THE PROBLEM OF DEFINATION

The Term Naz:i:r must not be defined as some thing Self Contradictory.
So it must exclude the attribues which contradicts the Non Exitence of the
Naz:ir .
The basis objection on the posibility of Naz:ir: [say B] of any thing that is first
of all of certain kind or of all things is that either a is the first or b is the first
but not both.
One that is not the first is not the Naz:ir of the one that is the first.
But such Attributes are excluded as a Necessary Exception.
For examble in the term Mumtan-"un Naz:i:r , Ma"du:mun Naz:i:r and "Adi:m
An Nazi:r the "Adam and 'Imtina:" are excluded as a Necessary Exception.
Since if not then any existing thing which is Mumtana" An Nazir or "Adi:mun
Naz:i:r or Ma"du:m 'AnNaz:i:r becomes Non Existence.
That is the flaw and the fallacy. Similarly such Attributes that negates the Self
Posibility and Existence of Naz:i:r are Self Excluded as a Necessary Exception
from the Defination of the Term Naz:i:r.
An other thing is that of the Naz:ir of a thing Exists then neither the thing is
first of all nor its Naz:i:r is the first of all but both of the two are Firsts of all.
The conversion from Only First of All to the Not Only first of all is possible.
If any thing is first of all then this means its naz;i: does not exist not that its
Naz:ir is impossible [i.e IT MEANETH NOT THAT IT IS SELF ABSURD].
So if its Naz:i:r Existeth then it ceases to be "first of all".
The only thing that is impossible [Self Absurd] is that a thing exixts and its
Nazir also exixsts yet it is still First of all. But this Self Absurdity doeth not
prove the Self Absurdity of Naz:i:r.
So by defination a Existing Self Possible "First of all" is a thing whose Naz:i:r is
Self Possible yet it doeth not exist and not that is is Impossible [Self Absurd]
and doeth not exist. Since Nazi:r of an Self Possible Individual [Non Eternal] is
possible.
So if Nazi:r of a thing if it exists implieth a falsehood of the
statement/sentence which stateth or Implieth that its Nazi:r does not exist.
This falshood is Possible and not impossible.
Since if the statement/Sentence remains true yet its Naz:ir is supposed to be

existeth then the problem of self contradition of the statement emerges.

So a self contradiction of the statement/senteences is implied since it is
implied that its nazir existeth and does not existeth.
So the First of all Existing Self Possible Individual is one whose Whose Naz:i:r
is Self Possible and Doeth Not Exist , and not that its Naz:ir is Self Impossible
or Self Absurd.
So under the definations of the term First of All and Naz:ir , the Naz:ir of an
Existing Self Possible First of all is Self Possible and Doeth not Exist, not that
it is Self Aburd and doeth not Exist.
So any sentence which says that a thing is self Possible Yet its Nazi:r does not
exist is falsified if the Nazi:ir of the thing existeth.
The only thing that is impossible is that the sentence is true yet the Nazi:r of
the thing existeth.
Since it is no thing but that the sentence is true and false simultanously. This
does not imply the self Absudity of the Nazi:ir.
THE BEGINNING OF THE PROBLEM
Khairabadi school of thought began to deny the Self Possibility of Naz:i:r be
giving it a defination with out making an agreement on the defination with
their opponents.
On the contrary True Ahlussunnah thought that Khairabadis School of
Thought is using the term in a defination in which they themselve use.
How ever after a long series of debates it was recognised that they differ on
the definations of a term. When this was identified the dispute was
immediately reduced to a verbal dispute.
Khairabadi Defination:
According to Khairabadi school of thought THE TERM MAY BE DEFINE AS
FOLLOW:
If two or more things are equal in all Attributes then each one of them is a
Naz:i:r of the them rest, and togather they are Naz:a:'ir.
[Naz:i:r ;pl Naz:a:'ir]
Defination Of Naz:i:r by Pure 'Ahlussunnah
If two or more Individuals are equal in those Attributes which do not
contradict their equality and Plurality then each one of them is the Naz:i:r of

the other and togather they are Naz:a:'ir .

So if Naz:i:r of a given individual is Self Absurd then its Self Absurdity is not
Self Implied by the very defination of the term.
THE FLAW IN THE KHAIRABADI DEFINATION.
If Kh:airabadi defination is accepted then Naz:i:r of each and every thing
whether it be Self Necessary or Self Possible or Self Absurd is Self Absurd.
But this is certainly not the case.
So if a Self Possible Existing Individual is First of All of a certain kind or of all
kinds then Its Naz:i:r is not Self Absurd but it simply existeth Not.
Being first of All implies that Its Naz:i:r doeth not exist not that its Naz:ir is
Self Absurd.
If the Existing thing [Individual] is [Non Eternal] Self Possible then its Naz:i:r is
Self Possible and Doeth Not Exist.
In an other sentence it may be stated as follow:=
If the Existing thing [Individual] is [Non Eternal] Self Possible then its Naz:i:r is
Self Possible and Absurd With Seperate.

If the Naz:i:r of an Existing Self Possible Individual Existeth then it is not the
"first of all".
Also it may be re sentenced as follow:=
If the Naz:i:r of an Existing Self Possible Individual Existeth then it is not the
"Mumt-na" 'An Naz:i:t Bil Ghair" [One whose Naz:i:r is Absurd With Seperate].

Since First of all meaneth first of all existing things either of all kind or of a
single kind. It doeth not mean First of All Self Possible individuals since to
each and every self Possible individial there is a self Possible Individual Prior
to It.
If The Creater Createth or Chooseth any Self Possible Individual then He
Doeth not Createth infinite Self Possible Individual that are prior to it, and
Doeth leave them unchosed.
It hath been discussed in the first part of the discussion.

Similarly one can say about "Last of All", Second Of All, Third Of All, Forth Of
All and so On .
For students we have left the discussion for "Last of All" etc. as an excercise.
Any how one may define the First Of All as an existing Individual such that:
1] there is no thing prior to it.
2] There is nothing that is neither Prior to It nor "Neither Prior to it not
posterior to it.
3] Its Naz:i:r doeth not exist.
It may be noted that 3 is a corollary of 2.
The term First Of All neither imply that it is Self Absurd that any thing is prior
to it nor Imply ....etc.
If it is implied it is implied from the individuals like Divine Essence and Divine
Essential Attributes.
In case of a Self Possible [Non Eternal ] Individual Self Possibility is accepted.
So if a Non Eternal Existing Self Possible Existeth as First of All then any Self
Possible Prior to it simply doeth not exist not that it is Self Absurd. Similarly
Any Individual that is neither Posterior to It Nor Prior to it also doeth not exist.
Additionally Its Naz:ir doeth not exist.
So this term only imply that its naz:i:r is Absurd with Seperate and Not Self
Absurd.
The defination of "First Of All Existing Self Possible" means a Self Possible
That Existeth , no Self Possible that is Prior to It doeth not Exist, no Self
POSSIBLE that is Neither Prior to It Nor Posterior to It Existeth , and no Self
Possible Naz:i:r of it Existeth.
In this defination it doeth mean that:= To say that First Of All Existing Self
Possible [Non Eternal] Individual and its Naz:i:r both Existeth means nothing
but :=
A THING WHOSE NAZ:I:R IS ABSURD WITH SEPERATE AND ITS NAZ:I:R BOTH
EXISTETH.
This implieth that a Thing is Absurd with Seperate Yet not Absurd With
Seperate.
In more technical sentence and words it is nothing but to say :=

A thing that is Mumt-na" 'An Naz:i:r Bil Ghair and Its Naz:i:r both Existeth
simulteneously.
This is Self Absurd in the very same meaning that a thing Existeth and
Existeth not Simultaneously. Such a Self Absurdity can not prove that the Self
of the Individual is Self Possible.
Similarly it is SELF ABSURD THAT THE WORLD EXISTETH AND EXISTETH NOT
SIMULTANEOUSLY. BUT THIS DOETH NOT PROVE THAT THE WORLD IS SELF
ABSURD.
END OF PART TWO:-