refutaion of refutation [complete] by AHLUSSUNNAHWAL JAMAAH

##############ESSAGOG############ There are a number of sites on internet which are Declairing that the Believers in the SELF POSSIBLILY of Kidhb [Falsehood ] in the Statements [OF KALA:M 'ALLAFZ:I:] OF G-D are Kafir.A number of bTRUE SUNNIS WHO BELIEVE IN THS SELF POSSIBILITY OF Falsehood in the Divine Statements are horrified,since no TRUE SUNNI ''A:LIM is responcing them Properly.The true scholors of Asharites and Maturidites must have to come for the proper refutation of Denouncers of Self Possibility Of Falsehood on a much larger scale , and to explode the myth that only those who deny the SELF POSSIBLITY Of Falsehood In Divine SAtatements Are Maturidites amd Asharites. It makes the author of the present article to feel HANBAL CONTRA MUNDUM.(1). ANY HOW IT IS A FALSE ACCUSATION ON ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES that they believed in the Self Absurduty Of Falsehood in Divine Statements. As long as a number of TRUE THEOLOGIANS AND DIALECTICS OF AHARITES AND MATURIDITES are not taking the problem seriously ,the following method is adopted:Instead of refuting each and every article wriiten against Self Possibility [SELF CONTIGENCY] OF FALSEHOOD (UPON) IN THE STATEMENTS [OF KALA:M 'AL LAFZ:I:] OF G-D ,the basic arguments of Denouncers of Self Possibility (upon/) in the above Stated Divine Statements from their most famous works are refuted [By the Grace of 'ALLAH]. How ever those Articles are gererally selected first which are found in the sites of the denouncers of The Self Possibility. ##################FIRST ALLEGED REFUTAION OF SELF POSSIBILITY OF SELF POSSIBILITY OF FALSEHOOD IN DIVINE STATEMENT################## A] If KIDHB is Possible in one Statements /Sspeech of G-D THEN IT CANNOT BE extrinsically Impossible, because it requires an other Speach /Sttatment and so on. This is IMMPOSSIBLE. Hence Out Of The Power OF G-D. B] To say that it is only contingently impossible (mustaheel àradi) for Allah to lie [IS INCRRECT], for if it IS not absolutely impossible that Allah should lie, then how would one know it is mustaheel àradi??? Mustaheel àrađiyy is when something is possible, like the existence of any created thing, but Allah tells us that it will not be, such as a mukallaf kaafir entering Paradise. That is, it is rationally possible that a kaafir could go to Paradise, but contingently impossible, because Allah has told us that this will never happen, as this is His decree. So if it was not absolutely impossible that Allah should lie, then how would they know that this information about Him not lying was correct? It is to put doubt in the religion as a whole.[2] This is a slightly modified form of an argument presented on internet by a BELIEVER OF SELF ABSURDITY. As we do not need such arguments which are not found in the works of famous works of Believers of SElf Absudity But is is just to shew that they are reproducung the matter with slight modification whichb were onnce produced by their Elders. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ SOURCE OF THE ARGUMENT@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ This argument is a special Argument which is found in differewnt sites on internet. After reading a number of them it appears that those who have presented this argument are in AT SPEC NON FRACTO. This argument or more accurately alleged argument was firs invented by the AUTHOR OF SUBH:A:N 'ASSUBBU:H. The above mensioned author died in 1930 A.C. TRANSLATIONS OF THE ARGUMENTS TAKEN FROM THE BOOK NOUNED [NAMED] SUBH:A:N 'ASSUBBU:H:a]'' '' Now you have ASSERVERATED [that] Falsehood of G-D [is ] IN Omnipotence, then Rationally each statement has likehood [probability/'IH:T-MA:L] of falsehood,And any thing That Confirms That Although G-D HAS OMNIPOTENCE [POWER] OVER A FALSE STATEMENT ,BUT [HE] Never EXERCISES THIS [POWER/OMNIPOTENCE] , But Alas [unfortunately] there is no way to its certidtude but a Statement [kh-b-r] from

Dvine speech [Kala:m]. But then [in this case] it is Rationally Possible it might have emanated by means of Falsehood; Then which means [mediam] of Confidence remains ,on which Rationality [intellegence] can assure that the Possible in the Divine Omnipotence was not occured '' ''. P.g 222 Subh:a:n 'ASSubbu:h: Fatawa RADVIAH Vol-6 [amjadiah edition] b] '' ''Summery:- When Falsehood Is Rationally Possible and You Yourself do not believe in Rational Absurdity [Scriptural absurdity] ; and Religious [Shar'i:] Absurdity is gained from Religious [SCRIPTURAL] PROOFS [DICTA PROBANTA] ,then by what speech OF G-D the religious [scriptural/] Absurdity is proved ; The necessity of Truth of that Divine speech must be proved by religious Proof.Inaaitibly both [Rational absurdity and Religious Absurdity] are Extolled. In extricably beside [Argumentum] Ad Infinitum or Circulus In Demonstrando, there is no option left. '' '' Page 222 of the above mensioned book. It is clearly shewn that the arguments which are found in the recent works either on internet or in books are borrowed from old books.There is no funtamental upgradation the essence and substance of the arguments. How ever new words are used to represent the old sense which wore first presented in more logical and philosophical forms. It is clear that the Author Of Subh:a:n 'Assubbu:h: was more learned and could present his views in more better ways then the recent denouncers of Self Possibility Of Falsehood In Divine Senntences [News/'AL 'AKH-BA:R].So the recent authers reproduces what had been produces, represent what had been presented before. If one compair the old form and the new forms ,it become evident that the Elders of the Believers in the Self Absurdity of Falsehood used more powerful ways and the latter generation weakened them. @#@#@#@#@#@#@#@# ANALYSIS OF THESE ARGUMENTS@#@#@#@#@#@#@# These arguments are based UPON THE following Assumptions:a]Every Absurd With S eperate implies a Falsehood in a devine Statement. b]Evey Absurd With Seperate [Muha:l Bil Ghair] is a Religious [Scriptural ] Absurd[Muh:a:l BisH Shar'] c]There is no Rational proof for any Absurd With Seperate. d*]There is no Religious /Scribtural Proof for Any Self Absurd. These are the Assumptions which are highly Questionable and are disputed. e]Plurality[mutiplicity ] of Divine Statements [Propositions] are Assumed. f]Temporality of Divine Statements [Divine Propositions] are Assumed. #########################REFUTATION####################### It is incorrect to Assume that:a] An a SELF POSSIBLE is A bsurd With Seperate If and Only If It implies a Falsehood in A Divine Statement [Divine Proposition]. b]It is Incorrect to Assume that each and every Absurd With Seperate is Religiously Absurd [Scrpturally Absurd]. c]It is incoorect to assume that there is no RationalProof for a n Absurd With Seperate.Rational Arguments,Argumentations,Proofs may exist for a thing it suuport of the claim of its Self Absudity [Self Surdity] or Absurdity With Seperarte [ Seperatial Surdity]. The Realities are given as follow:1] IF A ASelf Possible DOES EXTINSICALLY IMPLY(1) A SELF ABSURD then it is ABSURD WITH SEPERASTE. 2]ABSUD WITH SEPERATE ARE INFINITE (IN NUMBER) AND RELIGIOUSLY ABSURD ARE FINITE (IN NUMBER). 3]Rational Proofs do exist for some Absurds Whith Seperate. 4]Religious Proofs may be found for some sELF aBSURD. EG Plurality Of GODS IS SELF ABSURD. But The Said Plurality Does Imply Falsehood in K-M-H LA: 'ILA;HA 'IL LAL LA:H

. This is an Irrefutable Proof that Plurality of GODS IS SELF ABSURD AS WELL AS SCRIPTURALLY ABSURD. This also shews that an scriptural Absurd may not be an ABSURD WITH SEPERATE. 5]A SELF IMPLICATION [INTRINSIC IMPLICATION] B/W A SELF POSSIBLE AND SELF ABSURD IS SELF ABSURD. 6]Any Thing That Intrinsically Imply A Self Absurd Is Self Absurd. 7]There are a number of kinds of Self Absurds.But each kind of Self Absurd is Self Absurd. 8]Fundamental Islamic Axiom and An Axiom of All Sects Of Ahlusunnah is As Follow:ALL DEFECTS [NAQS/NAQA:-'IS] UPON [IN] SELF NECESSORY IN EXISTENCE [WA:-JIB 'AL WUJU:D LIDHA:TIHI:] IS SELF ABSURD [ABSURD IN ITSELF/MUHA:L BIDH DHA:T, MUMT-N-'' BIDH DHA:T,ABSURD IN THE SELF OF ITS ESSENCE.] 9] 'ALL-H IS SELF NECESSORY IN EXISTENCE. 10]ANY THING WHOSE NEGATION [NAQI:D:] IS SELF ABSURD IS SELF NECESSORY IN EXISTENCE ACCORDING TO PHILOSOPHICAL MINDED SUNNIS[ OF DEOBAND AND MINORITY OF ASHARITES AND MUTURIDITES and KHAIRABADIES] AND IS EITHER SELF NECESSORY IN EXISTENCE OR SELF POSSIBLE BUT ETERNAL[ ACCORDING TO FUQHA OF DEOBAND,MAJORITY OF ASHARITES, AND MATURIDITES]. For the discussion we shall hold the view of THE MAJORITY. But they Shall be equally valid even in the case of minority 'INSHA:'-LL-H FIRST DISCUSSION ARGUMENTUM AD INFINITUM [T-S-LL-L GHAIR AL M-TNA:HI:] and Circulus In Demonstrando [DAWR] both of them are self Absurd.But they do not disprove the Absurdity With Seperate of the Falsehood in the Divine Statements [Propositions] of KALA:M 'AL LAFZ:I:. They are not implied. First Objection.The objections of Ciculus In Demonstrando [Circulus in Parabando] and Ad infinitum both are equally valid even in the case of the Self Absurdity of the Falsehood in Divine Statements. But it is neglected. This is a fallacy to point at them only in the case of Absurdity With Seperatre and Not to point at them in the case of Self Absudity when they are equally valdid in both cases alike.If the believers of Self Absurdity in the Divine Srtatments have A right to save themselves from each one of them , the denouncers of the Self Absurdith have an equal right to save themselves from them or none of the both groups have any right to to do so.It is illogical,irrational,injustice and irreasonable to accept the righ of any one and reject the right of the other. The final descission depennts upon the arguments presented by each of them to defent their respective positions. Is sataed above that this argument is even valid upon those who have presented it against the believers of Self Possibility of Falsehood in Divine Statements and Divne Propositions a] If The Proof Of Self Absurdity Of Falsehood In One Divine Statement , Is The Self Implication Of It To The Self Absurdity Ofn The Falsehood In The Second Divine Statement, Andthe Proof Of The Self Absurdity Of Falsehood In The Second Divine Statement ,Is The Self Implication Of The Falsehood In The Third Divine Statement, And So On, Then It Is ARGUMENTUM AD INFINITUM. b]If The Proof Of Self Absurdity Of Falsehood In The First Divine Statement Is The Self Implication Of This Self Absurdity To The Self Absurdity Of Falsehood In The Second Divine Statement And The Proof Of Sef Absurdity Of Falsehood In The Second Divine Statement Is The Is The Self Implication Of Falsehood To TheSelf Absurdity Of Falsehood In The First Divine Statement, Then It Is CIRCULUS IN DEMONSTRANDO. ################ A suggested responce############# The Denouncers of of the Self Possibility [Self Contigency] at most can say these are not therir Proofs of their claim of Self Absurdity Of Falsehoods in Divine Statements If so a Simillar Reply [Answer] can be given those were Not the Prtoofs Of The Denouncers Of Self Absurdity Of Falsehood In Divine Statements. SECOND DISCUSSION If it is denied that the Falsehood in the Divne Styatement is Absurd With Seperate, then it is necessorily im[plied that each and every proof of the Claim Falsehood In The Divine Statements

Is Absurd With Seperate Is Incorrect. Since An Absurd Wit Seperate Extrinsically Implies at least one Self Absurd then each and every Extrinsic Implication is denied[1] Then there oare Only four Options for any one who denies the Absurdity With Sep[erate of Falsehood in Divine Statements. a]One has to replaqce each and every EXTRINSIC IMPLICATION TO THEIR RESPECTIVE SELF ABSURDITIES BY AN INTRINSIC IMPLICATIONS IN EACH CASE .This dispute reduces the whole to a dispute over the nature of Implications ,and not on the implied Self Absurdities. b]To prove some Intrinsic Implications to Self Absudsities other that the Privious Self Absurds, And no Implication [neither Extrinsic Nor Intrinsic] to the Prvious Self Absurds. c]To replace some of the Extrinsic Implications by Intrinsic IMPLICATIONS TO THE RESPECTIVE SELF aBSIRDS,AND TO DENEY any type of implication to the rest of the previous Self AbsurDs and to add some other Self Absurs with Intrinsic Implications. d]To Prove Self Absurdity Of Falsehood In Divine Statements Independent of any Intrinsic Implication to any Self Absurd.Id esat to prove That the Falsehood in the Divine Statements Is Self Absurd with out implying any Self Absurd. If the first option is choosen then it is required to shew the reasons to discard the Extrinsic Implicatiojns betrween THE FALSESEHOO AND SELF ABSURDS, and to replace them by Intrinsic Implications. Unless and other wise it is proved that Intrinsic implications are incorreect in each of the case it is incorrect to make anty objection of Wxoltation of Absurdity With Seperate.Butthings goes further ,it is required to prove the Intrinsic Implication after discarding the respective Extrinsic Implications.ONE MAY make an objection that the denouncer of the Self Possibility in the Divine Statements have an equal right to react in the same manner as the believers of the Self Possibility Of Falsehood reacted in the first case.But If there is an agreed upon Implication then the burden of proof is upon one who c;laims it to be Intrinsic.But if both are equally burdened even then othe original argument against the Claim Of Self Possibility becomes incorrect since it Pressumes that burden of proof is only upon the Denouncers Of Self Absurdity WITH NO PROPER PROOF.See the original objection which says that thare is no proof [please see once more the original argument agaisnt the case of Absurdity With Seperate and SELF POSSIBILITY OF FASEHOOD IN THE DIVINE STASTEMENTS and recall it one more. If the second option is chosen then one has an equal right to replace the Intrinsic Implications by Extrinsic Implications. If the third [option] case is choosen then it is nothing but a combination of first two options. So it is resolved into two components one of them is in the first and second of them is in the second. So each component of the case / option can be studied according to its form. If the forth case is selected then the condition is that the Axiom '' ALL DEFECTS UPON NECESSORY IN EXISTENCE [WA:JIB 'AL WUJU:D] ARE SELF ABSURD'' can not be used since since Divine Statements [Divine Propositions, Divine assertive sentences and Divine Negative SENTENCES] ARE POSSIBLE IN EXISTRENCE. [MUMKIN AL WUJU:D].This Independent Axiom Of Islam Is Only Valid Upon Necesspry In Existence [Esse]. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIRD DISCUSSION^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If it is claimed that Falsehood in a Divine Statement Intrinsically Implies a Self Absurd that is A self Absurd With out any Intrinsic Implication To Any Other Self Absurd,and there fore neither tha Argument ad Infinitum nor Circulus In Demonstrando is Implied ,so in exact similar manner it can be responced that The Falsehood Extrinsically Implies A Self Absurd That Does Not Imply Any Self Absurd Intrinsically. At this point a n extremist Denouncer of Self Possibility begens to ask for proofs. True he has the right to ask for them. But It is Shewn that they consider their proofless assertions as proofs, and if they are responced in a similar way they begen to ask for proofs.Let it may be responced that what so ever is their proof ,this is NOT A PROOF, AND ALL THE DISCUSSION IS TO SHEW THAT AT LEAST THEIR THIS ALLGED AND SO CALLED PROOF IS NOT A PROOF IN REALITY. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ FORTH

DISCUSSION^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is Not a ''disProof'' of the belief of Self Possibility Of Falsehood in Dvine Statements and Divine Propositions, in IT SELF,but just a claim that the privious claim is in correct.It is neither a Proof Nor an Argument but a simple denial.Similarly it is Neither a Proof Of The Self Absudity Of Falsewhood In Divine Statements [Divine Propositioins] Nor a DISPROVE of the the Self Possibility Of Falsehood In Divine Statements [Divine Propositioins]. IF a Thing Is Not Absurd With Seperate ThenIt Does Not Imply That It Is Selfn Absurd.So it is required to prove atleast by one Proof that is is Self Absurd.THIS NEED AND REQUIREMENT OF ATLEAST ONE ANOTHER PROOF IS A PROOF THAT IT IS NOT A PROOF IN ITSERLF. @@@@@@@@@@@@ CONCLUSION@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@. This is actually a fallacy which alleges that if the Falsehood in the Divine Statements is Not Supposed [Assumed] to be Self Absurd then there is no Proof For THIS Falsehood to be Absurd With Seperate. But it is preesented as it is a Proof. It is proved that this is just a fallacy ,since it is not a proof yet it is presented as a Proof. How ever the form presented by the author of Subh:a:n 'ASSubbu:h: h has more sense then the forms presented by latter denouncers of The Self Possibility Of Falsehood In Divine Statements. But even the better forms are based on disputed Assumptions and PRESUMPTIONS. Thus unless and otherwise It Is Proved [by independent Proofs] that the Dogma Of Self Absurdity In Divine Statements Is Correct this Argumentoid [3] if Assumed to be correct leaves a person to a position where the Absurdity With Seperate Is Disproved and Self Aburdity Is Unproved ( always supposing that this argumentoid disproves the Dogma Of Self Possibility Of Falsehood In DSivine Statements.But event this Supposition /assumption is incorrecrt). Original Positions a] It is neither A Preoof Nor A Disproof [Anti Proof] b]What so ever it is say argumentoid or proofoid por any thing else it is based upon Incorrect Suppositions. Descended Position:It does not prove the self Absurdity of Falsehood In Divine Statements but Only DisProves the Absurdidty With Seperate of Falsehood In Divine Statements.. A very Problematic Position. Ascended Position;The Denouncers Of Self Possibility Has Incorrectly Assumed That This Proof [OID] Proves the Self Absudity Of Falsehood In Divine Statements ;and DISPROVES The Absudity With Seperate Of Falsehood In Divine Statements. The Ascended Position Is that'' '''' '''''' -This Proof [OID] DISProves the Self Absudity Of Falsehood In Divine Statements ;and PROVES The Absudity With Seperate Of Falsehood In Divine Statements.This is the Ascended Position. Turnig back to the original argument which alleges that the claim of Absurdity With Seperate Requires Argumentum At Infinitum. As it is clearly shewn that whether one believes in the Self Absurdity of Falsehood or Disbelieves In IT, he DOES NOT USE any argument that either implies Argumentum ad Inffinitum [T-S-L-S-L]] or Circulus In Demonstrando [DAWR], HE NEITHER USES EITHER OF THEM. How ever generally one use the Islamic Axiom that is the Axiom Of Ahlussunnah Wal Jamaah incorrectly and begens to allege that the Believers of Self Possibility Disbelieves In this Independent Axiom. Let it must be cleared once for all there is no dispute over this AXIOM .tHE DISPUTE IS OVER THE USE of this AXIOM IN ORDER TO PROVE THE THEOREM of Self Absurdty Of Falsehood In Divine Statements. Explanation:It is incorrect to argue from the Axiom '' All Defects are Self Absurd Upon (In) the [Essence Of ] GD, since

[Essence Of] G-D IS NECESSORY IN EXISTENCE [ESSE] and Divine Statements [Of Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i:] Of G-D are POSSIBLE IN EXISTENCE [ESSE]. NECESSORY IN EXISTENCE AND POSSIBLE IN EXISTENCE ARE ARE TRUELY SISTINGUISHED FROM EACH OTHER AND REALLY DISTINT FROM EACH OTHER.This Does Prove That the Divine Statements Are Distinguished And Distinct From G-D, And G-D Is Distinguished And Distint From Them. Any Thing That Is Distinguished FROM G-D Is Not G-D ,A Self Possible Defect Upon [In] A Possible In Existence Is Distinguished and Different From A SELF ABSURD Defect Upon [In] GD. There fore ThisAxiom of Islamic Theology can only be used for the SELF ABSURDITY OF any Defect [with out any Exception] UPON [In] G-D and Not For The Self Absurdity of Any Defect Upon [In] Not-GD ( ID EST ANY EXISTENT THAT IS NOT G-D).It is therefore proved that those who incorrectly used this True Axiom to prove the self Absurdity of Falsehood Upon [In] (The Divine Essence Of) G-D did fail to distinguish b/w the Self Absurd Falsehood Upon [In] ( The Essence Of) G-D, and the Falsehood in the Divine Statements (Of Kala:m 'Al Lafz:iI). Even if it is assumed that a Defect (say Falsehood) is Self Absurd Upon [In] an Existent That is Distinguished , Different,Distinct and Disjoint From G-D ( say Divine Statement) even then under this supposition the Self Absurd Falsehood Upon (In) G-D is Different and Distinguished from the Self Absurd Falsehood Upon [In] Divine Statements,Since the Subject [Locus] of each is Distinguished and Different from each other Id Est G-D Is Distinguished from a thing that is Distinguished From G-D., A VERY TRIVIAL CASE, RATHER A TOTOLOGY. A number of denouncers of Self Possibility Of Falsehood in Divine SAtatements tried to paint the dogma of Self Absurdity Of Falsehood In Divine Statements in the books of Sunni Theologians and in the proof texts [Dicta Probantia] by neglecting the Difference {DISTINGUISH-MENT] B/W the Self Absurd Falsehood Upon Necessory In Existence And Falsehood Upon Possible In Existence. When pointed at their this fallacy of neglecting the DIFFERENCE [Distinguish-ment] B/W THE ABOVE stated two Falsehoods they begen to make strange apologistic fallacies. A detail discussion of these fallacies are beyond the scope of this article. How ever some of them are as follow. They are left with out any criticism, and may be criticized by the readers themselves. They are left as an exercise. a]They are Really Distinguished but vertually one and the same. b]Divine Statements are Assumed in the Divine Essence c]G-D has excluded the Falsehood of the Divine Statements FROM HIS POWER. ET CETERA. How ever a number of them realized their mistake [error] and presented an argument appearently based on the text. Thes have how ever realized the mistake of the extrimists of the sect(s) of Denouncers of the Self Possibility Of Falsehood In Divine Statements.But in order to deduce their digma from the proof texts [Dicta Probantia] Of Theological Works Of Asharites and Maturidites have presented the following argument. @@@@@@@@@@Arguments@@@@@@@@@@@ a]The Falsehood In Divine Statements Imply The Falsehood In Eternal Speech Of G-D.,AND ANY Defect In Any Eternal Is SELF ABSURD. Any Thing That Implies A Self Absurd is Self Absurd. b] An Extrinsic absurd is an Scriptural Absurd, Id Est It Implies a Falsehood In a Statement Of the Textus Receptus Of A Divine Book [Al QUR'A:N]. IF AN ABSURD IS NOT SCRIPTURALLY ABSURD THEN IT IS NOT INTRINSICALLY ABSURD. ANSWERS: We[ Id Est the Denouncers Of Self Absurdity Of FalsehoodIn Divine statements] Do believe that 'ALL-H [PENTAGRAMMATION] IS SELF NECESSORY IN EXISTENCE [WA:JIB 'AL WUJU:D LI DHA:TIHI/WA:JIB 'AL WUJU:D BIDH DHAT] and All

Defects,Errors,Imperfections,Limitations,Flaws et cetera UPON THE SELF NECESSORY IN EXISTENCE IS SELF ABSURD [MUHA:L BIDH DHA:T] The Divine statements are not g-d and are Self Possible In Existence [MUMKIN AL WUJU:D LIDHA:TIHI:/MUMKIN 'ALWUJU:D BIDH DHA:T] There Does Exist the following implications. a]Falsehood Upon [In]Falsehood Divine Statements Imply Falsehood Upon Divine Essence [ID EST G-D NOUNLY PENTAGRAMMATION '-LLH] b]Falsehood Upon[In] Divine Statements Imply Falsehood Upon Kala:m 'An Nafsi Of G-D. c] Falsehood Upon [In] Divine Statements Imply Falsehood [ IGNORENCE/KNOWLIDGELESNESS] Upon [In] Divine Omniscence [ABSOLUTE KNOWLIDGE] ANY DEFECT Upon [In] Any Essential Attribute Of G-D Is Self Absurd even if the Essential Attributes Of G-D ARE ASSUMED TO BE SELF POSSIBLE. But in the case of Implication it is Absolutely Wrong to Claim that '' Any Thing That Implies A SELF ABSURD IS SELF ABSURD'' The following Axioms are True in the System of Ahlussunnah [Aasharites,Maturidites et cetera] a]Any Thing That Does Self Imply A Self Absurd Is Self Absurd. b]A Self Possible That Does Extrinsically Imply A Self Absurd Is Absurd With Seperate.(3) It is not necessry that an Absurd With Seperate is always a Religious Absurd[Scriptuall Absurd/Textually Absurd/STATEMENTAL ABSURD] One only need a retional Argumet to prove the Extrinsic Implication b/w a Self Possible And A Self Absurd. Thus It is False that '' No Rational Proof Exist on the claim af Absurd With Seperate''. Reason Does have Perfect Grounds for the Absurdity With Seperate of Infinite Self Possibles [Self Contigents]. There are Absurds With Seperates [Muh:a:lala:t 'Al Ghair-yah] which have Perfect Grounds in Pure Reason,Pure Intellect,Pure Rationality,Pure Logic. Reason and Logic Implies that it is false that Absurds With Seperate Are Bounded In Scriptural Absurds. a]If No Self Possible Is Self Absurd then It is Implied that Every Non Existence becomes Self Absurd. This is Self Absurd. b]If No Self Possible Implies A Self Absurd then it is Implied that Every Existent become Self Necessory In Existene. c]Decline [Downfall] Of Effect beomes Self Absurd,and the Effect Ceases to be an Effect ['AL MA''LU:L]. Reason,Rationality,Logic,Intellence ,all demand that The Self POSSIBILITY OF DOWNFAL Of Effect Does not Imply the Self Possibility Of the Downfall Of Cause [''ILLAH],EVENN IF THE downfall of the Effect Does Imply The Down fal of the Cause. Id Est the Downfal of the effect is Absurd With Seperate. d]It is not only the interscholastic Reason that demands it even thePeripetetic Reason demanded it. They believed that the downfall of the first Effect [Ma'lu:l 'Al 'aw-wl] Implies the Downfal of Necessory in Existence [Esse] (WA:JIB 'Al WUJU:D) . Downfal OF WA:JIB 'ALWUJU:D IS SELF ABSURD. e]It is Obvious and Evident that non existence of any Self Possible even at the time of its Existence is Self Possible and IT IMPLIES FLAW IN DIVINE OMNISCENCE .If Self Possible Never Implies Aself Absurd then the Flaw In Divine Omniscence Becomes Self Possible And That Implies The Self Possibility Of Annhaliation Of G-D ,AND THAT IS SELF ABSURD. These are Irrefutable Proofs that Pure Reason and Pure Rationality Do Demand The Absurdity With Seperate Independent Of Religion and Religious Scriptues. How ever the denouncers of Self Possibility Of Falsehood In Divine Statements have a right to ask for the Rational Proofs For the Absurdity With Seperate Of Falsehood In Divine Statements; this is their right and no one can challenge their this right. But insead of exercising their this right a number of them have claimed the incorrect claim and it is the right of the denouncers of Self Absurdity Of Falsehood In Divine Statement to

point at the flaw in this argument. If the Asceverate their mistake and exercise their mensioned above right then the Denouncers of the Self Absurdity in Divine Statements must accept their righ to criticize the proofs presentd by them, and the Denouncers Of Self Absudit Conserves their righ to answer the Criticism properly.(4) A Ptobabilitical Objection: An other objection which is closely releated to this objection is that; if the falsehood of the Divines Statements is Not Assumed to be Self Absurd then there is 50,50 chance for its truth and falsehood,or5 50% of truth and 50% of falsehood. A Probabitical form of the Objection is that if the Falsehood In Divine Statements Is Not Supposed to be Self Absurd then the Probability of Its Truth is 1/2 and PROBABILITY IF ITS fALSEHOOD IS ALSO 1/2. To use Mathematics against G-D is an Ancient Trick of Arthiests. A recent example is the Use Of Cantor Theorem to Prove the Self Absudity Of Ominiscence Of The Omniscient G-D. TO DISCUSS cANTOR tHEOREM IS BEYOUND THE SCOPE OF THIS PRESENT ARTICLE. A brief refutation is that the Divine Omnscience is Not a Cantorian Set, Since Divine Omniscience is Beyound Sets of Mathematics. How ever comming back to the given problem the foloowing points must be noted. 1]It must benoted that The concept of Probability is not applicable to Divine Omniscience and its application is self Absurd. Since it is a flaw ,and every flaw is a Defect and all Defects are Self Absurd Upon ESSENTIAL ATTRUBUTES OF G-D. 2]Logically speaking the probability of a SELF ABSURD EVENT say E1 is ZERO [CIPHER]. But the probability of a SELF POSSIBLE THAT EXTRINSICALLY IMPLIES a Self Absurd is also Zero. Examble: Supposes that G-D KNOWS THAT THE SLEF POSSIBLE EVENT say E1 Must never Occur.So the probability of Occurance of Evewnt E1 is Zero [Cipher] other wise it is the very self of the Probability of Flaw In Divine Omniscience. That is self Absurd. So the probability ig event E1 is zero. But the probability that G-D SHALL CREATE AN OTHER G-D IS ALSO ZERO ,SINCE CREATION OF AN OTHER G-D IS SELF ABSURD. Conclusion:-This constitutes the proof that one can not conclud whether an event is Self Absurd or Absurd With Seperate when the Probability Of that event is Zero. In less less Mathematical form one may say there is no 50,50 chance for either of the two events where it is Self Absurd or Absurd With Seperate.In order to prove the Self Absudity or Absudity With Seperate of an Event Whose Probability is Zero One requires Additional Proofs. It must be noted that the Knowlidge of G-D IS CEWRTAIN and Not Probable but G-D Knows Probability SINCE PROBABILITY WITH REFERENCE TO DIVINE KNOWLIDGE IS SELF ABSURD AND G-D KNOWS EACH AND EVERY SELF ABSURD WITH OUT ANY EXCEPTION. To Know Probability does not Imply that the Knowlidge is Not Certain just like to know Absurdity does not imply that the Divine Knowlidge is Absurd in either case of Absudilty whether self or With Seperate. Rebutal of the probabilitical argument. Suppose that G-D GIVES an Statement that a Particular Event say E2 shall occur. It is Certain to occur. In Probabilitical form its Probability is 1 [one] But What is the Probability that G-D DOES CONTINUE TO BE G-D. IT IS ALSO ONE.. sINCE iT IS ALSO cERTAIN AND cERTAINITY IS rEPRESENTED BYFfIRT NATURAL NUBBER ONE ''1''. [5] Thus the Certainity of Probability fails to decide whether an Event is Self Necessory or Necessory With Seperate. An objection :

Self Necessity is not an event. How ever in the case It is Assumed to be one . Similarly Self Absurdity is also not an event. Self Necessity,Self Possibility,and Necessity For [Divine] Essence are BEYOND THE Domain of PROBABILITY, just like the Divine Omniscence is Beyond the Cantorian and Non Cantorian Sets of Mathematics. None of the STATED ABOVE i.e Self Necessity[WUJU:B AD DHA:TI:] Self Absudity and Necessity For (DIVINE) Essnce [WUJU:B LIDH DHA:tT] can be term as EVENT in Propoer sense / meaning of the Word.In fact the word probability even in the sense of Certainity is below Divine GRACE.It is advised not to use such words UNLESS AND OTHERWISE ITS BECOME IMPERATIVE. Conclusion There is hundred percent chance of the truth and Zero chance for the absurd With Seperate, if the terms of the Objectioners are used. _____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________NOTES.1]Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal[R.H] Stood like a INDISTRUCTABLE ROCK WHEN almost they entire Muslim Word was about to fell in the Hand Of Heritic and Infedel Mamu:n, who believed that the Divine Speech is not a Divine Atrribute, and believed it to be a Creation Of G-D. [2]tHIS IS A SLIGHT MODIFIED FORM OF THE ORIGINAL WODS. sINE THE UNPLEASENT WORDS AND WORDS BELOW MORAL VALUES ARE CHANGED. EVEN THEN the original sense is conserved. 3]It is true that even CAESAR NON SUPRA GRAMMATICAS , but in orde to convery the True Sense Some modifications in the structure of sentences are made which may be incorrect accordong to Grammaticas. To say A Self Implies B, A INTRINSICALLY IMPLIES B [INSTEAD OF a IMPLIES b INTRINSICALLY] ,A does Self Imply B ,A Does Intrinsically Imply B .etcetera may semms to be incorrect but they are adopted to convey the closest possible sense,even at the cost of Grammar. Similarly irregular shifting of cases are also adopted to convey the true sense which might not be done if the Graammar was followed correctly. An apology to Grammarains. 4) Itmust be noted that the Majority Of Asharites And Maturidites believe that the Divine EWssence is The Only Necessory In Existence and Even Essential Attributes are Possible In Existence But unlike Seperate Self Possibles they Are Not In Divine Omnipotence, and that they are Eternal, and Self Imseperable Fromj Divine Esence. A number of Sunni Theologians Term them Necessory For Divine Esence [WAJI:B LIDH DHA:T]. But they are not WA:JIB BIDH DHA:T.Their Non Existence Is Self Absurd. But few disagree and consider them as WA:JIB BIDH DHA:T. Each group of theologians have some problems to solve. How ever Philosophical minded Sunnis claim the Essential Atrributes Of The Divine Essence as Purely Identical To It.They believe that if the Negation of a Thing Is Self Absurd then It Is Self Necessory [WA:JIB BIDH DHA:T].They think that they can scape these problems which are faced by their Schoolistic Brethren.How ever Non Essential Attributes are Self Possible and In the Divine Omnipotence. How ever Salafites, Hanabalites and few Maturidites consider them just like Essential Attributes Of G-D.Divine Statements are not Essential Attributes Of G-D. [5]Suppose that a coin is tossed.The Probability of head is 1/2. The probability of the tail is also 1/2.G-D CERTAINLY DO KNOW WHAT SHALL BE THE OUTCOME.But also Does know what must be the the probability according to DIFFERENT DEFINATIONS AND THEORIES OF PROBABILITY.