BIS MIL LA: HIR RAH: MA: NIR RA H:I:M @@@@@@@@@@@REFUTATION OF REFUTATION #2@@@@@@@@@@@@ One of the most reapeated argument against the Self Possibility of Falsehood /falsity of Divne Statemtent is as follow: The Self Possibility of Falsehood /Falsity Of Divine Statements Implies the Creavity Of Divine Speach which is at beast a hericy and at worst an infidelity. ''' 'ALL-H'S KALA:M Is An Attribute that 'aLL-H Must be Attributed With,Not a Posibility or Impossibility.[1] So if you are saying that His Kala:m is a Possibility ,and that is also Impossible. In other word telling a lie can not be with out a begining or an end., because it needs specification. Aspeach telling a lie is a creation and 'ALL-H'S KALA:M IS NOT CREATED.. So a person who sayes 'ALL-H Lies Is Saying That 'ALL-H''S KALA:M IS Created Which Is An Other Kufr.'' A number of relatively less extremists who have realised that the Denouncers Of Self Absurdity Of Falsehood /Falsity do believe in the Absurdity With Seperate /Absurdity By Seperare, have slightly modified THE GIVEN ARGUMENT as follow: One who sayes G-D Can Lie Is Saying That G-D 'S KALA:M [SPEECH] Can Be Created. This Is 'I''TIZA:"L. A Hericy which is not beyond the doubt of Kufr. These arguments are ofen presented against the Real 'Ash''Arites and Maturidites by Unreal 'Asharites and Unreal Maturidites. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ SOURCE OF THESE ARGUMENTS@@@@@@@@@@@@@ This one of the most repeated argument is found in various forms,and in all of its varient forms the Substance and the Essence of the Argument is Conserved.The source of these argument is Subh:a:n 'AsubbuUh:., a work which is generally used by all the denouncers of Self Possibility of Falsehood of latter period who generally follow the auther of the stated above Book. A number of denouncers of Self Possibility have attemted to simplify the arguments of the stated above book ,and have simplified it to some extent, but in this attrept the have distorted the orinal argument.This proves the superiority of the above strated author over the latter denouncers of The Self Possibility of Falsehood /Falsity. The argument of Subh:a:n 'Assubbu:h: are more comprehensive and more complete then the borrowed forms of the latter devients . The above stated book says: '' Ccorging 40:I say.......' When the divine Truth is Intentional, And Qur'a:n The Great is Certaintly His True Speech,then It is Necessory that Noble [Glorious] Qur'a:n is not an Indespensible Implication [M-Q-T-D: A: -e-DHA:T] OF ESSENCE OF 'ALLAH, THE SUPREME [TA'A:LA:],other wise Qur'a:n would be Implication [LA:ZIM] OF [DIVINE] ESSENCE and Truth, (an) Implication [LA:ZIM] of Qur'a:n,and Implication of Implication (is) Implication [LA:ZIM -e-LA:ZIM LA:ZIM] AND INTENTIALITY OF IMPLICATION IS EVIDENTLY WRONG BA:TIL}. An with the 'IJMA:'' [ Consensus ] OF MUSLIMS every thing that is other than [Divine] Essence and Indispensible Implications [M-Q-T-D: A: -e-DHA:T] of [Divine] ESSENCE is Temporal and Creation [Creature] .So with the proof of Certainity, it is affirmed [THA:BIT] THAT to believe in the [Dogma of ] Creativity Of Qur'a:n is Implied. page241 Subh:a:n 'Assubbu:h: Vol-6 'Amjadiah. [La:zim is one that is Implied ,or an implied Attribute, Indespesible]. Subh:a:n 'assubbu:h: also says: [He] Explitly says that the Falsehood /Falsity is in [Divine] Omnipotence [M-Q-DU:R] and no doubt Inness of Falsehood / Falsity in Omnipotence Implies [MUSTALZIM] Inness of Truth Omnopotence [MAQDU:TIAT-e-SIDQ] ,AS WE HAVE INDICATED [DALALNA:], it is in the 16 th proof [Sa:dis wal ''-shri:n] page 251[above stated book]. In the SCHALION 1 OF SUBH:A:N 'ASSUBBU:H: The author of this work further adds:
''I say Reason of Bi implication [Mula:zimah /Mula:zilat] is evident that [is] Every Creation [is] Temporal,and Qur'a:n is the LA:ZIM [implied Attribute] Of the [DIVINE] ESSENCE,and Temporality of Lazim Implies THE tEMPORALITY Of Mustalzim [one that implies] ( H-DU:TH E LAZIM H-DU:TH E MUSTALZIM KO MUSTALZIM], and each Temporal is a Creation then to believe in Creation of [Divine] Attribute implies to believein the Creaion of [Divine] Essence,May people of Najdiah contempolate this bad implication [may G-D FORBID], THE CREATION OF [Divine] Essence.[see page 242 subh:a:n 'Assubbu:h:,Fatawa: Rizviah amjadiah ] For ultimate refutation of this objection one must upgrade this objection to its maximam limits. Below the upgraded form is presented and this upgradation is done by the auther of the present article. ''If Falsity / Falsehood of the Divine Statement [Speech] is Intrinsically /Rationally Possible then the Possibility of Creation of Falsehood /Falsity is Implies,and this Implies the Possibility of Annhiliation of Truth of Divine Speech /Statement,,and this implies the Possibility of Annhiliation of the very Divine Speech /Statemenmt, which implies the Possibility Of Annihiation of Divine Essence.As Gid is The Divine Essence ,this implies the Possibility Of Annhiliation of Very G-D Himself. As G-D Exists and Possibility of Annhiliation Of G-D is implied,it is also implied that G-D is a Creation.'' In brief ''The Possibility Of Falsehood /Falsity Of Divine Statement / Speech Ultimately Implies the Creation Of G-D'' This is the maximam limit of the Objection, A number of Denouncers Of Self Possibility immediately begen to shift from Argument to Fatawas declairing one who beliece that the Divine Attributes are Created is at worst a Kafir and at best Out of the folds od AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMA'AH AFTER GIVING THEIR ARGUMENT of implication of creativity of Divine Attribute of Speach /Statement. Refutaton of Argument. This argument can be refuted on several levels and in each level their may be some sub levels. Acomplete and comprehensive discussion is requird, insted of just shewing some implications and then quoting some Fatawas / verdicts , as often seen in such works which attempt to refute the Self Possibility of Falsehood /Falsity. Original Position: The original Position to refute such arguments is as fallow: There are two types of Divine Speech. a] Kala:m 'An Nafsi: [ Speech Of Self] b] Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: [speech of words]. The first stated Speech Is Eternal and Uncreated.The second stated Speech is Temporal and hence Created. Althogh it is not advised to use the word Created for it unless and otherwise it becomes necessory in discussions. Those who believe in the temporality of Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: also believe that Truth of Statements of Kala:m 'AlLafz:i: is also Temporal.The Truth of Statements of Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: is an effect of Truth Of Some Divine Attribute say Truth Of Kala:m 'An Nafsi:. A Divine Attribute is one that is Ascribed to Divine Essence and no thing but that Essence.It is clear that the Majority of Ahlusnnah Wal Jama'ah BELIEVE THAT Kala:m An Nafsi: is Eternal and Uncreated and KalaLm Al Lafz:i: is temporal.All those Generations of Asharites and Maturidites can not be declaired as Kafir of Bid'ati ,or Mu't-zilite minded people. If Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: is temporal then Truth of Kala:m 'Allafz:iI is also Temporal,since an Attribute that is Ascribed to a Temporal Existent can not be Eternal,since An Eternal Attribute of a Temporal Existent is Undisputedly Self Absurd. To whom It May Conern A number of denouncers of the Self ABSUDUTY WHO often repeatthe one of the most repeated argumentoid that is:''One who believe in the creation of any one of the Divine Attribute is at worst a Kafir and at best out of the folds of Ahlussunnah Wal Jama''ah'' face a very problematic question. The question is as follows: Is Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: A Divine Attribute? If they do consider Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: as a Divine Attribute then it is Necessory upon there their
Fatwa: /Verdict That all those Generations of Asharites and Maturidites are one of the following:a]Kafir b] Arch heritic and out of the folds of Ahlussunnah like Mu'tazilah , Jahmiah . It is very clear that if they declair all those GENERATIONS of Ahlussunnah Wal Jama''ah as Kafir or out of the folds of Sunnism then they themselves are not Sunnis.[May G-D FORBID]. If they neither declair them as Kafir nor declair them out of the folds of Sunnism then the themselves violate the very argument which they often recite against the true present Generations of Asharites and Maturidites. If they do not consider Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: as a Divine Atrribute thenthey can not force any one to believe that the Truth of Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: is a Divine Attribute. ANTICIPATING THIS POWERFUL RESPONCE SOME OF THE elders of Denouncers of Self Possibility begain to argue in support of Self Aburdity of Falsehood ./ Falsity of Kala:m 'Al Lafzi: even if IT Is Supposed to be Temporal. As the refutations of such alleged arguments [argumentoids] are beyond the scope of this present atricle and shall be responced in Refutation Of Refutation # 06 they are not discussed in Refutation Of Refutation # 02. The scope of this article however includes The Refutation of the alligation that '' To believe that GD has Omnipotence over Falsehood / Falsity of Divine Statements is to believe that some of Divine Attributes are Created' in general and to believe the Creation Of Divine Speech in Particular'' . As these Denouncers of Self Possibility give Fata:va: of infedelity or heterodoxy to all those Sunni:s who believe in the Self Possibility of Falsehood / Falsity ,which they have got no right; they in haste use the principle ''To declair any Divine Attribute as Creation Is Kufr or Bid'ah''. But when they are questioned. '' If so then all those Generations of ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES who believe in the Temporality of Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: becomes Non Sunnis'' they could not provide a unique answer. If they confess that all those Generatipons of Asharites and Maturidites who believe in the Temporality of Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: are Sunnis and belong to 'Ahlussunnah Wal Jama''ah then one may ask the following questions: 1]If the belief in theTemporality of Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: does not exclude a person from Being a Sunni thenthe belief in the Temporality of Truth Of Temporal Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: can not exclude a person from the folds of Ahlussunnah Wal Jama''ah. 2]If the belief in theTemporality of Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: does not exclude a person from Being a Muslim then the belief in the Temporality of Truth Of Temporal Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: can not exclude a person from the folds of Isla:m @@@ Different Believes Of Denouncers Of Self Possibility Of Falsehood / Falsity in Divine Statements@@@. The denouncers of Self Absurdity has found the belief of Temporality of Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: very problematic there fore they began to denounce its Temporality. They were divided in to two groups. a] Those who denied the Distinction [T-F-R-Q-H] b/w Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: and Kala:m 'An Nafsi:. SEE MALFUZ:A:T. Comment: Althouth some have denied the above stated distinction but the above stated author have denied for the reason to denounce the Self Possibility Of Falsehood / Falsity of Statements of Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i:. b] Those who have believed that Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: and Lala:m 'An Nafsi: Both are Eternal and truely distinct from each other. In either case Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: is believed to be Eternal and a Divine Attribute. It becomes necessory to shew that even on these standerds it is in correct to believe in the Self Absurdity Of Falsehood /Falseity., First:If Kala:m 'An Nafsi: and Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: both are Supposed to be Eternal then they become Infinitely Similar to each other and their Similarity becomes infinite and Absolute such that no sort of distinction remains b/w them apart from two different nouns of Identicaly similar Dictinct Attributes.This is tentamount to believe in two Kala:m 'An Nafsi: or Two Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i:. So it becomes necessory to replace them by a Single Speech with two different nouns
Second:In either case Kala:m 'AL Lafz:i: becomes Eternal. Discussion:If Kala:m 'Al Lafz:iI is Supposed to be Eternal, and It is Assumed to be True then the Eternal Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: reduces to a Statemnt [KH-B-R] or Kala:m 'Al Khabri: [Statemental Speech]. Thus the following propositions are Implied:a]Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: is an Eternal Statement. Since it is Self Absud to ascribe the Attribute of Truth to a Non Statemental Speech [Kala:m Ghair Khabri:] b]Truth is an Attribute of Eternal Statement. Since A Statement is True If and Only If the Attribute of Truth Is Ascribed to the Statement. If it is Supposed that the Eternal Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: is a True Statement thenTruth is an Attribute ofthis Eternal Statement, and the Eternal Statement is An Attribute of G-D. This Does Imply with Certainity that Truth is " An Attribute Of An Attribute Of G-D", AND " Eternal Statement Is An Attribute Of G-D". An Attribute Of G-D [ Divine Attribute ] Is Ascribed To Nothing But To The Divine Essence. An Attribute Of An Attribute Of G-D [Attribute Of a Divine Attribute] is Ascribed to a Divine Attribute, Neither to any Attribute Of G-D Which Is Other Than that Attribute Nor To The Divine Essence. From above it is clear that '' If to believe in Creation of Any Attribute Of G-D is Either a Kufr or a Bid''ah (which is sufficient to exclude a person from Sunnism) even then it is necessory to believe that the Truth of the Eternal Statement is Temporal. Since According to 'IJA:'' [Consensus] of Muslims [Muslimi:n] any thing That Is Neither The Divine Essence [Dha:t] Nor An Attribute Of That Divne Essence Is Temporal. It is Necessory Upon the Above Cited Article Of Faith That An Attribute Of An Attribute Of G-D is Neither Of Them. So it is a fallacy to declair An Attribute of A Divine Attribute as A Divine Attribute. The denouncers of the Self Possibility first declair Truth as An Attribute Of Divine Speech and accept that Divine Speech is An Attribute Of G-D and then declair truth as a Divine Attribute,where it is an Attribute of Divine Attribute,And Not One of the Divine Atrributes. Author of Subh:a:n 'Asubbu:h: agrees negatively with the denouncers of the Self Absurdity Of Falsehood /Falsity [Believers of Self Possiblity Of Falsehood /Falsity] when he declairs that the Attribute of Trut as ''Lazim of Lazim'' [Lazim-e-Lazim]. If Truth Of Divine Speech [Qur'a:n] is Lazim Of Lazim and Divine Speech [Qur'a:n] is Lazim -eDha:t [ Lazim Of Dha:t ] then It Is Certainly Not LAZIM OF DHA:T [Essence]. Similarly Lazim Of Dha:t is Not Dha:t and Lazim Of Lazim Is also Not Dha:t. Thus according to the abovemensioned Author who is the Arch Opponent of the Denouncers Of SELF ABSUDITY OF FALSEHOOD / FALSITY IN DIVINE STATEMENTS Truth Of the Divne Statement /Divne Speech Is Neither the Divine Essence Nor a Lazim Of The Divne Essence. The dispute between the denouncers of Self Aburdity Of Falsehood /Falsity and the above mensioned auther is as follow: The above mensioned author believed that the Attribute Of Truth is Lazim Of The Divine Speech [Hence Lazim Of Lazim] and the Denouncers Of Self Absudity Do Believe that Attribute Of Truth Is A Relative Attribute Of Divine Speech.(2) An Objection:If a Speech or a Statement is according to an Occurance then It is True,and if it is not according to an accurance then it is false.If Truth of an Eternal Statement / Speech is Temporal then it does cease to exist in Eternity,and this implies that the Eternal Statement is either Fales in Eternity Of Neither True Nor False in Eternity. Both of them are impossible. The first one is additionally kufr.The second one implies the exclusion of Accordance and Non Accordance which is the Exclusion of the middlle ['Ir tifa:'' 'aN NAQID:AIN].HENCE A STATEMENT can no be neither true nor false. Refutaion of the Objection:A] The Original position is thal Kala:m 'AL Lafz:i: is Temporal.There fore this objection is Invalid and inaccurate. B] Descending from the Original Position for the sake of refutation on the standerd of the
objectioners the refutation is as follow:There are only two intellectual and rational alternatives for a Statement. a]It is relavent to an Occurrance. b]It is irrelevent to an Occurrance. [It is Not relavent to an Occurrance]. If a Statement is Not relevent to an Occurrance [id est it is irrelavent to an Occurrance] then the given statment is Not false with respect to Irrelevent Occurrance. Consider a Statement S1 that is:'' X is Sitting''--------------------> 1 where X is a Person. The statement is in the present tense and is assertive. Consider a distinct person ''Y''.Let the sentence / statement be irrelevent to the person '' Y'' If ''Y'' is sitting at the time this statement was stated, the [act of] sitting of ''Y '' NEITHER IMPLY TRUTH IN THE STATEMENT NOR IMPLY FALSEHOOD / FALSITY IN THE STATEMENT. Similarly If the Person '' Y '' IS NOT SITTING AT THE TIME THE STATED ABOVE STATEMNT WAS STATED / SPOKEN . THE [act of ] not sitting of '' Y '' NEITHER IMPLY TRUTH NOR IMPLY FALSEHOOD / FALSITY IN THE ABOVE STATED STATEMENT. A Statement is either false or true when it is relevent to an Occurance. If a statement is relevent to an occurrancethen it is either in accordence to the Occurrance or Not in Accordance to the Occurrance. Consider the Statement stated above and Suppose that '' X '' is Not sitting.. This does Imply Falsehood /Falsity in the stated above Statement. Consider the Statement stated above and Suppose that '' X '' is sitting.. This does Imply Truth in the stated above Statement. Conclusion. Either a Statement is Relative to an Occurrace or Not. If it is not then It is neither True Nor False with respect to that occurrance as proved above. If it is then it is either True Or False with respect to that occurrance as proved above. Consider a Statement S2 that is:'' X is Not Sitting''--------------------> 2 where X is a Person. The statement is in the present tense and is negative. Cosider a distinct person '' Y'' It can be proved that only the relevent Occurrance either implies truth or falsehood / falsity . The proof is left as an exercise for those who study the case properly. A statemnt whether it is assertive or negative is either true or false with respect to the relevent occurrance only. Infact a respect to an irrelevent Occurrance is contradictory as well. An Other Objection:If the Eternal Statement is not relevent to any Occurrance in Eternity then In that case an Eternal Statement Does cease to be a Statement . This contradicts the original supposition that the Eternal Speech is a Statement. Answer: A] If This contradicts the Original Supposition then it is a Prrof that the Eternal Speech is NOT a Statement. But if Eternal Speech is NOT a Statement then It Does not mean It is NOT a Speech.This is the Standerd Position of Majority Of Asharites and Maturidites about Kala:m ' An Nafsi:. Same can be said about KALA:M 'AL LAFZ:I: if it is Assumed to be Eternal. But this objection however can be refuted as follow:Eternal statement is relevent to it self, to Eternal Realities,and Eternal Existents. So if it is True with respect to them it does not cease to be a Statement in Eternity. But both types of its temporal connections are Self Possible with Temporal Occurrances and Eternal Occurrances. a]Connectios of accordance b]Connection of Not Accordance. If it is argued that a temporal connection which is not in accordance to an Occurrance implies the annhiliation of some of the Eternal Connections Of Accordance which is Self Absurd then this argument is correct but this does not
makes these connections as Self Absurd [Muh:a:l Bidh Dha:t].Since the implication is Extrinsic and Not Intrinsic. So such connections are Absurd With Seperate /Absurd By Seperate. How ever this is a strong case. B] Even a weak case can solve the problem. If is is Supposed that the Eternal Statement Is : a] Relevent ONLY to itdelf. b] In accordance ONLY to It self . in Eternity Then Neither it cease to be a Statement in Eternity Nor becomes False in Eternity. All the connections with all other Occurrances where they are Eternal Occurrances [Existences] or Temporal Occurances [Events] are Temporal. So both Kinds Of Connections /Relations id est connections of Accordacnes and connections of Non Accordance both are Self Possible. If Temporal Connections Of Non Accordance do Imply annhiliation of any Eternal Connection of Accordance STATED ABOVE [Annhiliation of ] which is Self Absurd then then these Temporal connections becomes Absurds With Seperate / Absurd by Seperate. Some more discussions can be done but this shall make the article to lenthy; that is why further discussion is terminated. How ever it shall 'INSHA; 'ALLAH BE CONTINUED IF REQUIRED. If new objections are continued to be made then new answer shall 'Insha:n 'Allah be given. (3) Resuming the discussion on the connections and occurrances. It is now required to prove that if Eternal Speech is a Statement then its temporal connections of accordance also change with respect to temporal Occurrances. Suppose that there is an Event [Temporal Occurrance] which has not occurred yet. Suppose that the Eternal Statement is Relevent to that Particular Event. As the event has Not Occured Yet the connection Must be in Future Tense [in the sense of Future]. But when the Event is Occurring [in the line Of Actualization] the Connection Must be in Present Tense [in the sense of PRESENT]. OTHER WISE THE Eternal Statement Shall become False,Since to State a Statement which means that A Particular Event Shall Occur, when it is Actually Occurring is th State a False Statement. The Connection Must Change and the Former Connection Must Cease to Exist in Order to keep the Divine Statement True. Now Suppose that the Event has Occurred.Now the Connection of the Future and the Connection of the Present Both Imply Falsehood /Falsity in the Statement. To State a Statement which means '' The Event E Is OCCURRING'' when It Has Occured is to state a False Statement. To State a Statement which means '' The Event E Shall OCCUR'' when It Has Occured is to state a False Statement. EXIMPLI GRATIA :Suppose that a Person is Sittng [ A Person Sits]. To say the Person Shall Sit for a Person who is Sitting right now is to state / speak a false Statement . This proves that the connection must change from Future to Present and From Present to Past if the Divine Statement is Connected to Future ,Present and Past of an Event.How ever if It is connected to any one of the Future ,Present and Past and is Irrelevent to the rest is a different case. Yet this proves that Truth is a Relative Attribute of the Divine Speech and not an Implied Attribute of Divine Speech. Note: Rfutation of Fatawa of expelling out the Believers of Self Possibility Of Falsehood /Falsity from the Folds of 'Ahlussunnah Wal Jama'''ah is beyond the sscope of this article. These Fatawa shan 'Insha: 'Allah be discussed Seperately. Some typing errors may have occurred and the shall be removed latter.How ever denouncers of Self Possibility of Falsehood /Falsity in Divine Statements have neither any rigth to Declair DENOUNCERS OF Self Absudity of Falsehood / Falsity in Divine Statements as Out Of Folds Of
'AHLUSUNNAH WAL JAMA''AH nor have any authority to Declair them as Kafir. There so called Fatawas as the Verdicts of an extremist cult whose Fatawa are not reliable . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1]This is incorrect. A thing is either WAJIB BIDH DHA:T OR MUH:A:L BIDH DHA:T OR MUMKIN BIDH DHA:T. So the Divine Speech Is One Of Them.To Exclude all of them is Self ABSURD. Any thing that is Neither Mumkin Bidh Dha:t Nor Muh:a:l Bidh Dha:t is Wajib Bidh Dha:t. But Majority of Sunnis believe that only Divine Essence is Wajib Bidh Dha:t How ever the Annihiliation of Essential Attributes ARE believed tonbe Self Absurd / Absurd In It Self /Muh:a:l Bidh Dha:t. These Attributes are believed tobe Excluded From Omnipotence Of G-D. Mumkin Bidh Dha:t Kha:s: and Wajib Bidh Dha:t both have their Non Existence Not Self Necessory [id est Not D:-RU:RI: BIDH DHA:T] THAT IS WHY SOME TIME THEY ARE CALLED MUMKIN BIDH DHA:T ''A:M. So if the objectioner means by the word Immpossible '' Not Mumkin Bidh Dha:t ''A:m '' then he is in Error. If the objectioner means by the word Immpossible '' Not Mumkin Bidh Dha:t ''Kha:s '' then he is in Error. Since any thing that is Not Muh:A:l Bidh Dha:t is either Wajib Bidh Dha:t or Mumkin Bidh Dha:t 'Al Kha:s. A minority believe that La: ''Ain Wa La: Ghair is Wajib Bidh Dha:t. How ever if the objectioner is an identitist then he must know that the Author of Sub H:La:n 'Asubbu:h believed that the the Divine Speech ['AL QUR'A:N] Is A Lazim Of Divine Essence.Hence not an Identitist. He says SIFA:T -E- 'ILA:HIYAH SAB WAJIB LIDH DHA:T HAIN. See page 226 Subh:a:n 'ASUBBU:H: FATAWA RIZVIAH AMJADIAH YEAR 1992. 2]A Similar argument is used by the author of Subh:a:n' Assubbu:h: when he argue the negation of both Mut:a:biqah and La: Muta:biqah in Eternity '-ZL.See page 227 3] The author of Sub h:a:n 'Assubbu:h: has confessed that a number of arguments against the Self Possibility Of Falsehood /Falsity concieved in his mind which he termed as 'Ilqa:. THE AUTHOR OF SUBH:A:N 'ASUBBU:H: wrote:''And remaining twenty five [Prrofs/Dalilayn] were descended by the Divine Faid: ('Ilqa:) of Ha:di 'AJAL ''-Z WA JAL upon the Heart Of Graceless Slave ['ABD 'Adh-l] '' See page 220 .For tecnical perpuse some of the terms are conserved untranslated. Note : All the references of Subh:a:n 'Asubbu:h: are taken from Fata:va Rizviah vol - 6 Amjadiah Mujaddid 'Ahmad RIZA: ACADEMY [TABI'' AND Nashir]. For some tecnical reasons the proof reading of this article is not done and there may be typing errors and some other errors in this article presented, they shall Be removed latter .'Insha: 'Allah
.
\