You are on page 1of 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.

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 THEM ACTUALLY 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#

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.

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.

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.

You might also like