part03.refutation of ilm ma kana va yakun

7/29/2019 Part03.REFUTATION OF ILM MA KANA VA YAKUN

1/5

SUMMERY OF ARGUMENTS AND ARGUMENTATIONS.

The Argumentations and arguments stated by the Author Of -bna

AlMustafaconsists of the following preliminaries.

1]TABYAN/ TABIAN ,TAFSIL and ADAM TAFRIT are the ATTRIBUTES OF QURAAN.

2] These Attributes are connected and are related to each and every Existing

Thing/Existent.

3] The Bestowed Knowledge Encircumferenceth each one of the stated Attribute

Of QURAAN Stated Above

4]This IMPLIETH THAT the Bestowed Knowledge [Of Holy Essence (DHAAT) Of

Holy Prophet S.A.V.S] each and every thing to which these Attributes are

connected, related and Pertain to.5]This implieth that the Bestowed Knowledge

circumferenceth the Heavenly Conserved [MAHFUUZ]Tablet and the informations

written on the Tablet[ or recorded in the memory of the Tablet.]

Since they are existing things.

5]This Implieth that the Bestowed Knowledge circumferenceth all the things

which were created in the Past ,Which are created in Present and which shall be

created in future from the beginning of the Cosmos to the very end of the

Cosmos, each and every event which has occurred in the Past, which is occurring

in Present and which Shall occur in future from the very Beginning of the

Universe/Multiverse to the very end of the Universe/Multiverse.

Since All Of them are written On the Tablet [Recorded on in the memory of the

table]

6]This implieth that the created essence which does posses this Bestowed

Knowledge does know all these things and events stated above from the very

beginning of the universe [Multiverse] to the very end of it

This is a bounded omniscience.

7]The author used the following verses to shew all these thing are written

on the Tablet.

1] AL AN AAM 59

2]ALQAMAR 51

3]YA SIIN 12

8] Using these preliminaries the said author attempted to negate the

verses

AN NISA 164 and ATTAUBAH [BARA T] 101.


2/5

How ever he did not confess that he negates each one of them. In Real

what he attempts to Prove by all his arguments and argumentations do

negate these two verses.

COPMMENTS AND REMARKS.

I some one claims that he can prove this belief form these three verses

then he must have to choose at least one of the following statements as

article of belief of his sect/cult what so ever.

A] AN ATTRIBUTE OF ETERNAL CAN BE BESTOWED.

B] ACTS OF DEITY ARE BESTOWED.

C] A BESTOWED ATTRIBUTE [ OR SOME BESTOWED ATTRIBUTES] CAN

CIRCUMHERENCE A NON BESTOWED ATTRIBUTE [OF DEITY].

D]AN NON ETERNAL ATTRIBUTE OR NON ETERNAL ACT OF ETERNAL IS

BESTOWED.

E]AL KALAM AL LAFZIYV IS ATAAI [BESTOWED].

F]AN ETERNAL CAN BE ATAAI.

G]WHEN DEITY CREATETH A THING HE BESTOWETH THE THING TO HIS

DIVINE SELF. [NA UDHUBILLAQH]

H]ACTS OF CREATED SUPPOSITA ARE THE ACTS OFN DEITY.

I] TO CREATE AN ACT IS TO DO THE ACT IN THE GERAMMATICAL

INFINITIVE SENSE. EG TO CREAT THE ACT OF STEALING OF A RATIONAL

SUPPOSITUM IS TO STEAL HIMSELF BY THE UNCREATED CREATER OF

THE ACT [NA UDHUBILLAQH].

NOTE THAT IF SOME ONE REFUSES TO ACCEPT ANY ONE OF THEMACTUALLY CONTRADICTS IMSELF SOME WHERE IT IS ARGUMENTATIONS

AND ARGUMENTS EITHER IN INTIAL STEPS OR IN MIDVIAL STEPS OR IN

FINAL STEPS OR ELSE.

[ALL THESE STATEMENT ARE NOT NECESSARY INDEPENDENT OF EACH

OTHER]

ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENTS AND ARGUMENTATIONS IN THE SO CALLED

PROOF

The form of the argument in the alleged proof is as follow#


3/5

A implieth B

B Implieth C

C implieth D

D implieth E

And E is the desired belief

Q.E.D

If it is shewn that A Doeth Not Imply B , then all the alleged proof falls

down and declines.There is a series of implications among the

occurrances of different events and things./

If it is shewn that any one of them can not occur or is intrinsically Absurd

to occur ,the entire proof becomes wrong, incorrect, invalid and unsound.

To attack this form of proof it is sufficient to shew that any one of a,b,c,d

doeth not imply the the next consecutive one /statement..

Logicians do agree that if Active Participle of L-zuum [Lazim] is

Rationally/Intrinsically absurd[1]then the massive participle Malzuum is

either Intrinsically /Rationally Possible or Intrinsically/Rationally Absurd

depending upon the kind,type,nature,intrinsic properties,charecterstics,of

the IMPLICATION[ L-ZUUM].

Logicians are how ever divided what if MALZUUM is

Rationally/Intrinsically Absurd .Some holds the opinion that if Malzuum is

Intrinsically Absurd then Lazim is either Intrinsically absurd/Rationally

Absurd or Intrinsically /Rationally Possible depending upon the

Nature,Type etc of Implication as stated in the former case stated

immediately above.

Some hold the view that If MALZUM is Intrinsically Absurd then Lazim is

Intrinsically absurd.

Some do go in minute detains. A majority of Excogitators

[Muhaqqiqin/Researchers in logic/M-NAT-QAH] believe that Intrinsic

Implication is either between an Intrinsic Absurds or between Intrinsic

Possibles.But Extrinsic Implication may be between an INTRINSIC

ABSURD AND INTRINSIC POSSIBLE.


4/5

In any case all agree that it is Rationally/Intrinsically Absurd that there is

an Implication between OCCURANCIALLY POSSIBLE[CONTINGENT] and

Intrinsically/ ABDURD irrespective and regardless of LAZIM or Malzum [2].

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

FOOT NOTES.

[1] In general Rationally Absurd and Intrinsic Absurd are used as

alternative terms ,yet some do make some distinction between these two

terms. A CONTRADICTION is an Intrinsic Absurd.Some may use the term

Logical Absurd for an Intrinsic ABSURD. AS FOR WE, We consider

ANNHILIATION OF DIVINE ESSENCE ,INCARNATION OF DEITY in animal or

human Natures and forms as Intrinsically and logically ABSURD. A

number of theologians use the word Rationally absurds even for those

Intrinsic Possibles which Imply antrinsic Absurd and there are some

rational arguments on the Implication.It must be noted that this type of

implication s Extrinsic but Rational id est there are some Rational Proofs

on the Extrinsic Implication. How ever in this work both terms i.e

Intrinsically Absurd and Rationally Absurd are used as alternatives unless

and other wise stated explicitly.

It may be noted that if some thing externally implies a Contradiction then

it may not be an Intrinsic Absurd.But if some thing implieth a

Contradiction Intrinsically it is Certainly Intrinsically Absurd.

It must be noted that an intrinsically absurd is also logically absurd.So

death of Deity is logically absurd since DEITY IS INTRINSICALLY AND

LOGICALLY NECESSARY. There is a saying of a great logician of India that

logic begans with the Necessity of Divine Essence.

[2] If A implies B then Bis Lazim Of A.Active and Passive participles are

according to ARABIC LANGUAGE.The word ISTALZAM is however more

close to modern logicians then the words L-ZUUM,LAZIM OR MALZUM.

A number of Logicians opine that Malzum cannot be with out Lazim but

Lazim can be with out Malzuum. That is if A implies B IT MAY BE THE

CASE

THAT B may be implied by some thing else say C.


5/5

If A implies B and if B is false then A is False but if B is intrinsically

ABSURD THEN IT IS NOT NECESSAY THAT A IS INTRINSICALLY ABSURD./

Thus if A occureth then B occureth and B doeth Not Occur that provreth

Adoeth not occur.

But If A occureth then B occureth and Bis Intrinsically Absurd , it Doeth

not prove that A is Intrinsically Absurd.

A definition of L-zuum may give a more clear idea but not necessary the

only definition.

If the meaning of A word coined for it can not be with out an Eternal thing

then it is an Implication.

part03.refutation of ilm ma kana va yakun

Documents