Omnipotence and the Author of Reconstruction

1 The Concept of Divine Omnipotence Is also Denounced By the Alleged Poet of East...He is a denouncer Of Divine Omnipotence or Absolutes Power of ALLAH SUBHANAHU WA TAALA beside Divine Omniscient.

One MUST note at this initial stage of discussion that both of these ATTRIBUTES ARE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF DIVINE ESSENCE (WHICH IS SELF OF DEITY ITSELF AND IS DEITY ITSELF) HOW EVER IQBAL FINDS A NEW WAY TO DENY Omnipotence Of ALLAH Subhanahu Wa Taala.

This time by making alternations in the meaning of agreed upon terms and by making changing’s in definitions.

THE AGREED UPON MEANING OF DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE IS THAT IT IS A POWER OVER EACH AND EVERY POSSIBLE AND CONTINGENT WITH THE NECESSARY EXCEPTION OF DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY OF ISLAM IN PARTICULAR ANF GOD OF ALL THREE SEMETIC RELIGION S IN GENERAL NOUNLY IEUDAISM (JUDAISM) CHRISTIANITY AND LAQSTLY ISLAM. But this poet market satire by calling absolute omnipotence of Allah SUBHANAHU WA TAATA AS blind force, AS if nON aBSOLUTE pOWER HATH IQBALIAN sIGHT. The DIVINE ABSOLUTE POWER IN THE STATED ABOVE SENSE AND MEANING CAN NOT BE TERMED AS BLIND SINCE LACK OF ATTRIBUTE of seeing and watching in /with an alive Essence is called Blindness.

IT is incorrect to call an Attribute by this term. How ever the poet does not differentiates between blind force and non blind force explicitly. He seems to be satisfied by making implicit differentiations and distinguish/ments.

It appears that a non blind force OR a force with Sight is one from which the poet excludes Possibilities Beyond Natural Possibilities. And renames and re/nouns this restricted power as Omnipotence. This is very fallacious .It would have been far more Non-Fallacious if the alleged poet of South Asian Subcontinent would have denied Omnipotence and Absolute Power Of ALLAH SUBHANAHU WA TAALA directly as de did do when he did denied Omniscience and Absolute Knowledge Of ALLAH SUBHANAHU WA TAALA DRECTLY. BUT HE DID NOT LIKE TO DENY ONE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE OF QURANIC DEITY DIRECTLY AFTER denying the other Essential attribute of THE VERY SAME Arabic scripture ID EST AL QURAN AL MUQADDAS. Actually he might have anticipated possible reactions against home if he had denied one attribute after an.

Islamic Concept of Omniscience and Absolute Power.

Al QUDRAH often translated as Power is An Essential Attribute Of God That is Over each and every Possible in It Self. It Excludes Absurd In Itself ,Necessary in itself and Divine Essential Attributes.

Divine Essential Attributes are Supposed to be ASSOCIATED WITH DIVINE ESSENCE (THAT IS WHY THEY ARE TERMED AS ESSENCTIAL APART FROM OTHER REASONS) and are infinitely Communicable

to the Divine Essence. The only difference of opinion is whether this communicability contradicts Identity AINIAH or Not. That is why the only Possibiles in Itself excluded from Divine Power are said to be Divine essential attributers if they are not identical to Essence and are communicably Associated WITH IT. In the case if they are identical they are not Possible but Necessary in Itself and the Only Necessary in Itself is the Self of Deity That is Self of Essence of Deity and That is the Islamic Deity HIMSELF .BN NOUNLY ALLAH SUBHANAHU WA TAALA,.

Fore sake of simplicity let us use the term Contingent for A Possible that is Not Divine Essential Attribute i.e. that Possible that is not Associated with Divine Essence. Thus it can be said that that The Absolute Power may be defined as A Power that is Over each and every Contingent that is A Power that is upon Each and every Possible that is Neither Associated with Divine Essence nor is communicable to That Divine Essence.

Where Divine essence is God, Deity and Divinity. There is No God except Divine Essence.

IQBAL SAITH (1) The Emergence of EGOS endowed with the Power Of Spontaneous and hence unforeseeable action is in a sense a limitation on the freedom of all inclusive Ego....

ANSWER TO IQBAL> NOTE : 1)The author of the third lecture means that the alleged Egos are a limitation On the freedom Of ALLAH SUBHANAHU WA TA AALA .

2) The author of the third lecture does mean that the so called action is even unforeseeable for ALLAH SUBHANAHU WA TA AALA. But if it is assumed for sake of an argument that they are not unforeseeable for GOD EVEN THEN They are impossible as it shall be discussed below.

How ever as the author of the third lecture denies the Divine Omniscience there is no room for the stated above assumption.

CRITICISM: If these egos are creation of God then according to Islamic and Semitic believes Creations and Creatures can not limit the ONLY CREATOR, Who is the GOD IF ISLAM IN PARTICULAR AND GOD OF SEMITIC RELIGIONS IN GENERAL.ACCORDING TO ISLAM That is GOD, NOUNLY ALLAH IS THE DIVINE ESSENCE THAT IS GOD IS THE DIVINE ESSENCE. SIMILARLY NO CREATED EXISTENT CAN LIMIT DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF DIVINE ESSENCE THAT IS THE DEITY HIMSELF. Actually it is a Janic argument against Supreme Absolute Being , that if there is a Supreme Being then His Creations must Limit Him and His Attributes. NAUZU BILLAH. As for the unforeseeable action is concern it only means Neither GOD HATH FOREKNOWLEDGE OF FUTURE EVENTS NOR GOD HATH OMNISCIENCE NAUZUBILLAQH. AS MENSTIONED EARLIER iQQBAL

1 DOES REJECT THE knowledge OF FUTURE EVENTS. Possibilities OF ACTIONS AT A GIVEN TIME SAY T0.

A s no limitation of this sort exists, an action and its possibility which are beyond DIVINE OMNISCIENCE, OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNI VOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD. Strangely as it seems to be Irbil who initially denies Divine Omniscience and fore knowledge for sake of Divine freedom of Will, and Intention now denies OMNI VOLUTION For sake of spontaneity, randomness and chaos.

Since spontaneity is no thing but a limited behaviour bounded by Nature. Irbil accepts this as an intrinsic limitation and esoteric boundness or boundary of Power of ALLAH. For sake of arguments let it be supposed that Created EGOS DO IMPLICATE LIMITATIONS ON SUPREME BEING AND ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE SUPREME BEING THEN : 1)THEY ARE IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD. They are as Impossible and Absurd as A SUPPOSED Stone which can not be lifted by GOD. Since such a stone limits Divine Absoluteness and Absoluteness of Omnipotence It is Impossible , Incontinent and Absurd. In theology a paradox is also included in Impossibilities and Absurdities .

2)The Ability of Spontaneity which is Substancive and Substantive and Substantial implier and Essential Implicator to the limitations and finiteness of Divine Essence and Divine Attributes is Impossible and Absurd in a very similar say the Death Of God is Impossible and Absurd. AN NAQSU ALALLAHI MUHAL BIZZAAT. How ever if these IQBALIAN EGOS are uncreated and unmade then they are Eternal and this contradicteth they Emerge with the Ability of Spontaneity. But if they are Eternal then these Egos are nothing but the Eternal Spirits Of Arya Samajis.

It may be noted the concept of All INCLUSIVE God is a God Of Upnishads or Upanishads or as according to popular Interpretations of them.

IQBAL SAITH(2)

But this limitation is not Externally imposed ,it is born out of His own f creative freedom where by he HAS CHOOSEN FINITE egos TO BE participator OF his life, POWER AND FREEDOM( OF wILL) ANSWER TO IQBAL> This implieth an intrinsic contradiction. In other words IT is a self contradiction.

If the mentioned above Limitation IS GENERATED BY THE VERY FREEDOM, THEN THIS LIMITATION (UPON GOD) IS THE INTRINSIC IMPLICATION OF THE UNLIIMITED WILL AND UNBOUNDED INTENTION. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE ANDABSURD…

BUT IF THIS LIMITATION IS AN INTRINSIC QUALITY OR ATTRIBUTE OF THE VERY FREEDOM (OF WILL) THEN THE WILL AND THE VERY FREEDM OF DIVINE WILL BOTH ARE SELF LIMITED. Thus freedom is lost. As we have seen earlier that the Poet Philosopher denounces Omniscience of Allah for sake of alleged freedom) more accurately Iqbalian Freedom), the very same person denies FREEDOM IT SELF. It may be noted that Iqbalian spontaneity not only contradicts Divine Freedom of (of will) but also Divine Omniscience and Divine Omnipotence reducing then to Non Omniscience knowledge, and And Non Omnipotence Power, and Non Omni INTENTION OR Will.+ The Poet Philosopher further alleges that these finite Egos are Participators of Divine Essential Attributes life, Power and Freedom (OF WILL).

But no Non Eternal can be a participator of GFOD AND HIS DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. SUCH A THING IS IMPOSSIBLE AND absurd AS PLURALITY OF gods. Participation OF DIVINE ESSENCE AND DIVINE ATTRIBUTES IS PURE SHIRK. Even the Essential Attributes of Divine Essence are not Participator of DIVINE ESSENCE INSPITE OF THEIR ETERNITY. Iqbalian Participation is no thing but a resurrection of Upnishadsic thoughts.

How ever this is another issue which requires a separate discussion..

IQBAL SAITH(3) But it may be asked, is it possible to reconcile Limitation with Omnipotence. The word Limitation needs not to frighten us. The Quran has no likeness for Abstract Universals.

An ANSWER TO IQBALIAN HERESY. If would have been far better that the alleged poet of East would have used the word Divine Power instead o0f The word Omnipotence.

The well accepted MEANING OF OMNIPOTENCE OR ABSOLUTE POWER IS THAT POWER THAT5 IS UPON EACH AND EVERY POSSSIBLE IN IT SELF WITH THE NECESSARY EXCEPTION OF ESSENTIAL DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. We give the example of a Set of REAL Numbers R. AAs no Imaginary number Belongeth to the Set R, IT DOETH NOT HAVE ANY IMAGINARY NUMBER. YET IT IS UNBOUNDED AND UNLIMITED. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE SET OF ALLL REAL NUMBERS EXCLUDING THE DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES. EXCLUDING DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES FROM THE SET OF ALL POSSIBLESWHICHB ARE IN DIVINE POWER NEITHER BOUNDS THE SET NOR LIMITS THE DIVINE POWER THE OMNIPOTENCE THE DIVINE ABSOLUTE POWER..

THE EXCLUTION OF NON ATTRIBUTES POSSIBBLES DOETH LIMIT DIVINE POWE AND ABSOLUTENESS DOETH CEASETH .

1 Irbil rejects the pure limitation of Divine Power but does not accept that he limits Divine Power.

These are not reconcileable.Iqbal is not new in his opinions. Mutazilites usually Limit Divine Power.

Nizam was one of the most famous person among MutIzilah who had limited Divine Power more then other MutIZILAH S leaders. Thus THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK RECONSTRUCTION OF THOUGHTS IN ISLAM borrowed this view from Nizam. How ever Irbil some how made some modifications.

Irbil ascribes to Quran that THE HOLY ARABIC SCRIPTURE DOETH NOT HAVE LIKENESS FOR ABSTRACT UNIVERSALS. FIRST QURAN IS SCILENT ON THE ISSUE. HOW EVER IF ABSTRACT UNIVERSALS ARE ETERNAL EXISTENTS SEPERATE FROM GOD THEN IQBAL IS RIGHT. SINCE NOTHING OTHER THAT GOD IS ETERNAL EXISTENT AS ACCORDING TO THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL AND INDIPENDENT AXIOM OF ISLAMIC ARTICLES OF FAITH. SECOND If Irbil thinks that other Possibles which are not existents constitute Abstract Universals then this i9s incorrect. Since there are Infinite Possibles which are not existent and a subset of them is ABSURD WITH OTHER OR MUHAAL BIL GHAIR. Irbil has ascribed his own views to Al Quraan Al Muqaddas.

It appears that Irbil Does Exclude the Possibles which are not Existents as Abstract Universals.

This is incorrect. This is evidence that The Poet Does Exclude the Possibilities beyond Natural Possibilities as abstract universes.

It is very strange to see that the Poet Philosopher alleges as such.

Actually and Really Al Quraan Al Muqaddas Believeth in the infinity and absoluteness of divine power. HOW EVER all THE SUNNI THEOLOGIANS, PHILOSOPHERS, LOGICIANS, and DIALECTICS Do Make Exception Of Divine ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES. A Number of Latter Sunni Scalars believe that Essential Attributes Of GOD are Identical to the Divine Essence, hence are Not Possible But Necessary as divine existent and Divine Essence are Necessary, and one and the same.

In this case Divine Essential Attributes are Neither Possible nor Contingent but NECESSARY. Hence they Define DIVINE ABSOLUTE POWER OR DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE AS A POWER THAT IS UPON EACH AND EVERY POSSIBLE WITH OUT ANY EXCEPTION (WHAT SO EVER).

But Irbil doeth not distinguish between a Limitation of an absolute and a Necessary Exception from an Absolute.

The former does make the Absolute to be ceased from being Absolute but the latter Does NOT. TO confuse the two different types of Exclusion is infinitely incorrect and absolutely wrong.

How ever IF IT IS ACCEPTED FOR SAKE OF SEVERAL ARGUMENTS THAT THE SET OF ALL POSSIBILITIES

WITH NECESSARY EXCEPTION IS A LIMITATION, THEN this Limitation (if it is termed as Limitation) is neither Iqbalian Limitation nor it Implieth Iqbalian Limitation.

If GOD CAN NOT COMMIT SUCIDE, Or Can not ANNIHILIATE HIS OWNB ESSENCE, CAN NOT PERFORM HUMAN ACTIVITIES OF REPRODUCTION,GENERATION ,CONCEPTION, CAN NOT DO FORNICATRION ETC, DOES IT IMPLIETH IQBALIAN LIMITATIONS OF UNFORSEEABLE ACTIONS WITH INTRINSIC PROPERTY OF SPONTANEITY,CHEOS,RANDOMNESS, ARBETRWARINESS WHAT SO EVER. Let us descend from the claim that Necessary Exception implieth not Limit the set of Infinite Possibles and Possibilities.

Let it be called A Type of Limitation .But Is It Logical to say that as acts of Divine Conception, Generation, eating , drinking et cetera are Impossible Upon GOD, THIS LIMITATION IS LIKE THE LIMITATION OF UNFORSEEABLE ACTS AND UNFOREKNOWN EVENTS. IS IT REASONABLE AND RATIONAL? A) If God Can not becomes What God Can Make does it mean that God can not make any thing since God can not become any thing which God can Make?

For example If God Can make a tree does it mean That God Can Become a Tree.

If God Can not become a tree does it mean God Can not make a tree?

B) If GOD CAN NOT ANNIHILATE HIS OWN ESSENCE, DOES IT MEAN THAT GOD can not annihilate this Universe.

C) If GOD CAN NOT MAKE A STONE SO BIG THAT HE HIMSELF CAN NOT LIFT THAT STONE, does it mean that GOD CAN NOT MAKE A PLANET OR ANY OTHER HEAVENLY BODY or a mountain.

If GOD CAN MAKE A PLANET OR A UNIVERSRE, DOES IT MEAN THAT GOD CAN MAKE A STONE STATED ABOVE. Further If GOD CAN NOT MAKE TWO NEAR MOUNTAINS SUCH THAT THERE IS NO VALLEY BETWEEN THEM DOES IT MEAN GOD CAN NOT MAKE MOUINTAINS OF GOLD AND DIAMOND? D) If God Can not make an other GOD, DOES IT MEAN THAT GOD CAN NOT MAKE HEAVENS AND ANGELS. Call it a limitation if you like the word Limitation ,even for God, but one type of Limitation does not imply the other types of Limitations.

Is it Rational to Claim that if the former alleged Limitation implieth the latter LIMITATIONS. It is correct that the concept of abstractions are disputed among Sunni schalors But Iqbal considers all possibiles and possibilities beyond natural possibilities and natural possible beyond natural Domain as abstract universe. This is nothing but to limit the Divine Power as according to traditional and Orthodox Sunnism but also from the point of view of some Non Sunnis as well.

1 This theory is borrowed from Sir Saiyad Ahmad who did not believe in any Possibility Beyond the Domain of Nature. This in turn is borrowed from Nizam who borrows it from Philosophers.

How ever it may be the case that The Poet of the East included few more possibilities and Possibles in the domain after borrowing it fromn Sir Saiyad Ahmad.

It must further be noted that even the denouncers of Abstraction do not denounce the Possibility and Possible which is never to occur.

Thus They believe that GOD HAS POWER TO PUNISH A RATIONAL SUPPOSITUM EVEN IF THE RATIONAL SUPPOSITUM DID NOT HAVE DONE ANY TRANSGRATION, ANY SIN ,ANY CRIME, ANY MISTAKE,ANY ERROR WHAT SO EVER AND IS INFALLABLE AND INNICENT. How ever GOD SHAL NOT EXCERCISE AND NEVER PRACTICE THIS POWER AND HIS INTRINSIC RIGHT TO DO EVEN SUCH AN ACT EVEN SUCH A THING. How ever such a Possible and such a Possibility does not constitute an Abstraction as according to them.

They do not believe in a human being which is purely Abstract but they still believe in the Possibility of A Human Being with Wings or A Unicorn or A Horse with a Human Head. They believe that GOD HATH POWER TO MAKES SUCH THINGS EVET IF HE NEVER MAKETH THEM. SO THEY BELIEVE IN THE POSSIBILITY OF INDIVIDUALS and not in the Possibility of Abstraction. But as a follower of Sir Saiyad Ahmad The Poet tries to Exclude a number of Possible Individuals by calling tem in abstract universals.

If it is claimed some how that The Poet do believe that God has Power to make strange individuals which THE GOD SHALL NEVER MAKE then the poet is strictly out of the context.

THE POET SAITH Omnipotence merely conceived as a Blind Force Capricious Power Without Limits.

Answer To The Poet.

FIRST of all it must BE NOTED THAT THE WORD blind IS A satire against the HOLY DIVINE POWER AND SACRET OMNIPOTENCE OF HOLY ALLAH SUBHANAHU WA TRAALA.Hence it is a disgrace against Holy OMNIPOTENCE Of ALLAH SUBHAANAHU WA TA AALA The poet would not have done this disgrace against the glorious Omnipotence Of Allah.

It has been stated above that the Divine power is upon each and every Possible that is Not Associated With Divine Essence4 and that is Not Communicable to the Self Of Essence Of ALLAH, IF THE ATTRIBUTES Are IN addition to Divine Essence. AS IT BEEN STATED EARLIER THAT THESE UNASSOCIATED POSSIBILITIES MAY BE TERNED AS CONTINGENCIES ONE MAY STATE THAT ABSOLUTE POWER OR OMNIPOTENCE IS POWER OVER EACH AND EVERY CONTINGENT WITHB OUT ANY EXCEPTION.

How ever if the DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES ARE IDENTICAL TO ESSENCE OF ALLAH THAT IS ALLAH HIMSELF SUBHANAHU WA TA AALA THEN SUCH A DISTINCTION BETWEEN POSIIBILTIES AND CONTINGENCIES CEASETH TO BE AND BOTH DO BECOME ALTERNATIVE TERMS. BUT IN ANY CASE THE DIVINE OMNIPOTENC E CAN NOT BE TERMED AS BLIND FORCE. There is no blindness in the meaning of ABSOLUTE POWER and Omnipotence If it is believed to be Over Each and Every Possible or Each and every Contingent.

Divine Omnipotence is not Blind even if it is over each and every Possible.

Actually the philosopher [her poet confuses the Exercise of Power and The Power. It is the exercise of Power that may be termed as blind. But even this is controversial. The author of the third lecture unfortunately does not mention the difference between the Power which is blind and the Power which is not blind.

This shews that he is himself in confusion He is confusing the Arbitrary Use of Power with Chaotic effects with Omnipotence.

The author of the third lecture neglects the difference between descriptive Order and prescriptive order.

Actually non chaotic occurrences of events are not prescriptive but descriptive as things are normally seen to react. Further the Author of the third lecture does not distinguish between Power and Force.

Does he take them as synonyms or he makes some subtle differences between them.

If former then Force is nothing but POWER and a so called blind force is a so called blind power. Just interchange of terms. Otherwise one is tempted to opine that the poet author means u Exercise of power as force.

Any how POWER can not be termed as Blind.

Perhaps the poet author of the third lecture sees the attribute of sight in limited power.

But one may point out that the SPONTANEOUS EMERGENCE IS ALSO A BLIND EMERGENCE AND the poet does not deny it. Spontaneous emergence is nothing but a random or a chaotic or an arbitrary inception of Egos. So if things emerge spontaneously then their Emergences are blind in the Iqbalian sense of the word Blind. Now if GOD MAKETH THE EMERGENCES OF THESE THINGS say EGOS then once again the limited Power Of GOD BECOMES IQBALIAN BLIND.The very meaning of Spontaneity ceaseth to be if randomness and arbitrariness’ ceaseth.

Now one may come to the problem that An Attribute Can Not be called Blind, Ignorant dump, deaf et cetera in the Real Meaning of these words.

Since if Knowledge is Not Associated With An Essence then the Essence is Ignorant. and Non Association is IQNORANCE. BUT a POSATIVE ATTRIBUTE IS NEVER ASSOCIATED WITH ANOTHER POSATIVE ATTRIBUTE ACCORDING TO MAJORITY OF PHILOSOPHERS AND DIALECTICS. So it can not be said that an Attribute is Ignorant, One can not say Attribute of Life is Blind since Attribute Of Sight is not Associated With It or attribute of Sight is dead since Attribute Of life is not

1 Associated With It. So not only in figurative or metaphorical meaning it is a also incorrect in real meaning .

THE AUTHOR OF THE THIRD LECTURE SAITH:4

But this limitation is not Externally imposed. It is born out of His own Creative freedom whereby He has chosen Finite Egos to be participators Of His Life, Power and Freedom { of will?} An answer to the author of third lecture of the book RECONSTRUCTION OF THOUGHTS IN ISLAM. 1}This implies an intrinsic contradiction. In other words a Self Contradiction.

If the Limitation is Implied by the very Freedom Of Will or Intention then either the Freedom if Finite or Infinite or neither Finite and Nor Infinite or both Finite and Infinite. THERE IS NO FIFTH WAY. If it is Finite then it can not be an ESSENTIAL Attribute Of ALLAH SUBHANAHU WA TA AALA. SINCE FINITENESS IS A DEFECT. If it is neither finite nor infinite then this is Irtifaa un Naqidain or the law of exclusion of Middle.

Exclusion of Middle is Absurd and Impossible in Theological system.

Theologically there is no middle between A and Not A. Similarly there can be no statement such that truth of its negation implies its truth, if there is a statement of this type then it is not a statement since it violates the basic condion of an statement whether it is with quantifiers or it is not.

It is impossible for a thing to be finite and Infinite since to be finite contradicteth to be infinite And to be infinite contradicteth to be finite.

If It is infinite and it implieth its own finiteness intrinsically the it Contradicteth it own self and becomes SELF CONTRADICTORY. It is as impossible as the claim that Divinity Of God implieth Its Own Non Divinity.

2}If the limitation is generated by the very self of the unlimited will or Intention then this limitation is the implication of the unlimited Will.This is impossible and absurd .

This is A implies Not A. This is absurd and impossible atleast in the world of theology.

3} It must be noted once for all that any thing which intrinsically implieth that it is finite or limited or both is finite or limited or both.Thus if it is assumed then Divine Intention is bounded finite and limited.

4}If it is claimed that Initially Divine Will or Divine Intention was infinite Absolute and Unlimited but its limitation ,finitization and Non Absoluteness are Possible or Contingent or both , thus Infinite can

become finite, unlimited can become limited etcetera then the only response is that all of these mentioned acts are IMPOSSIBLE, INCONTINGENT, ABSURD AND SURD.There is a perfect Impossibility and Absolute Absurdity For An Infinite Essential Attribute Of ALLAH SUBHANAHU WA TA AALA TO BECOME FINITE. This is intrinsically Absurd. And Rationally Impossible.

5} If Divine Intention or Divine Will can be limited that is it is Possible THAT ALLAH ALMIGHTY can be Can Be Converted into A Finite Existent From An Infinite And Absolute Existent . Thus It beometh Possible that GOD CAN BECOME A NOT GOD NA UBILLAH. This meaneth that IT IS POSSIBLE THAT GOD CAN BECOME A POSSIBLE EXISTENT AND A CONTINGENT EXISTENT FROM NECESSARY EXISTENT. THIS IS ABSURD IN ITSELF I.E MUHAAL BIZZAAT. 6}If Divine Intention can be limited then DIVINE LIFE CAN BE LIMITED. This meaneth that GOD CAN DIE, Can Commit Suicide etc.

As it is seen earlier that the Poet Philosopher Denounces Divine Omniscience for sake of alleged freedoms ( of GOD AND DIVINE WILL} THE VERY SAME PERSON Denies the very freedom.

It must be noted that that Iqbalian Spontaneity not only contradicts Divine Freedom and Freedom Of Divine Will but Also Divine Omniscience and Divine Omnipotence reducing them to NonOmnipotence Power and Non Omniscience Knowledge.

Iqbal further alleges that these finite Egos are PARTICIPATORS AND PARTICIPENTS OF GOD AND HIS DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. PARTICIPATION OF DIVINE ESSENCWE OR DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OR BOTH IS PURE SHIRK. Even the Divine Attributes Of God Like Omniscience, ;omnipotence, Omni Life etc. Are neither participators nor participants of GOD THE DIVINE ESSENCE? INSPITE OF THEIR Eternity { I.E ETERNITY OF DIVI9NE ATTRIBUTES AND QUALITIES} IQBALIAN PARTICIPATION IS NOTHING BUT THE RECONSTRUCTION ,RESURRECTION,AND REFORMATION OG UPNISHAD THOUGHTS. How ever it is beyond the scope of present discussion to prove the influence of Upnishads or Upanishads or Upanishads or Upanishads on Iqbalian Thoughts.

THE POET PHILOSOPHER SAITH5 But how, it may be asked, is it possible to reconcile Limitation with Omnipotence. The word Limitation need not to be frighten us. The Quran has no likeness for Abstract universes.

Answer to Iqbal It would have been far more better that the alleged poet of east would have used the word Divine Power instead of the Word Omnipotence.

The well accepted meaning of Omnipotence is that It is the Power That is Upon Each and Every Possible with the Necessary Exception Of Divine Essential Attributes.

1 If Divine Essential Attributes are supposed to be Identical to Divine Essence { see Nabras AND COMMENTS } then there is NECESSIRALY no exception.

The meaning of ABS;LUTE POWER IS THE SAME .

Since the meaning of QUDRAH/QUDRATUN is an Attribute that is Over Possible or Contingent. So absolute [power or omnipotence means that A POWER THAT IS OVER EACH AND EVERY POSSIBLE OR CONTINGENT. We provide the example of Real numbers.As no imaginary number belongeth to the set of all real number |R the set R doeth not have any imaginary nuber.Yet it is unbounded, unlimited and infinite.

The same is true for the set or class of all possibilities Excluding Divine Essential Attributes.

Exclusion of Divine Essential Attributes from the SET OR CLASS of All Possibilities neither bound the set nor limits the set and also not make it finite.

So a Power which is over each and every member of set is rightly termed as Absolute,infinite unlimited and omnipotence.But the author poet renames the pure limitation of power as Omnipotence.

This is incorrect. It is just like some one renames a finite limited and bounded subset of real numbers as an infinite set. These are not reconcilable.

The poet ascribes to AL QURAN AL MUQADDAS THAT It Hath No likeness for abstract universes. This is a proof that he excludes the possibilities beyond natural possibilities as abstract universes..It is very strange that The Poet Alleges as such.

MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATION LET

`BE THE SET OF ALL POSSIBLES

LET ά˭ µ-η BE THE SET OF ALL ESSENTIAL DIVINE ATTRIBUTES LET BE ά˭ µ-η be the set of all NON ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE POSSIBLES THEN ABSOLUTE POWER OF GOD IS A POWER THAT IS UPON EACH AND EVEY MEMBER OF ά˭ µ-η b THE ABSOLUTE POWER IS THE OMNIPOTENCE AND THE OMNIPOTENCE IS THE ABSOLUTE POWER. IQBAL DOES NOR DISTINGUISHES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NECESSARY EXCEOTION FROM AN ABSOLUTE ATTRIBUTE AND THE LIMITATION OF THE ATTIBUTE. But he soon does self contradict himself , when he does claim that The Atrribute is Omnipotence.

If it is accepted that even the Necessary exception OF ESSENTIAL DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OR DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES is a limitation then he can not call Power as Omnipotence.

S similarly in that case the Attribute can not be called Absolute Power.

It must be noted that the founder of ARYA Samaj Pandit Dianand Sarsuti made an Objection On Quran and Islam that they believe in the ABSOLUTE POWER AND OMNISPOTENCE OF ALLAH, BUT GOD CAN NOT BE OMNIPOTENT AND CANNOT BE ABSOLUTE POWERFUL, AND DIVINE POWER CAN NEITHER BE OMNIPOTENCE NOR ABSOLUTE SINCE GOD CAN NOT DO THE ACRT OF STEALING CANOT ROB, Can not do sexual activities etc..

He was responded that GOD HATH POWER OVER POSSIBILITIES AND NOT UPON NECESSASARIES AND ABSUDITIES. THEIR EXCLUSION DOES NOT LIMIT THE ABSOLUTE POWER AND OMNIPOTENCE. SINCE THE WORD QUDRAH BY THE VERY DEFINATION EXCLUDES THEM. BUT THE POET CHANGED THE MEANING OF THE WORD OMNIPOTENCE. DIANAND WAS FAR MORE EXPLICIT THEN THE POET. BOTH CAN BE RESPONDED AS FOLLOW: If GOD CAN NOT commit suicide, or can not annihilate Himself which is His Own ESSENCE, OR CAN NOT COMMIT ACTIVITIES OF REPRODUCTION,REPLICA ,GENERATION,CONCEPTION,BEGETTING,EATING,FORNICATION ETCETERA ,AND ALL THESE ACTS ARE EXCLUDED FROM DIVINE POWER AS AN EXCEPTION , DIVINE POWER CAN NOT BE TERMED AS NON ABSOLUTE AND NON OMNIPOTENT. THE POET SAITH Omnipotence merely conceived as a Blind Force Capricious Power Without Limits.

Answer To The Poet.

FIRST of all it must BE NOTED THAT THE WORD blind IS A satire against the HOLY DIVINE POWER AND SACRET OMNIPOTENCE OF HOLY ALLAH SUBHANAHU WA TRAALA. The poet would not have done this disgrace against the glorious Omnipotence Of Allah.

It has been stated above that the Divine power is upon each and every Possible that is Not Associated With Divine Essence4 and that is Not Communicable to the Self Of Essence Of ALLAH, IF THE ATTRIBUTES Are IN addition to Divine Essence. AS IT BEEN STATED EARLIER THAT THESE UNASSOCIATED POSSIBILITIES MAY BE TERMED AS CONTINGENCIES ONE MAY STATE THAT ABSOLUTE POWER OR OMNIPOTENCE IS POWER OVER EACH AND EVERY CONTINGENT WITHB OUT ANY EXCEPTION.{ One must keep in mind that:- The well accepted meaning of Omnipotence and Absolute Power is that It is the Power That is Upon Each and Every Possible with the Necessary Exception Of Divine Essential Attributes.}

How ever if the DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES ARE IDENTICAL TO ESSENCE OF ALLAH THAT IS ALLAH HIMSELF SUBHANAHU WA TA AALA THEN SUCH A DISTINCTION BETWEEN POSIIBILTIES AND CONTINGENCIES CEASETH TO BE AND BOTH DO BECOME ALTERNATIVE TERMS.

1 BUT IN ANY CASE THE DIVINE OMNIPOTENC E CAN NOT BE TERMED AS BLIND FORCE. There is no blindness in the meaning of ABSOLUTE POWER and Omnipotence If it is believed to be Over Each and Every Possible or Each and every Contingent.

Divine Omnipotence is not Blind even if it is over each and every Possible.

Actually the philosopher poet confuses the Exercise of Power and The Power. It is the exercise of Power that may be termed as blind. But even this is controversial. The author of the third lecture unfortunately does not mention the difference between the Power which is blind and the Power which is not blind.

This shews that he himself IS in confusion He is confusing the Arbitrary Use of Power with Chaotic effects with Omnipotence.

The author of the third lecture neglects the difference between descriptive Order and prescriptive order.

Actually non chaotic occurrences of events are not prescriptive but descriptive as things are normally seen to react. Further the Author of the third lecture does not distinguish between Power and Force.

Does he take them as synonyms or he makes some subtle differences between them.

If former then Force is nothing but POWER and a so called blind force is a so called blind power. Just interchange of terms. Otherwise one is tempted to opine that the poet author means u Exercise of power as force.

Any how POWER can not be termed as Blind.

Perhaps the poet author of the third lecture sees the attribute of sight in limited power.

But one may point out that the SPONTANEOUS EMERGENCE IS ALSO A BLIND EMERGENCE AND the poet does not deny it. Spontaneous emergence is nothing but a random or a chaotic or an arbitrary inception of Egos. So if things emerge spontaneously then their Emergences are blind in the Iqbalian sense of the word Blind. Now if GOD MAKETH THE EMERGENCES OF THESE THINGS say EGOS then once again the limited Power Of GOD BECOMES IQBALIAN BLIND.The very meaning of Spontaneity ceaseth to be if randomness and arbitrariness’ ceaseth.

Now one may come to the problem that An Attribute Can Not be called Blind, Ignorant dump, deaf et cetera in the Real Meaning of these words.

Since if Knowledge is Not Associated With An Essence then the Essence is Ignorant. and Non Association is IQNORANCE. BUT a POSATIVE ATTRIBUTE IS NEVER ASSOCIATED WITH ANOTHER POSATIVE ATTRIBUTE ACCORDING TO MAJORITY OF PHILOSOPHERS AND DIALECTICS. So it can not be said that an Attribute is Ignorant, One can not say Attribute of Life is Blind since Attribute Of Sight is not Associated With It or attribute of Sight is dead since Attribute Of life is not Associated With It. So not only in figurative or metaphorical meaning it is a also incorrect in real meaning .

THE PHILOSOPHER POET ALLEGETH:

The Quran has a clear and definite conception of Nature as a cosmos of mutually related forces.

ANSER TO THE POET PHILOSOPHER: Some Immediate Comments.

1}The very same AL QURAN ALM MUQADDAS HATH THE CRYSTAL CLEAR AND CERTAIN CONCEPTION OF DIVINE POWER OVER EACH AND EVERY CONTINGENT. 2)l Natuere is descriptive and not prescriptive. Mutual relations are not uncreated but they are created by GOD just like the relatants , relaters and relateds all are created by GOD. These relations, relatants, relators, and relateds all are dependent UPON GOD NOT ONLY in Creation and Existence but also in the Continuety Of Existence.

3)A Relation between any two things whether iTHEY ARE Substances or a Suppositums or Qualities Is the Occurrence of A relation from a Set of Infinite Possible Relations between these two relavants.

4)The term nature has several meanings and it is related to the terms like Form, Substance, Essence, Substratum,Suppositum ETC. 5) There are two important definitions of the term nature.

1) The set of all those Qualities, Properties, Attributes, Characteristics Of A Thing (say SUBSTANCE or Essence or any Other thing) which Distinguishes and dictints one thing from an other thing.

2) That Of A Thing whereby a Thing Does act or Does do WHAT (SO EVER) It Does Do or Does Act. As what so ever the thing do is also a CREATION Of God there fore a thing Only Does do What GOD OF THE THING CREATETH. A CREATED THING CAN NOT DO ANY THING BY ITS OWN. THAT Of the thing where by the thing does do what it does do is also a Creation and GOD MAKETH IT TO DO WHAT THE THING OWE TOWORDS IT THE WHERE BY OF THE ACT OR DOING OF THE THING.+ COMMENTS: This may be correct in some sense or meaning but not in all senses or meanings.The very same Quran Does State of Supermundales, Spirits, Angels, Assent ion Of Hotly Prophet unto Heavens and Miracles Of Prophets.

Heavenly Paradises and Heavenly Hells are beyond this Cosmos. Even GOD HIMSELF AND ATTRIBUTE OF AL QURAAN IARE NOT COSMOS. How ever Quran Doeth speak of Nature in General. But what is a nature is an other issue. Iqbalian view of nature is borrowed from Sir Said Ahmad the stanch Naturist and the founder of Sect of Naturism.

Nature of the universe is the collection of the natures of the individual things in the world.

A nature of a thing is either descriptive or prescriptive.

1 If it is descriptive then it is an induction from its normal actions and reactions. A nature of a thing may also be expressed if not defined as the tendency it normally acts and reacts.

But it may be noted that no thing can Act and react independent of ALLAH SUBHAA NAHU WA TA AALA. A THING ACT AND REACT AS ALLAH MAKETH IT TO REACT AND ACT. On t he Contrary if the Nature is prescriptive then each and every act and reaction is prescribed by ALLAH SUB HANAHU WA TA AALA. The PRESCRIPTION CAN NOT EXIST AND CONTINUE TO EXIST INDEPENDENT OF ALLAH. ALLAH IS THE SUSTAINNER AND ESTIBLISHER OF THE PRECRIPTION. LAWS OF NATUE are actually Not the Attributes Of GOD BUT the are ACTS OF GOD. A LAW OF NATURE IS WHAT GOD MAKETH A CLASS OF THINGS TO ACT AND REACT. ANY HOW if laws of Nature are substances and not accidents even then they are Enforced by god.

Even if LAWS ARE NEITHER SUBSTANCES NOR ACCIDENTS EVEN THEN GOD ID THE ONLYB AUTHORITY THAT ENFORCETH EACH AND EVEY LAW. ACH AND EVERY LAW OF NATURE DEPENDENDETH UPON THE DIVINE ESSENCE NOUNLY ALLAH. Independence of a law of Nature from GOD is rationally and intrinsically Impossible rather that just impossible.

THE AUT5HOR SAITH: It there for view Divine Omnipotence as initially related to Divine Wisdom, and finds infinite Power Of GOD reviled not in arbitrary and caparious but in the regular and orderly.

ANSWER TO THE POET. Not Only DIVINE OMNIPTENCE Is Related to Divine Wisdom but Divine Freedom, Divine Freedom Of Will And Divine Freedom all of them are related to Wisdom. That is why Divine Will Doeth not select Possible events randomly and chaotically. IF DIVINE POWER IS NOT REVIELED IN ARBITRARY THEN THERE IS NO SCOPE OF SPONTANEOUS EMERGENCE OF egos and ACTS OF CREATIVITY. IF DIVINE POWER REVIELS IT SELF IN REGULAR AND ORDERLY RECURRENT, THEN WHAT IS THE SCPOE OF SPONTANEOUS EMERGENCE OF EGOS. If Divine Freedom and Divine Will are related to Divine WISDOM then either Freedom of GOD and Will of GOD are lost or none of them is lost.

In the first case the poet as Poet denied Omniscience Of Allah for the sake of Freedom Of Deity and Divine Will he is ultimately forced to deny These freedoms forsake of Wisdom.

IF so then poet should not have denied Omniscience Of ALLAH. Since DIVINE OMNISCIENCE IS INFINITELY MORE ESSENTIAL THEN DIVINE WISDOM.

In the second case as Freedoms mentioned above are not lost if they do pertain to Divine Wisdom the same can be said for the Divine Omniscience as well.

Any how after a long alleged reconstruction Dr Poet finally Accepts Divine Power as Infinite even if it is not a Blind Force , as according to the terminological system of the poet.

It is strange to see that if Divine Omniscience and Divine freedom do pertain each other then Poet considers it is a threat to Divine freedoms and if Divine Wisdom and Divine Power do pertain each other mutually then the Poet does not consider it as a threat to Divine Omnipotence.

Further if Divine freedom does pertain to Divine Wisdom or If DIVINE Wisdom Does Pertain to Divine freedom then results are same as the Divine OMNSCIENCE PERTAINs TO DIVINE FREEDOM AND FREEDOM OF DIVINE WILL OR INVOLUTION. It is purely unacceptable IF any APOGIST OF THE POET claims that Omnipotence is related to Wisdom but Both freedoms are unrelated. The poet is not moving in a circle, he is moving in an ellipse.

We conclude that he believes that the Divine knowledge is not a prerequisite Of Divine acts, but act of knowing is act of knowing id est. it is Identical to the ACT OF KNOWLEDGE. CONCLUSION: The Poet denies Absolute Omniscience for sake of FREEDOMS. But very soon he argues that Divine Power is related to Wisdom and if it Divine POWER IS RELATED TO DIVINE WISDOM then Both of these Freedoms is also related to this WISDOM. If so then Iqbalian Freedom becomes just an illusion since Divine will is now determined by Divine Wisdom and becomes bounded.If Divine Will can not make choices independent of Divine Wisdom then it can be said that Wisdom determine the will and its choices. .

This may be interpreted as :1/) Free Will can not choose against Divine WISDOM .If It Can then Wisdom can be lost. If it Can not then Freedom is lost.

2) Wisdom determines the choices of Free Will. then freedom is lost. How ever if it is claimed that Freedom is not lost then the same can be said in the case of ABSOLUTE OMNISCIENCE as well.

Further if every thing which GOD Does do is caused by His wisdom, If every thing which the Free Will chooses is caused by the Wisdom or even if the Wisdom is an obstacle or a constrain in the number of choices then Divine Will Can not be free but bounded. Freedom of will requires that it Can choose even against Divine Wisdom.

The argument can be presented as follow> Will Of God Is free only If the Will CAN CHOOSE an event which is against Divine Wisdom.

If Divine Will Can Not Choose an Event violating Divine Wisdom then It is not free but bounded.

1 There fore if The Will Can not choose an event which is against Divine Wisdom then divine will is not free.

The same can be said for Divine Goodness as well. If Divine Will Can not Choose an Act which is against Divine Wisdom it is Not free. If it Can then Divine Goodness and Divine Wisdom do not Determine the Divine will and its choices.

Any solution which may be proposed to defend the Poet may be used in favour of Divine Omniscience as well.

With the hope that the Poet might have reverted to the Semitic truth before his death the discussion is closed.

BOOKS.

REFERENCES 1)Nabras By Allamah Bakht Awar 2)Sharah Al Aqaid.

3)SHARAH AL MUWAQQIF 4)KHIALI 5)QUTBI and Sharah Atrtahzib.(TWO BOOKS) 6)Maibizi ( a book on philosophy) 7) HISTORY OF MUTAZILAH. 9) QIBLAH NUMA BY QASIM NANAUTAVI. 10) RECONSTRUCTION OF THOUGHTS IN ISLAM BY Dr Iqbal 10) BOOKS ON SET THEORIES, RFC,MKS ETC.(A numbers of books) 11) Books on Probability 12)ISLAM AND HINDUNISM BY Qasim Nanautavi 13) Hadiah Saeedia By Fadl Haqq Khairabadi.

14)ALJUNNAH LI AHLISUNNAH BY MAULANA ABDUL GHANI Yamini 15) AL ILM WAL MALUM BY MUEENUDDIN AJMAIRI 16) IMTINA AN NAZIR BY FADL HAQQ KHAIRABADI. 17) TAHQIQ AL FATVA BY FDL HAQQ KHAIRABADI.

18) QASIMUL ULUM BY QASIM NANAUTAVI. 19) YAKROZAH (ALSO KNOWN AS YAKROZI SHARIIF) BY ASHSHAH ISMAAIIL SHAHIID. 20) TAHAFATUL FALASIFAH BY IMAM GHAZALI 21) Works of atheists who make objections on Omnipotence and Omniscience Of Divine Existent.

22) KHATIMUL BARAHIIN ( MY OWN UNPUBLISHED BOOK, A REFUTATION OF GHULAM RASUL SAEEDI 23)Books Of Muhammad Asif Avan.

24) Haqq Perkash By Thanaullah Amrithsari 25) QADI MUBARAK NOTES AND MEMORIES: A) For sake of arguments let it be supposed that Created EGOS DO IMPLICATE LIMITATIONS ON SUPREME BEING AND ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE SUPREME BEING THEN : 1)THEY ARE IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD. They are as Impossible and Absurd as A SUPPOSED Stone which can not be lifted by GOD. Since such a stone limits Divine Absoluteness and Absoluteness of Omnipotence It is Impossible , Incontingent and Absurd. In theology a paradox is also included in Impossibilities and Absurdities2)The Ability of Spontaneity which is Substancive and Substantial implier and Essential Implicator to the limitations and finiteness of Divine Essence aand Divine Attributes is Impossible and Absurd in a very similar say the Death Of God is Impossible and Absurd.

AN NAQSU ALALLAHI MUHAL BIZZAAT. 2) If these IQBALIAN EGOS are uncreated and unmade then they are Eternal and this contradicteth they Emerge with theb Ability of Spontaneity. 3) If they are Eternal then these Egos are nothing but the Eternal Spirits Of Arya Samajis.

It must be noted that the founder of ARYA Samaj Pandit Dianand Sarsuti made an Objection On Quran and Islam that they believe in the ABSOLUTE POWER AND OMNISPOTENCE OF ALLAH, BUT GOD CAN NOT BE OMNIPOTENT AND CANNOT BE ABSOLUTE POWERFUL, AND DIVINE POWER CAN NEITHER BE OMNIPOTENCE NOR ABSOLUTE SINCE GOD CAN NOT DO THE ACRT OF STEALING CANOT ROB, Can not do sextual activies etc..

He was s responded that GOD HATH POWER OVER POSSIBILITIES AND NOT UPON NECESSASARIES AND ABSUDITIES. THEIR EXCLUSION DOES NOT LIMIT THE ABSOLUTE POWER AND OMNIPOTENCE. {See Islam And Hindunism}.

SINCE THE WORD QUDRAH BY THE VERY DEFINATION EXCLUDES THEM. BUT THE POET CHANGED THE MEANING OF THE WORD OMNIPOTENCE. DIANAND WAS FAR MORE EXPLICIT THEN THE POET.

1 Mutazilites,Naturists,Denouncers Of Hadith all denied The Omnipotence Of ALLAH SUBHANAHU WA TA AALA. Sir SAIYAD was one of the greatest denouncer Of Divine Power in Indian Subcontinet.

But none of them had the courage to say GOD is Not Omnipotent explicitly. But Dianand had this courage .In Hindunism there are two extremes. One of the Hindu sects believe that GOD HATH POWER to incarnate , to appear in Super Animal forms,Super Human Forms,Animal Forms, Male and Female Human Forms , Forming Hypostatic and Divine Unions. They Also believe that God Has Power to make Demigods, gods, and goddesses as well.

But on the contrary another sect of Hindunism which is known as ARYA SAMAJ limits the Power Of GOD. This sect believe that GOD Does Not Have Power to forgive Sins and Transgressions.According to Arya Samaj Islamic Concept of Heavenly Paradise is Impossible.They also believe that It is out of the POWER Of GOD to Make any thing from Nothingness .

GOD Can Not Do any thing which is beyond the laws of Nature.

B) CRITICISM: Keep it in mind and recall it that: If these egos are creation of God then according to Islamic and Semitic believes Creations and Creatures can not limit the ONLY CREATOR, Who is the GOD IF ISLAM IN PARTICULAR AND GOD OF SEMITIC RELIGIONS IN GENERAL.. SIMILARLY NO CREATED EXISTENT CAN LIMIT DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF DIVINE ESSENCE THAT IS THE DEITY HIMSELF. Actually it is a Janic argument against Supreme Absolute Being , that if there is a Supreme Being then His Creations must Limit Him and His Attributes. NAUZU BILLAH. C) A SEMETIC CONSTINTUTION MEANS THE COMMON ARTICLES OF FAITH OF JUDAISM , CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM. D) In Arabic the word MUMKIN is used to represent A Possible and A Contingent. So Arabic requires an explanation but in English there are two words possible and contingent. So one may define each term some what more clearly making use of both terms. In Arabic the word JAIZ is also present but this word may cause some confusions , that is why Contingent is a very useful word when one compare the contingent and the term possible in the stated above meanings.

E) Iqbalian GOD IS NOT A GOD OF ISLAM, NOT IN THE LEAST SENSE OR LEAST MEANING OF THE TERM. How ever this god may be of some interest to those who are inspired by Cantor theorem and the statement N mentioned above.

~’;.//

Ͼ