[Year] [Type the company name] Ali
1 2
[PROOFS OF IBN AR RUSHD IN SUPPORT OF DIVINE EXISTENCE AND THEIR INCONSISTENCY IN RUSHDIAN OWN SYSTEM] Ibn Ar Rushd’s own arguments/proofs for the Existence Of Deity are incorrect in his own system. A n strict criticism of Rushdian Arguments/proofs is presented below. 3 4
2 5 6
A CRITIQUE OF PROOFS OF DIVINIT Y IN THE SYSTEM OF IBN AR RUSHD ‘UNDLUSI:
7 8 9
Ibn Ar Rushd{Averroaes} has made several arguments to shew that the PROOFS for the Divine Existence presented by a number of Orthodox and Unorthodox sects in Islam are incorrect and wrong.
10 11 12
How ever in this article , the arguments or proofs presented by Ibn Ar Rushd himself are examined a, analysed, refuted as according to the INCONSISTENT philosophical system of the so called Philosopher namely Ibn Ar Rushd ‘Al Undulusi.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
It may be noted that Ibn Ar Rushd follows the principles of Atheism , though he claims to be a believer in Deity. Either he is ignorant of the consequences of his system and arguments or he deliberately do not mention them, but deliberately conceal them so that those who agree with him in these may reach to the result i.e denial of the Existence Of Deity. In this work it is not tried to refute Ibn Ar Rushds argument against proofs Asharites and Maturidites in Supprt of Divine Existence. But it is attempted to prove that Arguments for Divine Existence presented by Ibn Ar Rushd {Averroes} is in correct according to his own principles of his system of philosophy.
20 21
It may be noted that Deity is impossible to be proved in his system, that is why he did not analyzed his own arguments/proofs critically. This provided a chance to others to analyze his provided proofs.
22
First Argument Of Ibn Ar Rushd about
23
The Existence Of Deity [Divine
24
Existence=DE]
25 26
The first argument is similar to the argument of Design. This argument is somewhat analogous to the Intelligent Design Theory proposed to combat Evolution Theories in The science of biology.
27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Evolutionist are afraid that that if it is accepted then the Intelligent Designist shall argue that A DESIGN implieth a Designer , by using Ibn Ar Rush’s argument of Induciveness. Designist like Ibn Ar Rushd do not believe in the possibility of Co-incidence .On the other hand Evolutionists believe in some what controlled Co-incidence. Whether this Theory of Rational Design or Intelligent Design is correct or not , and whether it can give tough time to the theories of Evolutions or not, is not the issue. The issue is that whether a Design whether Rational (Intelligent) or Not implies a Designer or not. The problem may be simplified as follow:- Where a Design implies a Designer or not.
34
In Ibn Ar Rushd’s system it not only does not but it cannot imply.
35 36 37
Returning back to CONDUCIVENESS proposed by Ibn Ar Rushd , Ibn Ar Rushd argues that Conduciveness implies an Intending Agent, which is the Deity. But the system which he is using does not and cannot accept this Implication.
38
The Argument
39
All Existing Things Exist for a Purpose. Page | 2
3 40
All Existing Things are conducive to human beings.
41
This CONDUCIVENESS is related to a Rational Intending Existing Suppositum which is the Agent
42
Of this CONDUCIVENESS i.e The Conduciveness of All Thing to Human Beings.
43
This CONDUCIVENESS is not a COINCIDENCE since Coincidence is Impossible.
44
Any corruption in the Conduciveness implies the destruction of human beings.
45
This argument is not according to the System Of Ibn Ar Rushd, as it shall be seen below:-
46
EXAMPLE:-
47 48 49
If a person sees a stone on earth and finds it conducive to be sat on , he realizes that this stone is made in this form by some one who is an intelligent / rational Intending Agent. But if the person does not see it conducive to any thing he shall not ascribe it to any Intending rational Agent.
50
ANALYSIS.
51
It appears that this Purpose is this Conduciveness stated above.
52
If a thing is conducive to any other thing then Conduciveness (to the second thing ) is the Attribute
53
of the first
54
In other words ‘’A THING IS CONDUCIVE TO ANOTHER THING IF AND ONLY IF
55
CONDUCIVENESS TO THE LATTER THING IS THE ATTRIBUTE OF THE
56
FIRST THING .’’
57
This proves that if any one of the two cease to exist this conduciveness stated above also ceases exist.
58 59
Ibn Ar Rushd thinks that a minimum change in the prime Conduciveness implies the perfect destruction of the latter thing.
60
REMARKS:
61 62
Ibn Ar Rushd did not criticize this argument as he did in regard to the arguments of Orthodox and Unorthodox systems of Islam.
63 64
If he had done so he would have found that his own system of arguments makes this argument invalid and incorrect.
65
He cannot defend this argument with out damaging his own system.
66
He cannot use the system of other sects to refute these objections since he does not believe in them. Page | 3
.
4 67
COMMENT:
68 69
In this article it is attempted to prove that this ALLEGED and SO CALLED proof is inconsistent to his system as well as incorrect and invalid.
70
A)REFUTATION OF FIRST ATTEMTED PROOF
71
OF RUSHDIAN DEITY :
72
A,1) FIRST DISCUSSION ON FIRST ARGUMENT.
73 74 75 76
According to the dogmas of Ibn Ar Rushd the otherwise of any event is IMPOSSIBLE. For example if a Body B is moving from point A to point C in nature SAY EVENT E1 then it is Immpossible in Rushdian system that it moves from C to A say event E. The reason for the ABSURDITY/IMPOSSIBILITY of the event is as follow:-
77 78
If Event E2 occurs then it implies the Annihilation of Divine Wisdom. Annihilation Of Divine Wisdom is Impossible. One that implies an Impossible is itself Impossible. Therefore event E2 is Impossible.
79 80
Now if event two is Impossible it is impossible to be in Divine Power since Divine Power is Over Possibilities ONLY
81 82 83 84 85
IF a thing is Not in Divine Power and is IMPOSSIBLE to be In Divine Power then It is also Impossible to be Intended[Willed]by Divine Intention[Will]. On similar reasoning it can be proved that in the Rushdian system the Non Occurance of Event E1 is also imposible. Suppose that the Event E1 did occur at time τ.At time τ its Non Occurrence was Impossible There fore it was Impossible to be in Divine Power and Impossible to be Intended by Deity at time τ..
86 87
SINCE the Non Occurance of Event E1 implies the Annihilation of the Divine Wisdom , and Annhilation of Divine Wisdom is impossible in Rushdian System.
88
So it is not in Divine Power , not to occur event E1, and not possible to
89
‘ Not to do E1’ by Divine Intention (Will).
90 91 92 93 94 95
Now if Deity has no alternative to choose , and the Deity cannot ‘NOT DO’ an act then there is no Divine Intention and no Divine Will.(Deity CEASETH to be a Free Agent, which implieth that Deity Ceaseth to be the Absolute Free Agent with an Absolute Free Intention /Will. Also Deity Ceaseth to be an Omnipotent Agent.) The act of doing E1 is therefore certainly not a Voluntary act of Deity. If not a voluntary act then an unvoluntary act. If an unvaluntary act then an Immanent Unvoluntary act.
96
If so then this argument of Ibn Ar Rushd fails to hold.
97 98 99
This shews that this attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd is not only inconsistent in his Philosophical system but it is incorrect since Ibn Ar Rushd is unable to explain or to define the meaning of Divine Intention/Will. What sort of will/intention is in the mind of Ibn Ar Rushd if the Per se Subsistent Page | 4
5 100 101 102 103
Suppositum to which the Intention/Will is ascribed has no alternative to choose , not even the Suppositum is sufficiently free for not to do . This Implies that Deity is an Intention-less[Will-less] Existing Suppositum, and the event E1 is occurred with out being intended and with out being willed.This implies
104
That it is an unintentional and unvoluntary act.
105 106
It is invalid to attempt to prove a Rational Intending Per se Subsistent Suppositum as an agent of an Act which is Involuntary and Unintentional.
107 108
It does appear that Ibn Ar Rush is not ignorant of these flaws in his system and in his this particular argument , yet he conceals them supposing that these flaw shall never be detected by any one.
109
In his zeal to refute Imam ‘Al
110
destroy his own arguments. Analyzation and refutation of Arguments coined by Ibn Ar Rushd against
111
the proofs of Imam ‘Al
112
number of Atheists that alleged arguments made by Ibn Ar Rushd against Imam ‘Al
113
̃ H
̃ H aramain , Ibn Ar Rushd made such arguments which could even
̃ H aramain is beyond the scope of present discussion.It may amuse a ̃ H aramain R.
can be used against Ibn Ar Rushd him self. So Ibn Ar Rushd’s own objections are valid on this
114
first proof.
115
Ibn Ar Rushd ‘s first argument is invalid. Q.E.D.
116 117
(Some more refutations are in second discussion about Rushd’s first proof/argument what so ever it may be).
118
A,2) SECOND DISCUSSION ON FIRST ARGUMENT.
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126
If the Act(ion) of Induciveness is ascribed to the very Ousia (Substance/Essence) of the Per se Subsistent Suppositum THEN this Conduciveness cannot be a Voluntary Act/Action Of the Stated above Suppositum irrespective of the cases whether the Suppositum possesses the Attribute of Intention or Not, Since the Ousia is unvoluntarily Necessary.This does reduce the whole problem to Aristotelian Cause and Effect Problem ,where the cause is with out any Will or Intention. In this case Independent of the Intention (Will) of the Supposition , if The Suppositum Doeth Have Any.In this case the Rushdian Argument is unsound and invalid in his own system of philosophy. It fails to prove an Per se Subsistent Agent with An Intention.
127
Possibility of ascription of an act (in this case Inductiveness)
128 129 130
to the Ousia Of The Per se Subsistent Agent instead of the Intention Of Per se Subsistent Agent MAKES the Rushdian Argument Invalid in his own system of Philosophy. There is no Impossibility of this , and thus no intending Per se Subsistent Agent is can be proved.
131 132
Summary:- Either the Per se Subsistent Agent is with out any Intention. In this case the argument fails, OR it is with an Attribute of Intention. In the latter case there are two possible cases. Either the Page | 5
6 133 134
Act(ion) of Conduciveness is Independent of the stated above Attribute (Quality) or Not . If it is then the argument fails, and if not then it is discussed in:- A,3)
135
A,3) Third discussion On Second FIRST Argument.
136
For sake of simplicity the term Per se subsistent Agent is reduced to Agent, also that the discussion may become more general and if there is
137
some once who can conceive the idea of a non per se subsistent agent can also be refuted.
138 139 140 141
If this action (of conduciveness ) is ascribed to the Intention of this Agent, and this Intention of Agent Is An Attribute Of This Agent , THEN This Conduciveness is an Action Of the Attribute Of the Agent. There are two logically possible cases:-
142
A,3,1) This Intention (Will) is Not Eternal.
143
A,3,2) This Intention (Will) is Eternal.
144
If this Intention Is Not Eternal then there are two possible cases.
145
A,3,1,1) The Agent is Not- Eternal.
146
(Agent and Intention Both are Non Eternal)
147
A,3,1,2)The Agent is Eternal.
148
(Agent is Eternal and Intention is Not)
149 150 151 152
If the Agent and the Intention each one of the two, is Not Eternal ,then Ibn Ar Rushd is entangled in further problems and difficulties. α )The Agent cannot be the Deity since Even Rushd believed Deity to be Eternal . If this Agent is not Deity then the proof becomes invalid.Since Ibn Ar Rushd did want to prove the Deity, not a Not-Deity Agent. Deity Must Necessary be Eternal.
153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
β) Either this Agent is brought in Existence from Nothingness by Itself or It is brought in Existence by another Agent truly distinct from it. If it is the former case the argument /proof becomes in-valid ,since if it is accepted that it is Possible for a thing to come in Existence from nothingness , it is self brought in existence from non existence , and is Not Eternal, then there is no need of a Deity, who is supposed to bring things into existence from nothingness. If it is the latter case then a series of Agents each one distinct from the other is implied in the backward direction. This is an infinite series ,which continues infinitely and is ad infinitum. So Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that the Agent of Conduciveness is Not –Eternal. So Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain each one of the two.
161
Hence
162 163
Thus this case cannot prove Deity. Hence the case ‘’Agent and Intention Both are Non Eternal’’ cannot be accepted.
Page | 6
7 164 165
Problem Of Non Eternal Intention and Eternal Agent.
166
If the Agent is Eternal and the Intention is Temporal then this is IMPOSSIBLE in Rushdian System.
167
FOR DETAILS SEE:-
168 169
Problem Of Eternal Intention and Eternal Agent.
170 171
If the Agent and its Intention both are Eternal then the Thing Intended is Also Eternal as according to Rushdian system, But The Intended One id est Conduciveness cannot be Eternal.
172
FOR DETAILS SEE:-
173 174 175 176 177 178
If Ibn Ar Rushd maintains that each one of the two i.e Agent of this Conduciveness and the Intention of the Agent is Eternal then this implies according to his own system of philosophy that The Intention of the Agent and the Intended One i.e this Conduciveness is Eternal ,since in this case it is an Act(ion) of the Agent , and in his system if an Agent is Eternal then its Act or Action is also ETERNAL.This implies that the OBJECT Of the Action is Also Eternal. It must be noted that AN ACTION IS A CORRLATION BETWEEN THE AGENT OR ATTRIBUTE OF AGENT AND
179
THE OBJECT OF THE ACTION. But this is incorrect. Since cOnDUcTiVeneSS Of All
180 181
ThingS TO hUmAn BeingS cAnnOT Be eTernAl . It shall be shewn latter that why it cannot be so.
182
---------{1}
183
(See ……{2})
184
A,3,1,2,1)
185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192
How ever if it is accepted that ,<
stated above Conduciveness
is Eternal > ,then it may be the case
that it is with out a cause or in is an Effect independent of the will of its Cause. In any case this proof / argument of Ibn Ar Rushd is not proveable in his system.Ibn Ar Rushd attempts to prove an Agent with the Attribute Of Intention, but if it is accepted then he cannot prove an Agent with the Attribute of Intention. This implies a flaw in his system or in his proof or in his argument. His claim cannot be proved at least in tis case , the case under discussion. In Essence he had to prove the Impossibility of each one of the following before arguing in support of a Per se subsistent agent Attributed with the Attribute of Intention/Will.
Page | 7
8
193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
Ibn Ar Rushd had to prove Each one of the following :-
a) An Intentionless Eternal Cause of Conduciveness is Impossible. b) If a cause is Attributed by the Attribute of intention then it is Impossible that any thing is an Effect of It Independent of This Eternal Intention . C)It is Impossible that this Conduciveness is Eternal Without a cause.
202
If any one of the above is not proved in his system the case
203
“Agent and Intention Both are Non Eternal” does beome invalid.
204
A,3,1,2,2) REASON WHY CONDUCIVENESS CANNOT BE ETERNAL.
201
205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212
First:-CONDUCIVENESS is a correlation between All Things and Human Beings. According to the System Of Ibn Ar Rushd If one of the correlate (Correlatant) is Not Eternal then neither the Correlation is Eternal Nor The Other Correlate is Eternal. Since No Human Being is ETERNAL then the Correlation and the other Coorelatant / Correlate (All Things) is( are )Not Eternal. But this Non Eternal Correlation is the Act(ion) Of An Agent. There fore The AGENT Cannot be Eternal. But Ibn Ar Rushd Cannot maintain that this Agent is Non Eternal. Since in this case the Agent must require an other Agent and this is Ad Infinitum.
213 214 215 216
Second:-An Other Problem is that This Conduciveness Which is a Correlation
217 218
Third:- Is not possible for a relation (Correla tion) Þ to be one and same be tw een Ω and ∆ AND π.
between “All THINGS” AND “Human Beings” is an Action/Act of an Agent WHICH CANNOT BE AN ETERNAL
agent OF THIS ACT(ION) WHICH IS NOT
ETERNAL ,as according to his system.
Page | 8
9 219
………..{2}
220
(Referred to {1})
221 222 223 224
A logical possibility is that the Intention is Eternal but the Agent of Intention is Not Eternal. But this is impossible Since this implies an Attribute With Out Any Per Se Subsistent Essence to which it is ascribed. This Implies that an Attribute is no more an Attribute but An Essence Or In more scrit wording a Per Se Subsistent Essence.
225
CONCLUSION
226
There are logilally possible cases
227
1]The A ction Of Conduciveness is with out an Intention and the Agent of the action is Intentionless.
228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245
2] The A ction Of Conduciveness is independent of the Intention of the Agent and the Agent is with Intention. 3] The Action is Under Intention of the Agent , but both the Agent and Intention are Not Eternal. 4] The Action is Under Intention of the Agent , but both the Agent and Intention are Eternal. 5] The Action is Under Intention of the Agent , but the Agent is Eternal and the intention of the Agent Intention is not Eternal. 6] The Action is Under Intention of the Agent , but the Agent is Not Eternal and the intention of the Agent Intention is Eternal. Ibn Ar Rushd cannot hold /maintain any One Of them thus his argument is invalid. A,3,1,2,3) A POSSIBLE ANSWER AND ITS REFUTATION
Page | 9
10 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253
It may be said that the relation or the correlation is not between all things and human beings but either between all things and materials of human being or materials of all things and materials of human beings. In either case the material are eternal but the thing and beings constituted from them are not. So the correlation may be Eternal even Human beings are not . Similarly all things which do exist may not be eternal yet their materials are eternal. In general the entire Cosmos is not Eternal yet the Matterials from which the Cosmos is constituted is Eternal.
254
Refutation:-
255 256 257 258 259 260 261
The basic problem is that the correlation is neither between All things and the Matter form which Human Beings are Constituted, nor between the Matter form which All things are constituted and the Matter from which Human Beings are constituted. The Correlation is between ALL THINGS and Human Beings. If atleast One of the two Correlates /Correlatants is Non Eternal, the Correlation is Not Eternal, and the other one of the two is also Non Eternal. But there are further problems to this answer. The Question is how it the Non Eternal Beings were made or created from Eternal Beings (Eternal Matters).
262 263 264 265
Since this means that the Eternal Beings Must Necessarily have remained as the were in Eternity for an infinite period of time , whether these beings (Eternal Matters) were Eternally Existing Contingents (and owe their existence to the Necessary Being)or Necessary Beings (themselves) like Deity in Rushdian system what so ever.
266 267
If the Agent of Act(ion) Of Constitution is Eternal then this IMPLICATES and Implies that the constitution itself is Eternal , AND THIS IS INCORRECT SINCE NO HUMAN BEING IS ETERNAL.
268
Limitations Of Ibn Ar Rushd may be seen below:-
269 270
A)If the Action is Not Eternal then the Agent is Not Eternal and this implies that the Rusdhian Deity is Not Eternal.
271 272 273 274
B)Ibn Ar Rushd Cannot use the concept of Divine Intention (Will) since according to his SCHEMA or System Divine Intention (Will) is Not An Essential Attribute Of the Essence (Ousia/Per se Subsistent One) Of Deity (As Power, Knowledge,Life Speech are Essential Attributes), but a Correlation which ceases to be if one of the correlates ceases to be.
275 276 277 278
C) An Infinite Time which has neither Beginning nor End , Existing since Eternity, Cannot and Does not cease. So the Divine Intention cannot choose the act of Constitution after an infinite period since Eternity. Thus Divine Intention Cannot be responsible for the constitution of the Not Eternal Beings from the Eternal Beings using these Eternal Beings as Materials of latter Beings.
279 280
According to the System Of Ibn Ar Rushd An Eternal Per Se Subsistent Cannot be an Agent Of a Non Eternal Unless and Other Wise there is Some Mutation or Change in the Eternal Per Se Subsistent.
281 282 283
A dogma which â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Asharites and Maturidites Reject. Not only Orthodox Sunni Sects regects but unorthodox sects like Muâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t-z-las also it reject equally. Only Caramites (modified Hashvites) and Extreme Hasvites hold this strange view. But Ibn Ar Rushd if agrees with Orthodox sects faces a Page | 10
11 284 285 286 287 288
problem , since he attempts to criticize them since they reject this dogma, if agrees with Caramites faces an other problem. Since Philosophers hold that Deity or cause of all causes is Immutable and Unchangeable . Also in this case Ibn Ar Rushd must have to face the Absurdity /Impossibility Of Ad Infinitum. Since the question is what is the cause of this alleged Mutation in the Per Se Subsistent Deity, and what is the agent of this so called change in the Deity.
289
2)SECOND
290
about The Existence Of Deity [Divine
291
Existence=DE]
292
This argument may be renamed as Argument Of Abiogenesis
293 294
It is based on the alleged observation of life issuing from Non Living Matterials , leading us to Know for certain that there is a producer and a provider of Life.
295 296
This argument of Ibn Ar Rushd is a subject of many objections in the Philosophical System Of Ibn Ar Rushd himself.
297 298
Ibn Ar Rushd maintains that life ( on earth) is produced and provided , and that it Must Necessary Have A Producer and A Provider.
299
2,a) First objection on second attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd.
300 301
Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that this Producer or Provider ( or Both) is Himself (Itself) Produces or Provided or Both.
302 303
Since this would imply that this Producer or Provider or Both does require another Producer or Provider or Both. This would necessarily continue , and does Imply Ad Infinitum.
304 305 306 307 308
2,a,a) Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that this Producer or Provider or One That is Both, is Eternal since If the Producer or Provider or One That Is Both (A PRODUCER AND A PROVIDER) is Eternal then the actions / acts of this Eternal Producer or Provider (or Both) Must be Eternal as according to his own system. Consequently the Life which is either produced (from Non Living Things) or is provided (to Non Living Things) must be Eternal.
309 310
This is impossible since the appearance or production or providence or provision of life, all of them are Non Eternal.
311
Thus his own argument fails in his own system.
312 313 314
2,a,b) Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that <<Neither this Producer or Provider (or Both) is Himself (Itself) Produces or Provided (or Both) Nor Ibn Ar Rushd this Producer or Provider or One That is Both, is Eternal>>.
315 316 317 318
Since one that is neither produced nor provided is either Eternal or nor Eternal. If Eternal thin this contradicts this case. Hence is incorrect. If Non eternal and neither produced nor provided, then it means either it comes in existence with out a producer and with out a provider. This implies that Existence of Deity is not only Not Eternal but also a co-incidence. But Co-incidence in his system is Page | 11
Argument Of Ibn Ar Rushd
12 319 320
absolutely impossible. Had it been relatively impossible in his system there would have been a possibility of validity of this argument/proof in his system.
321
The question is did he knew that an Eternal Deity is Impossible in his system?
322 323
2,b)Second objection on second attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd .
324
Ibn Ar Rushd cannot hold the position by inserting the concept of Divine Intention (Will).
325
Unlike
326 327
Divine Attribute (Like Divine Life, Divine Omniscience,Divine Omnipotence), Ibn Ar Rushd thinks that Divine Intention is a Correlation.
328
If it is a Correlation then :-
329 330
The intention is Eternal and Actual IF AND ONLY IF the thing which is intended is also Eternal and Actual.
331
But the emerged life whether it is provided or produced or both is Certainly Not Eternal.
ʾAsh ˓ arites and Maturidites who believe that Divine Intention is an Essential Immanent
332
Objections to a possible defense against the stated above objection on second attempted proof.
333
2,b,a):-An Argument against this argument of Ibn Ar Rushd against in his own system is as follow:-
334 335 336 337 338 339 340
The life which is provided or produced or both MUST HAVE BEEN Not- Produced, Not-Provided, and Not –Emerged during an INFINITE period of time from Eternity to the time of its production,provision or emergence or all.In Rushdian system this is Impossible and Absurd . Since in his system the Divine Intention cannot be related to one that is intended (i.e life mensioned above) in whih it necessitate its outcomming /production/provision etc. after an Infinite endless time, and what has no end neither can cease nor does cease.Therefore if life is Intended ,it must not become actual from possible or potential unless an infinite endless time has elapsed , which is impossible and absurd.
341
2,b,b);-
342 343 344 345 346
Divine Intention issues not only the intended production of life and intended life, but also the inclination of the Divine Intention (to each one of them) itself. When this Inclination (which is an Act(ion) of Intention/Will) occurs, this requires a mutation or a change in the Said Intention. According to the Rushdian system if the Divine Intention (Will) is not inclined to anything and then it does inclines to
347 348
Something then there must be some change or mutation in the said Intention. If there is neither any change nor any mutation in the Divine Intention/Will then it does continue to be not-inclined .Since
349 350
An Intention inclines from not-inclined state IF AND ONLY IF there is some Change or Mutation IN THE Intention.
Page | 12
13 351 352 353
But if the said Intention is Eternal then their canbe no change in Eternal Intention unless and otherwise there is either a change or a mutation in the Ousia Of the Suppositum of Deity.
354
A change or a mutation ( OR BOTH) occurs in the Ousia Of Deity if an only
355
if a change or a mutation (OR BOTH) is (are) POSSIBLE in the Divine Ousia (Ousia Of Deity) .
356
But it is Impossible to be Possible. (Since if a thing is Impossible then the possibility of the thing is also impossible).
357
If it is supposed that MUTATION OR CHANGE (OR BOTH) is (ARE) Possible in the ( Ousia Of) Deity THEN
358 359 360 361
This implies THAT a change or a mutation (or both) is(are) also possible in the ( Ousia Of) Deity since any change in this Intention is an effect of a change in the Ousia [Essence/Substance/Subsistence] of the very Deity. (It must be noted that Ouisa Of Deity /Divine Ouisa is Nothing but the very Deity Himself) This is Impossible. Even Caramites(Modified Hash-vides) do not say such a thing.
362 363 364
If it is not Eternal then it must have an agent.Since change in Divine Intention is an act and an act requires an agent. Once again an infinite number of agents each one prior to the next one in backword direction,This is Ad Infinitum.Ad Infinitum is Impossible and Absurd.
365 366 367 368 369
If no change or no mutation (or none of them) is occurred in the Divine Intention and it is as it was since eternity then according to Rushdian system it cannot incline to any thing as it was un-inclined in Eternity, unless and otherwise there is a change or a mutation (or both) in the said Intention. The consequence is the non production ,non emergence etc. of said life unless and otherwise there is a change or a mutation ( or both).
370 371 372 373
It is clear that Ibn Ar Rushdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s system of Philosophy is purely Atheistic and no argument in support of Deity is Valid in his system, even his own arguments are invalid in his system. It is a very strong probability that he did knew it, and this does makes suspicions whether he really believed in Divine Deity /Divine Being or not.
374
3) Third Objection on the second attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd.
375
This attempted proof depends upon the Abiogenesis theory of life.
376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383
Although it is evident that in the beginning of the planet earth , there was no life on it, and Life on this planet began by an Abiogenesis process what so ever, this process is not seen by any human being who so ever he may be. Since life appeared prior to human life on earth. So the knowledge of Abiogenesis is different from the knowledge of Biogenesis and Reproduction of life from human beings. Yet he considers knowledge of both of them equal and similar, where as they are neither of the two. As the appearance of life from Non Living thing is never observed , he is certainly in error when he claims that life or living things or both appears from non living things or dead things or both. So his argument is based on incorrect observation. In strict sense on NON OBSERVATION.
384
4) Fourth Objection on the second attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd.
385 386
If animal life or plant life or any other life of being which is neither animal or plant what so ever , is eternal then this argument /proof of Ibn Ar Rushd what so ever , becomes invalid and incorrect. Page | 13
14 387
So there is no explanation of life in his system, how did life appeared on planet earth.
388 389
(It may be noted that Ibn Ar Rushd did not considered earth as a planet. So one may drop the word planet with out disturbing the validity of above arguments.) .
390
PRIME MOVER OF ARISTITELIAN SYSTEM AND
391
ITS IMPOSSIBILITY IN RUSHDIAN SYSTEM.
392 393 394
Ibn Ar Rushd advocates Aristotelian system in general. The founder of the system the great Aritotle (Arastu/Artatalis) PROPOSED that there is a Eternal Being which is the prime unmoved mover.
395 396
He tried to prove the Deity from from the motion of objects instead of creation of things.
397 398
But Rushd’s system is so Atheistic that even this Unmoved Eternal Mover is Impossible in the Rushdian System.
399 400 401
A,a) If a thing is static or stationary in Eternity, that is its motion is Not In Actuality in Eternity, but in Potentiality in Eternity, and its motion did come in actuality from the potentiality , at any given Non Eternal time τ,
402
that is it did begin to move from Eternal Rest at Not Eternal Time τ then the
403 404 405 406 407
Agent that did move the thing i.e the Agent of the Act of Motion of the thing stated above Cannot be Eternal in Rushdian System. Since according to his system if the Agent of an Act(ion) is Eternal then the Action of the Agent is also Eternal; and If the Action of an Agent is Not Eternal then the Agent is Not Eternal in his System.
408 409 410
A,a,1) From the above it is implied that if the Agent is Eternal then it implies that the act of moving the thing from Eternal rest is also Eternal, and this contradicts the supposition of the case that it was Eternally Not Moving.
411 412
Α,a,2) If there is an Eternal Attribute Of Intention Of the Agent Between the Eternal Agent and the Non Eternal Action of the Agent then it requires
413 414
a non ending infinite time from Eternity to the given Non Eternal Time τ to Lapse .This is not possible in Rushdian system.
415 416 417 418 419
A,b) If it is supposed that there was neither Potentiality of motion in Eternity no Actuality Of Motion in Eternity in the Eternally Static Existing Thing, then this implies that there was Eternal Impotentiality In Eternity of the Motion of the Thing in Eternity. Now this makes a further problem In the system of Ibn Ar Rushd. This means that after the lapse of Infinite Page | 14
15 420 421 422 423 424
endless time from the Eternity, first the Impotentiality of motion was changed some how into Potentiality of Motion and then the Potentiality of motion was changed into actuality of motion. Also the question is if their was no potentiality of motion in Eternity , was there Potentiality of Potentiality in Eternity. This is an Ad Infinitum.
425
430
Β,1) If the prime Mover moves the Eternal Object(s) directly at each distinct time since Eternity, such that No Motion at any distinct time is a consequence or an implication (or both) of any distinct motion prior to it, then each distinct motion of the object stated above, at each distinct NON μτ ETERNAL TIME τ is Not Eternal. Now any Non Eternal Motion at any
431
Non Eternal Time τ
432
lapsed. A lapse of infinite Eternal time is impossible and Absurd.
433 434 435 436 437
Β,2)It does requires a Non Eternal Intention of the Eternal Agent at each time, and this makes things worse in Rushdian system , where a single Not Eternal Intention of an Eternal Agent is an unsolvable problem, An Infinite series of distinct Non Eternal Intentions of the Eternal Agent is an infinitely greater unsolvable problem of Impossibility.
438
Ibn Ar Rushd’s Fallacy.
439 440 441
Although Ibn Ar Rushd admitted that his given proofs are neither Logically Certain Nor Logically Necessary, Yet he claimed that they are based upon{like }:-
442 443
B,2,1) The knowledge of human beings {about them selves}as rational beings.
444 445 446 447 448
But he made a fallacy by ignoring the differences between Natural Cases and Divine Case . Since the Divine Case does Implicate problems in his philosophical system but the former do not. Ibn Ar Rushd did admit that the Existence Of Deity is neither provable as a necessity of Deductive Logic nor as a certainty of the Deductive Logic.
449 450
But the proofs/arguments in support of Deity are Not like The
426 427 428 429
, there is an infinite endless time since Eternity is
beings {about them selves}as rational beings.
451
Page | 15
knowledge of human
16 452 453
B,2,2)The Principle Of Induction is also not applicable in the Divine Case, since in Natural case this principle does not imply problems in his system.
454
But the proofs/arguments in support of Deity are Not like the Induction of natural cases.
455
It may be once more stated as follow:-
456 457 458 459 460 461
“Natural cases”are not like “Divine Case” Since
they DO NOT MAKE SUCH PROBLEMS IN HIS SYSTEM BUT THE
ARGUMENTS/PROOFS OF DEITY do make such problems in his system. Thus if he says so this means that the invalidity of his system is directly implied by the very claims like “ the proofs/arguments are based on the Knowledge of human beings as rational beings or on the principle of induction etc.
462 463 464
BOOKS OF DEVIANT IBN AR RUSHD
465
1] Tahafa tut tahafah.
466
2] ‘Al Minhaj ‘Al Adilah fi “Aqaid ‘al Millah.
467
Work of supporter of the Devient .
468
Ibn Rushd’s criticism of theological arguments for Exitence of GOD.
469
By Dr. Ibrahim Y Najjar.
470 471
BOOKS OF AHLUSSUNNAH
472
SHARRAH AQAAID BY IMAM SAD UDDIN TAFTAZANI RAHMATULLAH ALAIH.
473
NABRAS BY ALLAMAH ABDUL AZIZ PERHARVI AND NOTES BY ALLAMAH
474
BARKHURDAR RAHMATULLAH ALAIHUMA
475
SHARAH MUVAQQIF
Page | 16
17 476
FIQH AKBAR [ ASCRIBED TO IMAM ABU HANIFAH RAHMATULLAH ALAIH
477
YET THIS ASCRIPTION IS DOUBT FUL YET THE ASCRIBED ARTICLES OF
478
FAITH ARE CORRECT EVEN IF THE ASCRIPTION IS DOUBTFUL]
479
SHARAH FIQH AL 窶連KBAR[ 窶連CBAR] BY MULLA ALI QARI RAHMATULLAH
480
ALAIH
481
AQAID TAH:AVI-YAH IMAM TAHAVI RAHMATULLAH ALAIH
482
AQIDAH OF IMAM IBN ATTAIMIAH RAHMATULLAH ALAIH
483
TAFSIR AL CABIR BY IMAM RAZI RH: AND HIS STUDENT SHAHABUDDIN
484
AHMAD BIN KHALIL. RH:
485 486
AL KHIALI ,ISAGHOJI ,SHARAH TAHZIB,QUTBI, MULLA JALAL,
487
Sallam al Ulu:m etc.
488
Note :1]The word DEITY is Used instead of the word GOD since this latter
489
word is often misused by atheist and makes disgracing statements.2]
490
DIVINE ESSENCE Is Identical to Deity NOT ONLY IN MAS:DA:Q BUT ALSO
491
IN MAFHU:M. THUS ESSENCE OF DEITY IS THE SELF OF DEITY, THAT IS
492
DEITY IS THE DIVINE ESSENCE [DIVINITY] AND DIVINE ESSENCE
493
[DIVINITY] IS THE DEITY AND THAT IS THE INTRINSIC NECESSARY
494
EXISTENT.
495 496
A NUMBER OF ERRORS IN SPELLING MAY BE FOUND DUE TO TYPING
497
PROBLEM. AS THIS IS A PROTO TYPE DOCUMENT. ALTHOUGH SLIGHTLY
498
IMPROVED FROM THE FIRST PROTOTYPE ARTICLES IT IS STILL A
499
PROTOPTYPE ARTICLE. YET IT IS SLIGHTLY IMPROVED WE DO APOLOGY
500
FOR GRAMMATICAL[AS:S:ARF VAN NAH:V] AND SPELLING ERRORS. WE
501
MAY GET RID OF THEM IN SOME ADVANCE VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE.
502
SUB HANALLAH VA BI HAMDIHI
503
SUB HANALLAHIL AZIM Page | 17
18 504
TRANSLATION SCHEME
505
LONG A ----- AA OR A: [ as A in CAR]
506
LONG I.... II OR I:
507
LONG U....UU OR U: [AS U in RUDE]
508
SHORT A.....A [as a in SUGAR or in GERMAN]
509
SHORT I.....I [as I in THIS,SIT]
510
SHORT U....U [as U in PUT].
511
NO SIGN IS USED FOR J-ZM , AND TASH-DI:D. FOR TASH-DI:D CONSONENTS
512
ARE WRITTEN TWICE EXAMPLE SATTAR AND ARE READ SEPERATELEY. EG
513
SAT-TAR.SOME TIME – MAY CONSIDE WITH J-ZM.
[as I in POLICE]
514 515
NOTES:-
516
1] THE EXAMPLES ARE THE BEST POSSIBLE APPROXIMATTIONS
517
2]C IS USED IN THE SOUND OF K. EG KALA:M OR CALA:M. BOTH ARE USED AS
518
EXACT ALTERNATIVES.
519
V IS USED IN SOUND OF W WHEN W IS A CONSONENT . EG WAU OR VAU .
520
BOTH ARE USED AS EXACT ALTERNATIVES.
521 522
DEFTHONGS
523
AI, AU [Alternative forms AY,AW,AV]
524
If a sound begins with a vowel the sign ‘ or ‘ is used [H-MZAH]. IF IT IS MISSED THEN
525
IT MAY BE SUPPOSED TO BE UNDERSTOOD.
526
FOR guttural AIN “ OR ” IS USED BEFORE A VOWEL.
Page | 18
19 527
Some times a short vowel is omitted and is replaced by << - >>SOME time
528
this represent a syllable. Some time it is omitted in case of syllables.No
529
unique method is used.
530
CONSONENTS:
531
B,T,
532
S’/TH,J,H:,KH,D,DH/Z’,R,Z,S,SH,S:,D:/Z:,T:,Z:,”,GH,F,Q,C/K,L,M,N,H,V/W/U,Y/I
533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541
.
542 543 544 545 546
conclusion
547 548 549
Ibn Ar Rushd’s system maketh it impossible and absurd that Any Non Eternal Thing is an Effect or an Action/Act OF Any Eternal (whether the eternal is Per Se subsistent or not), and Any Eternal is a Cause or Agent of any Non Eternal, (whether the Eternal is Perse susbsistent or not).
550 551 552
In delatil whether the Eternal is an Act(action/work),Attribute(Quality),Ousia(Essence/Substance/Persesubsistent one),Suppositum, Nature etc.
Page | 19
20 553
Thus An Eternal cannot(what so ever) be cause of any Non Eternal (what so ever).
554
Thus the system is Atheistic in its nature, and one who does accept this system
555
Soon concludes that Atheism is the only conclusion of this system.
556 557 558
How ever it is shewn in this work that his own arguments cannot by correct if his system is correct. And if his system his incorrect the then a number of arguments /proofs of Divine Existence may be correct, which Ibn Ar Rushd tried to refute in his Philosophical system.
559 560 561 562 563
.
564 565
Page | 20