguments.
✦ Ayaz Nizami frequently attempted to change the topic during the discussion.
✦ Rather than answering clear questions, he raised irrelevant ones.
✦ Instead of clarifying his points, he adopted the strategy of engaging in complex philosophical arguments.
✦ Due to his avoidance of the actual topic, the dialogue remained unproductive.
① Definition of freedom was not clearly presented.
② Explanation of equality was illogical.
③ Unnecessary emphasis on metaphysical aspects.
④ Avoided clarifying the claim of equality in nature.
⑤ Insisted on claims instead of proving them.
⑥ Attempts were made to divert and prolong the discussion from the main subject.
The discussion ended without any conclusion. Due to repeated irrelevant questions and insistence on unsupported claims by Ayaz Nizami, the conversation became increasingly tangled. Arman Ali attempted to clarify and respond to all points, but Ayaz Nizami continuously avoided engaging with the core subject.
❖ Overview of the Dialogue
This article presents a summary of the dialogue between Ayaz Nizami and Arman Ali, primarily revolving around the themes of “human freedom” and “equality.” Throughout the discussion, both parties presented their arguments on various points, yet the conversation failed to reach a logical conclusion.
❖ Beginning of the Discussion
➊ Topic Selection:
Ayaz Nizami offered to discuss any article from his website “جرأت تحقیق” (Jurrat-e-Tahqiq). Arman Ali chose the topic “Freedom of Thought and Human Rights.”
➋ Terms of Discussion:
It was agreed that only the two individuals would participate in the dialogue, and comments from others would be deleted.
❖ First Point of Dialogue: “We Are All Free and Equal”
Arman Ali’s Objections:
✔ Unrealistic Claim of Freedom:
The claim is contrary to reality and is ambiguous.
✔ Illogical Claim of Equality:
All human beings are not equal, and this statement is also inconsistent with facts.
✔ Contradiction Between Freedom and Equality:
Freedom and equality are in conflict with each other. If everyone is equal, then not all can be free; and if all are free, then not all can be equal.
➋ Ayaz Nizami’s Response:
Instead of addressing these objections, Ayaz Nizami kept repeating his original claims without providing any clear evidence.
❖ Key Points During the Discussion
➊ Repetition of Claims:
Rather than substantiating his assertions, Ayaz Nizami repeatedly presented them as proof themselves.
➋ Focus on Metaphysics:
Instead of addressing the actual topic, Ayaz Nizami remained entangled in metaphysical discussions.
➌ Mention of Ethics and Sociology:
He attempted to connect the concepts of freedom and equality with ethics and social sciences, but avoided responding to questions related to the various aspects of these fields.
➍ Claim of Nature's Equality:
Ayaz Nizami asserted that nature treats all human beings equally.
Arman Ali questioned the meaning of “nature” and what was implied by “equal treatment,” but these questions were not answered.
➎ Claim of Unfalsifiability:
Arman Ali pointed out that Ayaz Nizami’s claim is unfalsifiable—it cannot be proven wrong—and such claims are not acceptable as valid arguments.
❖ Observations on Ayaz Nizami’s Conduct
✦ Ayaz Nizami frequently attempted to change the topic during the discussion.
✦ Rather than answering clear questions, he raised irrelevant ones.
✦ Instead of clarifying his points, he adopted the strategy of engaging in complex philosophical arguments.
✦ Due to his avoidance of the actual topic, the dialogue remained unproductive.
❖ Summary of Key Points
① Definition of freedom was not clearly presented.
② Explanation of equality was illogical.
③ Unnecessary emphasis on metaphysical aspects.
④ Avoided clarifying the claim of equality in nature.
⑤ Insisted on claims instead of proving them.
⑥ Attempts were made to divert and prolong the discussion from the main subject.
❖ Conclusion of the Dialogue
The discussion ended without any conclusion. Due to repeated irrelevant questions and insistence on unsupported claims by Ayaz Nizami, the conversation became increasingly tangled. Arman Ali attempted to clarify and respond to all points, but Ayaz Nizami continuously avoided engaging with the core subject.
