BIS MILLA HIR RAHMAA NIR RAHIIM ARGUMENTS OF DENOUNCERS OFOMNIPOTENCE OF ALL-H AND POSSIBILITY OF FALSE STATEMENTS. A number of Deniuncers often challenge Ahlussunnah wal jamaah to debate on the issue. AhlulHadith who have inclined towords SALAFITES do not discuss this Probem considering it to be a Problem of ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES. AHLUSSUNNAH OF DEOBAND now a days are not indulged in the DIALECTICAL AND THEOLOGICAL studies,debates and discussions considering it as some thing of PAST,neglecting the fact that it is the problem of PRESENT and Future. Unfortunately enven a number of Their educational Institutions have deleted the BOOKS OF THEOLOGY FROM THEIR CURRICULUM. Even a number of students who have completed their studies fand DARS AN NIZAMI do not know how to responce in theological questions. Even on Internet almost all the denouncers of Ominipotence of G-D and Possibiliti in Intesf Of False statments have occupied spaces. So it is necessory to explain every thing in some detail . There are some confusions they most be clearified. THE PROBLEM OF THE WORD CAN:. ''CAN '' IS AN ENGLISH WORD.Its problem culminates in English Translations. The word ''CAN'' is ised in the in the following meanings: a)HAVE/POSSES POWER TO DO b)HAVE POWER OVER. If It Is Said That:'' G-D CAN PUNISH AN INNOCENT PERSON OR AN INFALLABLE PERSON'' IT MEANS; a)G-D HAS POWER TOPUNISH AN INOOCENT PERSON OR AN INFALLABLE PERSON. b) G-D HAS POWER OVER THE PUNISHMENT OF AN INNOCENCT PERSON OR AN INFALLABLE PERSON. Similarly if it is said that G-D Can annhaliate all the Heavens , it means that '' G-D Has Power to ANnhiliate All Heavens'' G-D POSSESS POWER TO DESTROY ALL THE HEAVENS'' G-D HAS/POSSESSES THE POWER OVER THE ANNIHILIATION OF ALL THE HEAVENS. Practice an excercise of the Poawer is Never Implied. Since there are thing and Acts which G-D hAS pOWER TO DO BUT THEY ARE ABSUD THROUGH SAEPERATE i.e MUHAAL BIL GHAIR. G-D NEVER DID THEM, NEVER DOES THEM AND SHALL NEVER DO THEM,NEITHER IN TIME NOR BEYOND TIME.. STATMENTS OF G-D: A STATMENT IS A SENTENCE OF KALAAM AL LAFZI /SPEACH OF WORDS.,WHICH IS NEITHER AN INTERROGATIVE NOR IMPERATIVE BUT ASSERTIVE,OR NEGATIVE,OR DECLAIRATIVE. It is Either True or False. A Statement Of G-D is Nether the ESSENCE OF G-D Nor Any ONE Of The Divine ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES /QUALITIES OF G--D. They are DISTINCT ,DISTINGUISHED,DIFFERENTAND SEPERATE FROM THE DIVINE ESSENCE (THAT IS G--D HIMSELF) AND DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF G--D,AND ARE ALIEN,EXTERNAL ANF FORIGN TO THEM. They are included in ACTIVE ATRRIBUTES/QUALITIES OR IN RELATIVE QUALITIES/ATTRIBUTES OF G--D. ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES BELIEVE THAT KALAAM AN NAFASI (SPEACH OF SELF/DIVINE MEANING)IS DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT FROM KALAAM AL LAFZI. The Former is ETERNAL AND THE LATTER AND THE LATTER iS TEMPORAL (Not Eternal). The LATTER POINT AT THE FORMER (ADDAALL/AD DALAALAH) or INDICATES AT IT. THE FORMER IS BEYOND THE DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE OF THE DIVINE SUPPOSITOM I.E G--D.
It may be noted that the denouncers of the Possibi;ity InSelf Of False hood are divided in different groups. a)Those who Believe that there is no Distinction bl/w The Former And The Latter. b) Those who Believe that Former is Eternal and The Latter Is Temporal (As the MajorityOf Believers In The Self Possibility DO, But they constitute a Minority in Them) c)Those who Consider Both of Them As Eternal.(This is The openion of Majority of Them) It may be noted that SALAFITES AND A MINORITY OF MATURIDITES (2 Subsects Of Ahlussunnah) Who are in Minority In Ahlussunnah Wal Jamaah do not make Any Distinction B/W THE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES and ACTIVE ATTRIBUTES OF THE SELF NECESSORY EXISTENT I.E G--D NOUNLY ALL-H (SUBHAANAHU WA TA'AALA). They have borrowd this from their opponents only in an attempt to refute the OMNIPOTENCE OF G--D. MEANING OF THE WORD ''TO SPEAK""/'' TO STATE'' STATEMENTS OF KALAAM AL LAFZI ARE TEMPOTAL HENCE THEY ARE TEMPORALIZED BY G--D THAT IS G--D INVENTS THEMFROM NOTHINGNEESS AND NONEXISTENCE.BUT They ARE CONNECTED TO KALAAM AN NAFSI WITH A TEMPORAL CONNECTION, SO IT IS NOT JUST CREATON BUT THE DIVINE ACT/DOING OF SPEAKING. Keeping all these things in mind now we present the Bsic Arguments of the Denouncers Of Self Possibility /Self Contigency Of Falsehood in A Divine Staement. IN THIS ARTICLE SOME OF THE BASIC / FUNDAMENTAL ARGUMENTS INSUPORR OF IMTINAA' AL KIDHB IS GIVEN WHICH ARE SELECTED FROM MOST AUTHORATIVE WORKS OF BOTH DENOUNCERS OF CONTIGENCY IN ITSELF/ POSSIBILITY IN ITSELF NOUNLY(NAMELY) KHAIRABADI SECT AND BARAILVI SECT. The books are as Follow: Tahqiiq Al Fatwa (Allegely ascribed to Founder Of Khairabadi Sect Maulaana Fadl Haqq Khairabadi) Imtinaa' E Nazir (Allegely ascribed to Founder Of Khairabadi Sect Maulaana Fadl Haqq Khairabadi) Taqdiis al Wakiil ( Maulana Ghulaam Dastagir) TanziihuR Rahmaan (Maulana Ahmad Hasan) 'Ijalat al-Rakib fi Imtina’yi Kadhib al-Wajib (-Mufti Muhammad Abdullah Tonki ) Finally the book of Maulvi Rad of Baraily SUBHAAN ASSUBUUH. In this article the arguments are presented . Their Detail ANSWERS SHALL BE GIVEN IN OTHER ARTICLES INSHAA 'ALL-H.THE MOST FAMOUS ARGUMENTS ARE GIVEN AS FOLLOW: ARGUMENT #1 All the Defects, Imperfectios are SELF ABSURD (ABSURD IN ITSELF,ABSURD IN ESSENCE,LOGICALLY ABSURD,INTRINSICALLY ABSURD,MATHEMATICALLY ABSURD) UPON THE DIVINE SUPPOSITUN I.E G--DAND UPON THE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF G-D. Falsehood is alSO A dEFECT AND aN iMPERFECTION THERE FORE It Is Self Absurd Upon G--D. Falsehood is Either an ACT o An Anttribute, In Either Case It Is An Imperfection , Hence SELF ABSURD UPON DIVINE ESSENCE. It does not make Any Exception. Refutation: It Has Been Stated In The Privious Article That There is No Dispute over the ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT ALL IMPERFECTIONS AND DEFECTS ARE MUHAAL BIDH DHAAT /SELF ABSURD UPON THE ESSENCE OIF ALLAH AND HIS ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES. BUT THE STATEMENTS ARE TEMPORAL ,DISTINCT,INCOMMUNICALBE, SEPERATE ETC. FROM THE ESSENCE OF ALL-H (THE ONLY G--D) AND HIS ESSENTIAL ATTRIBBUTE. THUS SELF ABSURDITY OF FALSEHOOD UPON THE DIVINE ESSENCE IS SOME THING OTHER THEN THE SELF POSSIBILITY OF FALSEHOOS IN THE STATEMENTS.AN
STATEMENT IS NEITHER G--D NOR AN ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE OF G--D. ATLEAST THIS ARGUMENT FALLS BY THE GRACE OF THE OMNOPOTENT. A POSSIBLE RESPONCE: A Denouncer is likely to responce as fowllowing. a)He may declair each and every Statement Of G-D as an Essential Attribute OF G--D. b)He may attempt to prove that Falsehood In the Divine Statements Which Are Seperate From G--D and Not Eternal,;is SELF ABSURD as Well As It Is Self Absurd Upon The Divine Essence And Divine Essential Attributes. c)The claim that It is Undisputed that Imperfections Upon Divine Essence Is Self Absurd is False since The Believers Of Possibility Of Fasehood InDivine Statements Hold That Defects Upon G--D Is SELF POSSIBLE. In the first two cases it is just to shift the dispute to disputes of more fundamental nature. Dispute of this type is a critical dispute in the sense there are morefundamental disputes behind this argument.Thus ATLEAST THIS ARGUMENTS AS IT IS GIVEN FALLS DOWN AS IT IS GIVEN AS AN INDEPENDENT ONE. As for the third argument EWXPLICIT PROOFS ARE REQUIRD. iT IS MOST LIKELY THAT Quotations out of the context or with incoorect explanations or both May be given. If so then they Shall be discussed INSHAA' 'ALLA-H . ARGUMENT#2 There is no difference b/w KALAAM AL LAFZI and KALAAM ANNAFSI.iT IS AN ERROR OF LATTER THEOLOGIANS. Refutation: This is a clear example that who is the True Ashari and True Maturidi. In the zeal to refute SELF POSSIBILITY the denouncers have borrowwd the concept from Salafites and Hanabalah who are in minority in AHLUSUNNAH WAL JAMAAH.ASl though they are also Ahlussunnah Wal JammahYet the are In Minority. A winning Majority is either Asharite or Maturidite or both. This also depend upon a More Basic dispute. See the Refutation of the First Argument. ARGUMENT#3 If G-D HAS POWER TO MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT then this implies that G-D CAN DO the following acts and assume the following defects. a)G--D CAN ROB. b)G-D CAN BECOME BLIND. c)CAN EXPAND AND CONTRACT. d)CAN SLEEP. e)CAN FORGET. f)CAN DO HOMOSEXTUALITY e)CAN COMMIT SUCIDE. g)CAN DO FEMAIL SEXTUAL ACTIVITIES. h)CAN DO MAIL SEXTUAL ACTIVITES. i)CAN BECOME PREGNENT LIKE A FEMAIL HUMAN BEING. j)CAN CONCIEVE A CHILD LIKE A FEMAIL HUMAN BEING.etc,etc,etc,etc,. It also implies that: A)WHAT SO EVER A HUMAN BEING HAS POWER TO DO G-D CAN ALSO DO. B) , WHAT SO EVER A HUMAN BEING HAS POWER TO DO TO HIMSELF GOD CAN ALSO DO TO HIS DIVINE SELF. Refutation: All these Act and Attributes are Defects and All defencts Are Self Absurd Upon Divine Essence. As Statements are Seperate From G--D, AND ARE OTHER THAN G--D there fore: a)A SELF POSSIBILITY of Falsehood DOES NOT IMPLY THE SELF POSSIBILITY OFSUCH DEFECTS UPON DIVINE ESS3NCE I.E G--D. b) Power over the Falsehood of these statements does tot imply Power Over These DEFECTS WHETHER THEY ARE ACT OR ATTRIBUTES OR SOMETHING NEITHER ACT
NOR ATTRIBUTE BUT DEFECTS AND ERRORS.The generalised laws stated above are INCORRECT,INVALID,FALSE,ERROROUS,WRONG and INACCORATE.There is not a single book by any authentic believer in the STATED ABOVE SELF POSSIBILITY WHICH EXPLICITLY STATES THEM.ATMOST IT IS JUST AN ATTEPT TO GENERALIZE AN ARGUMENT ,AND THIS GENERALIZATION IS WRONG. ARGUMENT#4 IF GOD HAS POWER TO MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT HE MUST HAVE POWER TO ASSUME THE FALSE STATEMENT IN HIS DIVINE ESSENCE. Refutation: There is no such implication.Assumption of any temporal in Divine Essence and in DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES IS SELF ABSURD.It is SELF ABSURD TO ASSUME A NON DIVINE NATURE UPON THE DIVINE ESSENCE I.E G-D. ARGUMENT#5 Muhaqqiq D-W-NI (R.H) in his footnote (Hashiah) refuted Imam Taftazani (R.D) DECLAIRING falsehood as ABSURD.AND UOUT OF THE DIVINE OMNOIPOTENCE. The Former misunderstood the latter who never claim for the POSSIBILITY OF FALSEHOOD.tHIS SHEWS THAT BOTH VERTUALLY AGREE UPON THE ABSURDITY OF FALSEHOOD. Refutation: AGAIN IT IS A VERY COMPLEX MATTER.It is incorrect to assume that THE Later did not beleive in POSSIBILITY OF FALSEHOOT. The case is topsytervy. Muhaqqiq is misunderstood by the denouncers. Anumber of explanations can be given for his expressions. Descending from this for sake of an argument it is accepted that Muhaqqiq disputed from Imam,then the whole dispute reduces to an internal dispute of ASHA'IAH and MATURIAH.The Original Position Is That: IMAM TAFTAZANI(R.H) BELIEVES IN THE STATED ABOVE POSSIPILITY and CONTIGENCY. ARGUMENT#6 If G--D has power to speak a false Statement then a Self Possibility Of FALSE STATEMENTS is SELF IMPLIED. This Self Possibilty Self Implies The Self Possibility Of Falsehood In The Statements. But there are two objections: a)As It Is SUPPOSED TO BE SELF POSSIBLE then It must be ABSURD BY SEPERATE / ONTOLOGICAL ABSURD /RELATIVE ABSURD.BUT there can be nothing which can prove that they ARE Absurd with the Seperate (MUHAAL BIL GHAIR) excet the Statement OF G--D. This implies ADINFINITUM. and this is SELF ABSURD. b) As Kalaam Al lAFZI IS CONNECTED WITH KALAAM AN NAFSI, Represents (TA'BIR),POINTS AT IT and IINDICATES IT,The Self Possibilities Of FALSEHOOD OF STATEMENTS Of KALAAM AL LAFZI implies Self Possibility OF FALSEHOODS In KALAAM AN NAFSI,and THAT IS A DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE. THE SELF POSSIBILITY OF FALSEHOOD IN KALAAM AN NAFSI IS SELF ABSURD SINCE ALL THE DEFECTS AND IMPERFECTIONS IN AN DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE IS SELF ABSURD. Refutation: (Case #1) It Is ACCEPTED That Falsehood In Kalaam AL LAFZI Implies Falsehood in the Self Of The Divine Essential Attribute KALAAM AN NAFSI. But It Can Not be proved by mere report. In Is Based On Ratrional Arguments That There Is An Implication . Further Imam AHLUSSUNNAH ASHSHAH ISMAIL SHAHIID is Quoted by HIS ARCH APPONENT THE AUTHER OF SUBHAAN ASSUBUUH, that Shah Shahiid wrote: AGAR MAQSUUD IIN AST KEH AZ WUQUU' MUMKIN HAICHGO NAASHII NAMII GARD WALA BIN NAZAR ILAA DHATIHII WALA BIN NAZAR ILAA ''UMUUR AL KHAARJIAH, PASS IIN MUQADDAMAH MAMNUU' AST CHEH BAR IIN TAQDIIR LAZIM AAYAD KEH WUJUUD E
HAR MA'DUUM WA ADAM E HAR MAUJUUD MUHAAL BASHAD ZAYRA KEH MUSTALZIM E MUHAAL SAT. page 270,volume -6,Fatawaa Rizviah ,Suhaan ASSUBBUH. Thus it is very clear that Falsehood in the Statements implies Falsehood in Divine OMNIPOTENCE. Note THAT for CERTAIN Reasons the quotations is not given directly from Book Yakrozi/YAKROZAH. The Auther of Subhaan As Subbuuh has Quoted that Maulvi GHULAM DASTAGIR, THEA UTHER OF TAQDIIS AL WAKIIL, had Attempted to Refute THE POSSIBILITY FROM THE IMPLICATION OF IGNORENCE/KNOWLIDGELESSNESS (JAHL) and Other Imperfections (SHANAA'AAT).See page 279 FOOT NOTE of the above stated book SUBHaan AS SUBBUUH. NOWHERE HE disputes from these implicatins. That is a proof that there is a Non essential Implication even on Rational Ground other wise The Auther would have quoted an DIVINE STATEMENT FOR IT. So the answer IS CLEAR. This Self Possibility implies FALSEHOOD IN DIVINE OMNISCIENCE., AND THAT IS SELF ABSURD. Thus The SELF Possibility of Falsehood IN THE DIVINE STATMENTS IMPIES A SELF ABSUDITY IN DIVINE OMNISCIENCE. This is SUFFICIENT EVEN ON THE STANDDERD AUTHER os Subhaan As Subbuuh.NOTE: OTHER ANSWERS ARE ALSO POSSIBLE.NOTE: A NUMBER OF OTHER ANSWERS EXIST. (Case#2) This implication is Not A Self Implication But A NON Self Implication. ASTALZAAM BIL ''Ard. The Fallacy is that the difference b/w the Absurdity Implied By The Very ESSENCE and That Implied By EXTERNAL Has been Neglected and Overlooked. All the Stated above status of Kalaam AL Lafzi AND its Statements Does NOT PROVE THATthe stated above Implication Is a SELF IMPLICATION. ARGUMENT#7 Christians and Jews and others also agree that there is no Possibility of False hood in the words and expressions of G-D.Majority of MU'TAZILITES ,KHARJITES ,ITHNA ASHRITES, etc.also agree that Falsehood is not in the DIVINE POWER., Refutation: None Of The is an authority iN THE THEOLOGICAL BELIEVES OF AHLUSSUNAH IN PARTICULAR,and OF ISLAM IN GENERAL.So their agreement or disagrement is immeterial. ARGUMENT #8 A NUMBER OF THEOLOGICAL WORKSDO NOTE STATE THAT FALSEHOOD IS OMNIPOTENCE OF OMNIPOTENT G--D. This proves that this is a new belief invented by Shah Shahiid (R.H). For example see religious and theological works. Refutation: No Book states EXPLICITLY THAT FALSEHOOD IS SELF ABSURD IN STATEMENTS OF DIVINE KALAAM AL LAFZI. . Some quotations do exist in this regard. How ever the denouncers interprete them other wise,but an analysis of the proves that they prove This Self Possibility.A detail discussion on them is beyond the the scope of the present article. ARGUMENT#9 A number of theological works state the falsehood is ABSURD UPON G--D. It seems to be their undisputed openion. Refutation: This requirs a discussion on each and every quotation given by the denouncers. How ever the responce(IN GENERAL) is that they declair Falsehood absud upon G--D THAT IS DIVINE ESSENCE.
THAT IS CORRECT IF TAKEN AS IT IS UNINTERPRETED OTHERWISE. SINCE ANY THING THAT IS ABSURD UPON DIVINE ESSENCE,I.E DIVINE SUPPOSITUM,DIVINE EXISTENT,DIVINE BEING IS UNDISPUTEDLY SELF AQBSURD. ARGUMENT#10: Maturidiates even believe that ant thing which implies falsehood is Intellectuallu Absurd. Like Punishment of an Innocent Person or an Infallabe Person,And is not on the DIVINE POWER TO PUNISH A PERSON WHO IS A BELIEVER AND HAS COMMITTED NO SIN. Similarly G--D DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO FORGIVE ANY ONE WHO DIES ON SHIRK/POLYTHIESM.Sice it implies Possibility of False Statement.See page:259 and 260 0f the above mension book. Refutation: Maturidiites have been misunderstood due to their pecular termonologies. iImam abu Hanifah R.H never said such a thing nor Did Imam Maturidi R.H said such a thing. This is a misinterpretation. Descending from this position if some Maturidiites have said such a thing it can never be generalized rto all Maturidiites. If some one have said such a thing then this either means he neglected the difference of two type of implications stated above.One can Shew a number of places where Khairabadi scholors differ from ASHAIRAH AND MATURIIDIAH. So this is no Argument. Any how a detail discussion is beyond the scope of this Article./ ARGUMENT#11 To have a power on a defect (Annaqs) is a DEFECT ITSLF AND ALL DEFECTS ARE SELF ABSURD ON G--D. Refutaion: To have a power over the NAQAIS(DEFECTS/IMPERFECTIONS) ON ESSENCE AND ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES IS A DEFECT UPON THE DIVINE ESSNCE AND DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES. BUT TO HAVE POWER UPON THE DEFECT OF SEPARATE IS NO DEFECT, RAITHER IT IS A PERFECTION AND DEFECTLESSNESS. G-D HAS POWER UPON THE HUMAN DEFECTS DOES IT MEAN G-D IS IMPERFECT .THE ANSWER IS IN NEGATIVE BEYOND DOUBT. ARGUMENT#12: IF Falsehood is possible then this Implies AL QURAAN IS A CREATION OF G-D, AND THIS IS A MUTAZILITES BELIEF. Refutation: According to Ashairah and Maturidiah It is Klaam AN nAFSI THAT IS NOT A CREATION. Although it is ascribed to rida sb that he bid not distinguished between Kalaam Al Lafzi And Kalaaqm An Nafis but Mulfizaat are not as authentic as Subhaan As SUBUBBUUH. AL-QURAAN IN THE SENSE OF KALAAM AN NAFSI IS UNCREATED, AND ETERNAL. HANAABALAH AND SALFITE DENOUNCE KALAAM AN NAFSI , AND THE SAME IS ASCRIBED TO MAULVI RADA OF BARAILI. I have tried to give the most famous argument. In the next ARTICLES MORE ARGUMENTS SHALL BE GIVEN AND SOME MORE DETAIL SHALL BE GIVEN INSHAA 'ALL-H. Note this Article Is Case Sensitive.Upper and Lower cases of Letter are deleberate, and make sense. Thes are the most famous twelve arguments presented uptill now and those who no nothing about this article of faith often get confused. I have imposed the condition of word and speach to bein accordence to moral and logical standers.