BIS MILLA HIR RAHMAA NIR RAHIIM

ARGUMENTS OF DENOUNCERS OFOMNIPOTENCE OF ALL-H AND POSSIBILITY OF FALSE ST

ATEMENTS.
A number of Deniuncers often challenge Ahlussunnah wal jamaah to debate on the i
ssue.
AhlulHadith who have inclined towords SALAFITES do not discuss this Probem consi
dering it to be a Problem of ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES.
AHLUSSUNNAH OF DEOBAND now a days are not indulged in the DIALECTICAL AND THEOLO
GICAL studies,debates and discussions considering it as some thing of PAST,negle
cting 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 d
o not know how to responce in theological
questions.
Even on Internet almost all the denouncers of Ominipotence of G-D and Possibilit
i 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 PER
SON.
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 THRO
UGH 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 A
N 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 ESSENT
IAL 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,EXTE
RNAL ANF FORIGN TO THEM.
They are included in ACTIVE ATRRIBUTES/QUALITIES OR IN RELATIVE QUALITIES/ATTRIB
UTES OF G--D.
ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES BELIEVE THAT KALAAM AN NAFASI (SPEACH OF SELF/DIVINE M
EANING)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 M
ajorityOf Believers In The Self Possibility DO, But they constitute a Minority i
n 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 Ahlu
ssunnah) Who are in Minority In Ahlussunnah Wal Jamaah do not make Any Distincti
on B/W THE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES and ACTIVE ATTRIBUTES OF THE SELF NECESSORY EXIS
TENT 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 OMN
IPOTENCE 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 T
HAT IS G--D INVENTS THEMFROM NOTHINGNEESS AND NONEXISTENCE.BUT They ARE CONNECTE
D TO KALAAM AN NAFSI
WITH A TEMPORAL CONNECTION, SO IT IS NOT JUST CREATON BUT THE DIVINE ACT/DOING O
F SPEAKING.
Keeping all these things in mind now we present the Bsic Arguments of the Denoun
cers Of Self Possibility /Self Contigency
Of Falsehood in A Divine Staement.
IN THIS ARTICLE SOME OF THE BASIC / FUNDAMENTAL ARGUMENTS INSUPORR OF IMTINAA' A
L 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 SEC
T.
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 Imtinaâ 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 GIV
EN 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 ESSENC
E,LOGICALLY ABSURD,INTRINSICALLY ABSURD,MATHEMATICALLY ABSURD) UPON THE DIVINE S
UPPOSITUN 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 ART
ICLE OF FAITH THAT ALL IMPERFECTIONS AND DEFECTS ARE MUHAAL BIDH DHAAT /SELF ABS
URD 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 TH
EN 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 Sepe
rate From G--D and Not Eternal,;is
SELF ABSURD as Well As It Is Self Absurd Upon The Divine Essence And Divine Esse
ntial 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 SE
LF POSSIBLE.
In the first two cases it is just to shift the dispute to disputes of more funda
mental nature.
Dispute of this type is a critical dispute in the sense there are morefundamenta
l 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 Q
uotations 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 Majorit
y is either Asharite or Maturidite or both.
This also depend upon a More Basic dispute. See the Refutation of the First Argu
ment.
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 H
IS DIVINE SELF.
Refutation:
All these Act and Attributes are Defects and All defencts Are Self Absurd Upon D
ivine 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 D
EFECTS 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 ATTRIBU
TE BUT DEFECTS AND ERRORS.The generalised laws stated above are INCORRECT,INVALI
D,FALSE,ERROROUS,WRONG and INACCORATE.There is not a single book by any authenti
c believer in the STATED ABOVE SELF POSSIBILITY WHICH EXPLICITLY STATES THEM.ATM
OST IT IS JUST AN ATTEPT TO GENERALIZE AN ARGUMENT ,AND THIS GENERALIZATION IS W
RONG.
ARGUMENT#4
IF GOD HAS POWER TO MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT HE MUST HAVE POWER TO ASSUME THE FALS
E 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 DI
VINE 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) DEC
LAIRING falsehood as ABSURD.AND UOUT OF THE DIVINE OMNOIPOTENCE.
The Former misunderstood the latter who never claim for the POSSIBILITY OF FALSE
HOOD.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 n
ot beleive in POSSIBILITY OF FALSEHOOT. The case is topsytervy.
Muhaqqiq is misunderstood by the denouncers. Anumber of explanations can be give
n for his expressions.
Descending from this for sake of an argument it is accepted that Muhaqqiq disput
ed from Imam,then the whole dispute reduces to an internal dispute of ASHA'IAH a
nd 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 ST
ATEMENTS is SELF IMPLIED.
This Self Possibilty Self Implies The Self Possibility Of Falsehood In The State
ments.
But there are two objections:
a)As It Is SUPPOSED TO BE SELF POSSIBLE then It must be ABSURD BY SEPERATE / ONT
OLOGICAL ABSURD /RELATIVE ABSURD.BUT there can be nothing which can prove that t
hey 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 KA
LAAM 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 TH
E 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 O
f 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 NA
ZAR 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 Divi
ne OMNIPOTENCE.
Note THAT for CERTAIN Reasons the quotations is not given directly from Book Y
akrozi/YAKROZAH.
The Auther of Subhaan As Subbuuh has Quoted that Maulvi GHULAM DASTAGIR, THEA UT
HER OF TAQDIIS AL WAKIIL, had Attempted to Refute THE POSSIBILITY FROM THE IMPLI
CATION 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 q
uoted 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 ABS
UDITY IN DIVINE OMNISCIENCE.
This is SUFFICIENT EVEN ON THE STANDDERD AUTHER os Subhaan As Subbuuh.NOTE: OTHE
R 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 PARTICU
LAR,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 OMNI
POTENT 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 th
em other wise,but an analysis of the proves that they prove This Self Possibilit
y.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 UNDISPUTEDL
Y SELF AQBSURD.
ARGUMENT#10:
Maturidiates even believe that ant thing which implies falsehood is Intellectual
lu Absurd.
Like Punishment of an Innocent Person or an Infallabe Person,And is not on the D
IVINE 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/POLYTH
IESM.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 a
bu Hanifah R.H never said such a thing nor Did Imam Maturidi R.H said such a th
ing.
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 diffe
rence of two type of implications stated above.One can Shew a number of places w
here 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. B
UT TO HAVE POWER UPON
THE DEFECT OF SEPARATE IS NO DEFECT, RAITHER IT IS A PERFECTION AND DEFECTLESSNE
SS.
G-D HAS POWER UPON THE HUMAN DEFECTS DOES IT MEAN G-D IS IMPERFECT .THE ANSWER I
S IN NEGATIVE BEYOND DOUBT.
ARGUMENT#12:
IF Falsehood is possible then this Implies AL QURAAN IS A CREATION OF G-D, AND T
HIS 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 Kalaa
m 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 O
F BARAILI.
I have tried to give the most famous argument. In the next ARTICLES MORE ARGUMEN
TS 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 delebera
te, 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 condi
tion of word and speach to bein accordence to moral and logical standers.