THE PROBLEM OF SELF POSSIBILITY OF NAZ:I:R The word Nazir is often translated as Identical Copy of a thing. But actually it does not means a copy but plurality of Exaxtly alike things such that each one of them is genuine or original or both. [ IF THING A IS A NAZ:IR OF AN OTHER THING B THEN IT INCLUDES ALL ATTRIBUTES WITH THE NECESSARY AND RATIONAL EXCEPTION OF ATTRIBUTES WHICH EITHER CONTRADICTETH NAZ:I:R OR IMPLIETH THE NEGATION OF NAZ:I:R. BUT KHAIRABADI SCHOOL OF THOUGHT INCLUDETH THEM AS WELL]. For convenience one may say Real Copy or Identical Copy, but copy does not mean a copy but both identical distinct exact alike original and genuine individuals. The word Identical is not used in the meaning of One and the Same "Ainiah but Exactly alike.
According to Khairabadi School of Thought the Naz:i:r of Holy Prophet is Muh:a:l Bidh" Dh:a:t and not In Power of Omnipotence of 'ALL-H. On the Contrary according to Ahlussunnah Naz:a:'ir [Pl of Naz:i:r] are Self Possible [Mumkin Bidh:Dh:a:t]. There are two arguments advanced by Khairaba:di School of Thought. 1] Holy Prophet is First of All Creations and Last of All Prophets. If a Naz:i:r of Holy Prophet is Supposed then There are the following Logically Possible Cases. 1.1] The Naz:ir Doeth have these to properties, But this is Self Absurd. Since two first of all means that each one of the two is prior to the other this is Muh:a:l Bidh: Dh:a:t [Self Absurd]. Similarly two Last of all means two things each posterior to the other and This is Self Absurd. 1,2] The Naz:i:r does lack either one of the two Attributes stated above or both of them then it ceaseh to be a Naz:i:r. 2] A Naz:i:t implies Kidh:b of Deity and that is Muh:a:l Bidh:dh:a:t. Discussion on the first argument of Khairabadis. 'Auvalul Makhlu:qa:t doeth mean :=a ]Created Existent Prior to that one Infinite Existents are Self Possible yet not Created. Even the very self of Priority is Self Possible [Per Se Possible]. b] Neither Prior Nor Posterior to that one Infinite Existents are Possible Yet Not Created. Similarly Khatim 'An Nabiyi:n Meaneth that:=a] Posterior to that one Infinite Prophets are Self Possible yet never to be Created [With Certainty]. b] Neither Prior Nor Posterior to That One Infinite Prophets are Self Possible Yet Never to be Created.
In more explicit deduction a Khatim is One whoese Neither Posterior is Created Nor " Neither Posterior not Prior Is Created. As Naz:i:r is an Special Case of Neither Posterior nor Prior , KHATIM is one Whose Naz:i:r is not Created INSPITE if Its Self Possibility. It is not the Case that its Posterir or "Neither Posterior Nor Prior" is Self Absurd. So in any case a Naz:ir of Holy Prophet is Self Possible Since the Possibility of Naz:i:r is one of the Self Possibilities Stated above. So If a Naz:i:r Of Holy Prophet is Supposed to Exist then in the Case of:= a] 'Auvalul Makhluqa:t it is the Self Possibility of an Existent that is Prior to all Created Existents except the first Created One of Created Existent to which it is Neither Posterior Nor Prior. b] Kha:tim 'An Nabiyi:n it is the Self Possibility of an Existent that is Posterir to all Created Except the Last Created One of Created Prophets to which it is Neither Posterior Nor Prior. So to argue that the Naz:i:r of Holy Prophet Must have these to Attributes is a fallacy. Since it Self- Implieth that Naz:i:r of a thing With out Naz:i:r must be With out a Naz:i:r. This condition is incorrect and invalid. So the Naz:i:r of Holy Prophet does not Existeth Since Rasu:liullah Is Kha:tim 'An Nabiyi:n and a Kha:tim 'An Nabiyi:n is one Whose Naz:ir 'ALL-H Doeth Not Create even if It is Self Possible. So the Word Kha:tim is the Non Occurance of a Self Possible act of 'ALL-H [i.e Creation of Naz:i:r] and not the Self Absurdity of the Naz:i:r. Similarly the Word 'Auval is the Non Occurance of a Self Possible act of 'ALL-H [i.e Creation of Naz:i:r] and not the Self Absudity of the Naz:i:r. So this is the fallacy that Maulvi Fad:l H:aqq Khairabadi confused to Self Possibility and Occurance. He confused the Act of Qudrah and act of Takvi:n. In 'Ash"arite system his fallacy is that he confused two types of Acts of Qudrah [Omnipotence] of 'ALLH. A] Self Possible Acts. b] Excercised Acts. When Deity Excercised the First act it did means that there were infinite act Self Possible prior to it and Infinite acts Self Possible which were Neither Prior to It Nor Posterior to It. To each Possible Act there are finite act which are Prior to It and there are infinite acts which are Neither Posterior to it nor Prior to it. It doethnot mean that any act prior to it was Self Absurd or any act neither prior to it not posterior to it was self absurd or both.
Similrly When Deity Excercised the First [or Last ] act of a kind [ Creating Prophets] it did means that there were infinite act Self Possible posterior to it and Infinite acts Self Possible which were Neither Prior to It Nor Posterior to It. It doethnot mean that any act posterior to it was Self Absurd or any act neither prior to it not posterior to it was self absurd or both. Also even the posteririty and priority are Self Possible and to each excercised or possible [or both] priority or posteriority there are infinite Self Possible Posteriorities and Priorities. Divine Omnipotence and Divine Omniscience are Upon each one of them. Also Eternity is infinitely Prior to each one of the stated above Posteriority. So this discussion excludes Priority of Eternity and Eternals with Self Necessity and Rational Necessity. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE APPROACHES OF KHAIRABADI SCHOOL OF THOUGHT AND AHLUSSUNNAH APPROACH OF THOUGHT. According to Khairabadi approach of thought the Self Possibilities of a thing are discreate ,finite and limited. In the domain of Creation there is a Possible Existent [i.e A Thing that is Possible to be Created by 'ALL-H , not in the meaning that this thing EXISTETH] such that := 1] There is Self Aburdity for any Self Possible thing Prior to It. 2] There is a Self Absurdity for any Self Possible thing Neither Posterior to it nor Prior to It. This they call by the Term First of all Existents. If such a thing Existeth it is the First of all Creations. Similarly they say about the last of things. For example Holy Prophet is the Last of Prophets and the Final Prophet. So according to Khairabadi School of Thought Holy Prophet is the Last prophet means that := 1]It is Self Absurd for any Self Possible Prophet to be Posterior to Him. 2] It is Self Absurd for any Self Possible Prophet to be Neither Posterior to Him Nor "Neither Posterior to Him nor Prior to Him. In this meaning Holy Prophet is the Last and the Final Prophet as according to Khairabadi School of thought. According to the Pure Ahlussunnah School Of Thought things are other wise. To each and every Self Possible there is a Self Possible, That is Self Possible to be Prior to It. To each and every Self Possible there is a Self Possible that is Self Possible to be Posterior to It. To each and every Self Possible there is a Self Possible that is Self Possible to be Posterior to It.
To each and every Self Possible there is a Self Possible that is Self Possible to be " Neither Posterior to it nor Prior to it. Even the Posteriority , Priority, and Neither Posteriority Not Priority of a Self Possible to an other Self Possible are Self Possible. All these Self Implies Infinite Many of each kind stated above. Now we come to another Point. There are infinite many Self Possibles such that to each one of them there is atleast one distinct self Possible Self Possibly Prior to it. So if Deity Createth any one of these Self Possibles [Self Possible Existents (Self Possibles which are Creatable or Self Possible to Exist)] the as the First Act of Creation Deity Selecteth one of the Self Possible individual from the series of infinite Series of Self Possibles , not selecting infinite many Self Possible Individuals Prior to it [the selected one]. Similarly the same is true for Neither Posterior nor Prior Self Possible Individual. So if a thing is first of all Creations then this Self Implieth that there are infinite may Self Possible Individuals that are Prior to it and Neither Prior to It nor Posterior to it but they are not Created. Similarly if a Prophet is the last of all Prophets then it meaneth that there are Infinite many Self Possible Individuals of Prophet Posterior to it but NONE OF THEM are to Be Created, and There are Infinite Many Individuals of Prophets which are Neither Posterior nor Prior to Him Yet they are Never Created. A Naz:i:r is a Special case of an Individual that is Neither Posterior Nor Prior. So If an Existent is Self Possible and Is First of All Existents then this meaneth that its Naz:i:r is Self Possible but Absurd With Seperate. Since if a thing is First of All Creations then it is first of All Creations if and only if := 1] Any Self Possible Individual Prior to it is Absurd with Seperate. 2] Any Self Possible Individual Neither Posterior to It nor Prior to It is Absurd With Seperate. 3] Its Naz:i:r is Absurd With Seperate. 4] Self Possible Individuals Posterior to It are Not Absurd With Seperate. 5] The Existent itself is a Self Possible Individual. Since if an Individual Existing Prophet is Last of All Created Prophets then the Prophet is the last of All Created Prophets if and only if := 1] The Prophet is a Self Possible Individual. 2] Any Self Possible Individual Prophet Posterior to the Individual Existing Prophet is ABSURD WITH SEPARATE [MUH:A:L BIL GH:AIR].
3] Any Individual Self Possible Prophet that is Neither Posterior to the stated existing Individual Prophet Nor Prior to the Stated above individual ,is Absurd with Seperate. 4] Its Naz:i:r is Absurd With Seperate. 5] Self Possible individuals Prior to the Stated above are not Absurd With Seperate. So if a thing is last of all Prophet Self Implieth that it its Naz:i:r is Absurd With Separate. If the Naz:ir of a thing is Not Absurd With Separate then the Thing is Neither First of all its Kind nor last of all its type. This is the point to be noted. Now we come to discuss to famous question of Khairabadi School of Thought. The question consisteth of two parts. a] If Naz:ir of an Existing thing that is First of all of its Kind existeth then if its Naz:ir is supposed to exist then either it is either prior to it or posterior to it. In the first case the said thing ceaseth to be first. Hence ceaseth to be a Naz:ir. In the second case the the individual that is the Naz:ir becometh the second and not first. Second is not a Naz:i:r of First. b] a] If Naz:ir of an Existing thing that is Last of all of its Kind existeth then if its Naz:ir is supposed to exist then either it is either prior to it or posterior to it. If it is Prior to the last then it is not Last and Last cannot be a Naz:i:r of one that is not Last. If it posterior to it then the thing ceaseth to be the Last and the Naz:ir becometh the Last. Last cannot be A Naz:i:r of a thing that is not Last.
A RESPONCE TO THIS TYPE OF FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS:= Answer Of This Question is as follow:= A Naz:i:r of a Thing is NEITHER PRIOR to it NOR POSTERIOR to it. It is Self Possible for 'ALL-H to Create two or more things Simultaneously [in the meaning that None of The Two are Posterior to the other and none of the two are Prior to the Other].
Naz:i:r is a Special Case of " Neither Posterior Nor Prior" . Since if there is a Thing such that its Naz:i:r Existeth then its Naz:i:r is Neither Posterior to it Nor Prior to it. But if A and B are any two things such that B is Neither Posterior to A ,Nor Prior to A, then it is not necessary that Bis Naz:ir of A. So the converse is not True in this case. But if A and B are any two Distinct Existing things such that A is Naz:i:r of B then A is Neither Posterior to A nor Prior to A. [ [They are Simultaneous in the meaning Neither Posterior Nor Prior].
Also:= If a thing A is the Naz:i:r Of B then B is the Naz:i:r Of A. Now the Question is as fallow:= Is it in Omnipotence of Deity 'ALL-H to Create two or More Distict Self Possible Individuals Simultaniously . The answer is It is Self Possible and Not Self Absurd. If the Na:zi:r of a thing Existeth then it is Neither First of ALL nor Second of All nor Third of All , nor Forth of all ,... and so on till Last of All. If a thing is any one of the thing stated above say
n
th
of All then it Has No Naz:i:r. The Fallacy of Argument: In the argument 'Auvaliah and 'A:kh:irah are supposed to be the Attributes of a Thing and its Naz:i:r. This is incorrect. Since if the Naz:i:r of an Existent [Existing Thing] Doeth Not Exist then Non Existence of its Naz:i:r is Supposed to be one of Its Attributes and then this Attribute is claimed to be required for any other thing to be Its Naz:i:r. This demand is incorrect. Suppose that Naz:i:r of any Self Possible Existing thing is Absurd With Separate then the Absurdity With Separate of its Naz:i:r is claimed to be one of Its Attributes. Then this Attribute is demanded in the Naz:i:r Self Implying that two things with out Naz:i:r are Naz:i:r of one another. Existence of Naz:i:r is a Direct Contradiction and Negation of Non Existence of Naz:i:r. So demand of this attribute that contradicteth the very Naz:i:r is not required as an attribute of Naz:i:r. Similarly the Non Existence of Naz:i:r is not Required as an Attribute of the thing whose Naz:i:r is under discussion. So the dispute is over the defination of Naz:i:r in which Khairaba:di school of Thought included the Non
Existence of Naz:i:r , and if the Naz:i:r of a thing doeth not exist then this school of thought included the Non Existence of its Naz:i:r among its attributes, in order to shew that Naz:i:r of Holy Prophet is Self Absurd. But in the end they concided with Hash'sha:miah Mu"t-zilah who believed that Mith:a:l of each and every Created Existent is Impossible. Since in this defination Naz:i:r of each and every Creation becomes Self Absurd. Ghu:la:m Rasu:l Sa"i:di in his vol three of Comentary of S:ah:i:h: Muslim has claimed that Naz:i:r of every Person is Self Absurd. But the fallacy has been pointed out. They demand the nonExistence of the Naz:i:r as not only the Attribute of the Created Existent but also of its Naz:i:r . Self Implying that the Naz:i:r of each and every self Possible as Self Absurd, not just of Holy Prophet. But this condition is incorrect and invalid. Naz:i:r includes all the Attributes which do neither contradict Naz:i:r nor implieth its Negation. In other words if a Thing doeth Exist THEN either its Naz:i:r Existeth or Doeth not Exist. In the first case its Naz:ir is Neither Posterior to It Nor Prior to It. In the second case It has the attribute of Non Existence of its Naz:i:r. So if its Naz:i:r if supposed to exist also have this Attribute or not. If not then it is not the Naz:i:r. Since A Naz:i:r of a thing is equal to the thing in all Attributes. But this is Self Absurd since in this case two distinct things are Naz:i:r of one an other such that none of them hath a Naz:i:r.
But according to Ahlussunnah A Naz:i:r of a Created Self Possible thing is equal in all Attributes with the Necessary and Rational Exception of all Attributes which do contradict the Existence Or Occurance of the Naz:i:r.
To coin a defination of the Naz:i:r which implieth that Naz:i:r of every thing whether Self Necessary Or Self Possible Or Self Absurd is Self Absurd.Such a defination is incorrect and is nothing but toying and playing with terms and denial of Law and Logic of Exception. Necessary Exception of a thing doeth not contraditeth the defination. The Term Naz:i:r by defination excludeth any Attribute with ccontradicteth the Occurance or Existence of the Naz:i:r [Pl: Naz:a:'ir].There is nothing Self Contradictory or Paradoxial or Both in the Defination of the Term Naz:i:r. The basic fallacy in the whole discussion is to define the term such that the defination becometh Self Contradictory or Paradoxial when aplied to any thing whether it be Self Necessary Existent or Self Possible Existent or Self Absurd Existent [Va:jib Al Vuju:d Lidh:atihi:,Mumkin 'Al Vuju:d Vuju:d Lidh:atihi: or Mumtana"ul Vuju:d Lidh:atihi:/Muh:a:lul Vuju:d Lidh:atihi:Respectively].If the Naz:i:r of Self Necessary Existent is Muh:a:l Bidh: Dh:a:t IT IS NOT DUE TO ANY SELF CONTRADICTION IN THE DEFINATION OF THE TERM,BUT DUE TO THE SELF ABSURDITY OF PLURALITY OF SELF NECESSARY ESSENTIAL EXISTENTS [ SELF ABSURDITY OF PLURALITY OF EXISTING ESSENCES]. A defination of Na:z:ir which self implieth that Naz:i:r of each on of Self Necessary Existence,Self Absurd Existent and Self Possible Existent is Self Absurd is Self Absurd in itself, and an incorrect defination. If correct even then not used by any one except the Khairaba:di School of thought AND those who borrowed from them. SUMMARY:= There is No Self Possible Prior to which a Self Possible is Self Absurd.[This discussion excludes Divine Attributes if they are considered as Self Possible as Necessary Exception]. There is No Self Possible POSTERIOR to which a Self Possible is Self Absurd.[This discussion excludes Divine Attributes if they are considered as Self Possible as Necessary Exception]. There is No Self Possible NEITHER Prior to which Nor Posterior to it a Self Possible is Self Absurd. [This
discussion excludes Divine Attributes if they are considered as Self Possible as Necessary Exception]. Holy Prophet is the Last Of Prophets in Regard to Divine Act of Creativity. So Not Creating a Naz:i:r is an Act of Deity and this act is a relative Attribute of Holy Prophet. Note : Some Scholars of H:adi:th: have pointed out that Pen is the First Created Existent and Holy Prophet is the Last Created Prophet. In this case a similar problem occurs for the Naz:i:r of Pen. So the answer to the problem is that Negation of a Self Possibility of Naz:ir is one thing and Negation of Excercise of a Possibility is an other thing. In the second case 'Auval and 'A:khir [Kha:tim] are the Non Ocuurances of Infinite Possible Acts, and not the Non Occurances of Self Absurd Acts. in the present case under discussion. THE CASES ARE THAT:=
1]A CREATED EXISTENT IS FIRST OF ALL CREATED EXISTENTS WHOSE PRIOR EXISTENT IS SELF POSSIBLE YET NOT CREATED , WHOSE NEITHER POSTERIOR NOR PRIOR EXISTENT IS SELF POSSIBLE YET NOT CREATED . AND WHOSE NAZ:I:R IS SELF POSSIBLE YET NOT CREATED. 2] A CREATED PROPHET IS LAST AND FINAL OF ALL CREATED PROPHETS WHOSE POSTERIOR PROPHET IS SELF POSSIBLE YET NOT CREATED , WHOSE NEITHER POSTERIOR NOR PRIOR PROPHET IS SELF POSSIBLE YET NOT CREATED . AND WHOSE NAZ:I:R IS SELF POSSIBLE YET NOT CREATED. THE CASES NOT THAT:= 1] A CREATED EXISTENT IS FIRST OF ALL CREATED EXISTENTS WHOSE PRIOR EXISTENT IS SELF ABSURD HENCE NOT CREATED , WHOSE NEITHER POSTERIOR NOR PRIOR EXISTENT IS SELF ANSURD HENCE NOT CREATED . AND WHOSE NAZ:I:R IS SELF ABSURD HENCE NOT CREATED. 2] A CREATED PROPHET IS LAST AND FINAL OF ALL CREATED PROPHETS WHOSE POSTERIOR PROPHET IS SELF PSELF ABSURD HENCE NOT CREATED , WHOSE NEITHER POSTERIOR NOR PRIOR PROPHET IS SELF ABSURD HENCE NOT CREATED . AND WHOSE NAZ:I:R IS SELF ABSURD HENCE NOT CREATED. HENCE THE FIRST ARGUMENT IS A FALLACY. BASED ON INCORRECT DEFINATIONS OF SELF POSSIBLE FIRST AND LAST. That is why scholars, logicians, philosophers, and dialectics all agree that Maulivi Fad:l Haqq Khairabadi errerd in the concepts of Self Possible of first and last.
2] As for the second argument it is stated that Kidhb is Muh:a:l Bil Ghair therefore one may see a number of thse discussions in this Scribd form. So it is not necessary to discuss it further.
[1]
REASON WHY THIS DEBATE CEASED TO BE EXCERCISED. It is very evident that Khairaba:di: school realised that this debate is based just on the Verbal Disputes and not upon real disputes and there is no need to discuss it since they agree with the 'Ahlussunnah on the Essence , Substance and Reality. But 'Ah:mad Rad:a: of Bans Baraili continued this debate and did not consider it as a verbal dispute.
More discussion may be added LATTER. This is one of the several responses to there arguments. 1] TAH:QI:Q AL FATVA [ALLEGELY WRITTEN BY FAD:L H:AQQ KHAIRABADI 2] IMTINA:" 'AN NAZ:I:R [ALLEGELY WRITTEN BY FAD:L H:AQQ KHAIRABADI] Those who want to see the Persian work may FIND it on URL:= https://www.scribd.com/user/8469278/sunnivoice ====================================================================================== ====================================================================================== ====================================================================================== ====================================================================================== ====
[1] AS THIS WAS MISSING IN THIS ARTICLE IT IS ADDED BY
REFUTING ALIMIRZA ON SCRIPT FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES. WE HAVE TRIED TO SUMMARISE THE DISCUSSION IN A NUTSHELL FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES AS FOLLOW:= NAQS: UPON 'ALL-H IS MUH:A:L BIDH DH:A:T . IN THIS PRINCIPLE DIVINE ESSENCE AND DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES ARE INCLUDED SINCE NAQA:'IS: UPON ANY ONE OF THEM ARE MUH:A:L BIDH: DH:A:T .THIS IS THE BELIEF OF MAJORITY OF AHLUSSUNNAH NOUNLY 'ASHA:'RAH AND MATURIDIAH [MAY ALL-H BLESS THEM]. SOME SALAFITES AND H:ANABALITES WHO CONSTITUE MINORITY OF AHLUSSUNNAH [MAY ALL-H ALSO BLESS THEM] CLAIM EACH AND EVERY DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS ESSNTIAL. BUT AN ATTRIBUTE OF A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE EXCLUDETH THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. ALL THESE DEBATES AND DISPUTES ARE INREGARD TO DIVINE ATTRIBUTES AND NOT IN REGARD TO [RELATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES]. S:IDQ IS A RELATIVE ATTRIBUTE OF THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE OF 'ALL-H I.E SPEECH [KALA:M].SO IT IS SEPERATE AND DISTINCT FROM ALL-H AND DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. ITS OPPOSITE IS ALSO DISTINCT AND SEPERATE FROM ALL-H AND DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. THAT IS THE REASON EATING .DRINKING,DISEASES,SLEEPING, SECTUAL ACTIVITIES ARE MUH:AL BIDH: DH:A:T UPON 'ALL-H, SINCE THEY ARE NAQA:'IS: UPON ALL-H AND HIS ATTRIBUTES. ON THE CONTRARY KIDH:B IS A NAQS: THAT IS GHAIRULLAH AND A OPPOSITE OF SIDQ WHICH IS JUST A RELATIVE ATTRIBUTE OF AN ATTRIBUTE OF ALL-H HENCE IT IS MUH:A:L BIL GHAIR. BUT KIDH:B UPON DIVINE ESSENCE IS MUH:A:L BIDH DH:A:T. THIS IMPLIETH NOT THAT ANOTHER KIND OF KIDH:B THAT IS SEPERATE FROM DIVINE ESSENCE AND DIVINE ATTRIBUTES IS ALSO MUH:A:L BIDH DH:A:T. THIS IS A PROOF WITH CERTAINTY THAT THIS TYPE OF KIDH:B [FALSEHOOD] IS MUH:A:L BIL GHAIR. ONE MUST DIFFERENTIALTE BETWEEN DIVINE ATTRIBUTES AND ATTRIBUTES OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. NO DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS 'ALL-H. RELATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE NEITHER DIVINE ESSENCE NOR DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. MAULAVI RAD:A OF BANS BARAILI CLAIMED THAT S:DIQ IS LAZIM OF A LAZIM OF 'ALL-H SINCE HE DID KNOW THAT IF HE ACCEPTED THAT IT IS A RELATION OF LA:ZIM THEN HE MUST HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT KIDH:B AS A NAQS: OF S:IDQ ,IS MUH:A:L BIL GHAIR ,WHERE S:IDQ IS A RELATIVE ATTRIBUTE. EVEN IF ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES ARE SUPPOSED NOT BE IDENTICAL AND NOT "NEITHER IDENTICAL NOR SEPERATE" EVEN THEN S:IDQ IS A RELATIVE ATTRIBUTE. EVEN IF ALL DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE BELIEVED TO BE IDENTICAL WHETHER THEY ARE ESSENTIAL OR
ACTIVE , THE RELATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE SEPERATE AND DISTINCT FROM THEM AND FROM DIVINE ESSENCE. IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IDENTICAL THEIR MAFHU:MAT [SENSES/MEANINGS] ARE STILL DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF ESSENCE , AND INREGARD TO THEIR MEANINGS THE RELATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF ATTRIBUTES ARE NEITHER DIVINE ESSENCE NOR DIVINE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES BUT RELATIONS IN REGUARD TO THEIR MEANINGS. THAT IS THE REASON THAT NO SCHOLAR OF ANY SCHOOL OF THOUGHT DENY RELATIONS IN REGUARD TO DIVINE ATTRIBUTES EVEN IF HE CLAIMS THEIR IDENTITY TO DIVINE ESSENCE.
END OF PART ONE
BEGINNING OF PART TWO THE PROBLEM OF DEFINATION The Term Naz:i:r must not be defined as some thing Self Contradictory. So it must exclude the attribues which contradicts the Non Exitence of the Naz:ir . The basis objection on the posibility of Naz:ir: [say B] of any thing that is first of all of certain kind or of all things is that either a is the first or b is the first but not both. One that is not the first is not the Naz:ir of the one that is the first. But such Attributes are excluded as a Necessary Exception. For examble in the term Mumtan-"un Naz:i:r , Ma"du:mun Naz:i:r and "Adi:m An Nazi:r the "Adam and 'Imtina:" are excluded as a Necessary Exception. Since if not then any existing thing which is Mumtana" An Nazir or "Adi:mun Naz:i:r or Ma"du:m 'AnNaz:i:r becomes Non Existence. That is the flaw and the fallacy. Similarly such Attributes that negates the Self Posibility and Existence of Naz:i:r are Self Excluded as a Necessary Exception from the Defination of the Term Naz:i:r. An other thing is that of the Naz:ir of a thing Exists then neither the thing is first of all nor its Naz:i:r is the first of all but both of the two are Firsts of all. The conversion from Only First of All to the Not Only first of all is possible. If any thing is first of all then this means its naz;i: does not exist not that its Naz:ir is impossible [i.e IT MEANETH NOT THAT IT IS SELF ABSURD]. So if its Naz:i:r Existeth then it ceases to be "first of all".
The only thing that is impossible [Self Absurd] is that a thing exixts and its Nazir also exixsts yet it is still First of all. But this Self Absurdity doeth not prove the Self Absurdity of Naz:i:r. So by defination a Existing Self Possible "First of all" is a thing whose Naz:i:r is Self Possible yet it doeth not exist and not that is is Impossible [Self Absurd] and doeth not exist. Since Nazi:r of an Self Possible Individual [Non Eternal] is possible. So if Nazi:r of a thing if it exists implieth a falsehood of the statement/sentence which stateth or Implieth that its Nazi:r does not exist. This falshood is Possible and not impossible. Since if the statement/Sentence remains true yet its Naz:ir is supposed to be existeth then the problem of self contradition of the statement emerges. So a self contradiction of the statement/senteences is implied since it is implied that its nazir existeth and does not existeth. So the First of all Existing Self Possible Individual is one whose Whose Naz:i:r is Self Possible and Doeth Not Exist , and not that its Naz:ir is Self Impossible or Self Absurd. So under the definations of the term First of All and Naz:ir , the Naz:ir of an Existing Self Possible First of all is Self Possible and Doeth not Exist, not that it is Self Aburd and doeth not Exist. So any sentence which says that a thing is self Possible Yet its Nazi:r does not exist is falsified if the Nazi:ir of the thing existeth. The only thing that is impossible is that the sentence is true yet the Nazi:r of the thing existeth. Since it is no thing but that the sentence is true and false simultanously. This does not imply the self Absudity of the Nazi:ir. THE BEGINNING OF THE PROBLEM Khairabadi school of thought began to deny the Self Possibility of Naz:i:r be giving it a defination with out making an agreement on the defination with their opponents. On the contrary True Ahlussunnah thought that Khairabadis School of Thought is using the term in a defination in which they themselve use. How ever after a long series of debates it was recognised that they differ on the definations of a term. When this was identified the dispute was immediately reduced to a verbal dispute. Khairabadi Defination: According to Khairabadi school of thought THE TERM MAY BE DEFINE AS FOLLOW: If two or more things are equal in all Attributes then each one of them is a Naz:i:r of the them rest, and togather they are Naz:a:'ir.
[Naz:i:r ;pl Naz:a:'ir] Defination Of Naz:i:r by Pure 'Ahlussunnah If two or more Individuals are equal in those Attributes which do not contradict their equality and Plurality then each one of them is the Naz:i:r of the other and togather they are Naz:a:'ir . So if Naz:i:r of a given individual is Self Absurd then its Self Absurdity is not Self Implied by the very defination of the term. THE FLAW IN THE KHAIRABADI DEFINATION. If Kh:airabadi defination is accepted then Naz:i:r of each and every thing whether it be Self Necessary or Self Possible or Self Absurd is Self Absurd. But this is certainly not the case. So if a Self Possible Existing Individual is First of All of a certain kind or of all kinds then Its Naz:i:r is not Self Absurd but it simply existeth Not. Being first of All implies that Its Naz:i:r doeth not exist not that its Naz:ir is Self Absurd. If the Existing thing [Individual] is [Non Eternal] Self Possible then its Naz:i:r is Self Possible and Doeth Not Exist. In an other sentence it may be stated as follow:= If the Existing thing [Individual] is [Non Eternal] Self Possible then its Naz:i:r is Self Possible and Absurd With Seperate.
If the Naz:i:r of an Existing Self Possible Individual Existeth then it is not the "first of all". Also it may be re sentenced as follow:= If the Naz:i:r of an Existing Self Possible Individual Existeth then it is not the "Mumt-na" 'An Naz:i:t Bil Ghair" [One whose Naz:i:r is Absurd With Seperate].
Since First of all meaneth first of all existing things either of all kind or of a single kind. It doeth not mean First of All Self Possible individuals since to each and every self Possible individial there is a self Possible Individual Prior to It. If The Creater Createth or Chooseth any Self Possible Individual then He Doeth not Createth infinite Self Possible Individual that are prior to it, and Doeth leave them unchosed.
It hath been discussed in the first part of the discussion. Similarly one can say about "Last of All", Second Of All, Third Of All, Forth Of All and so On . For students we have left the discussion for "Last of All" etc. as an excercise. Any how one may define the First Of All as an existing Individual such that: 1] there is no thing prior to it. 2] There is nothing that is neither Prior to It nor "Neither Prior to it not posterior to it. 3] Its Naz:i:r doeth not exist. It may be noted that 3 is a corollary of 2. The term First Of All neither imply that it is Self Absurd that any thing is prior to it nor Imply ....etc. If it is implied it is implied from the individuals like Divine Essence and Divine Essential Attributes. In case of a Self Possible [Non Eternal ] Individual Self Possibility is accepted. So if a Non Eternal Existing Self Possible Existeth as First of All then any Self Possible Prior to it simply doeth not exist not that it is Self Absurd. Similarly Any Individual that is neither Posterior to It Nor Prior to it also doeth not exist. Additionally Its Naz:ir doeth not exist. So this term only imply that its naz:i:r is Absurd with Seperate and Not Self Absurd. The defination of "First Of All Existing Self Possible" means a Self Possible That Existeth , no Self Possible that is Prior to It doeth not Exist, no Self POSSIBLE that is Neither Prior to It Nor Posterior to It Existeth , and no Self Possible Naz:i:r of it Existeth. In this defination it doeth mean that:= To say that First Of All Existing Self Possible [Non Eternal] Individual and its Naz:i:r both Existeth means nothing but := A THING WHOSE NAZ:I:R IS ABSURD WITH SEPERATE AND ITS NAZ:I:R BOTH EXISTETH. This implieth that a Thing is Absurd with Seperate Yet not Absurd With Seperate. In more technical sentence and words it is nothing but to say := A thing that is Mumt-na" 'An Naz:i:r Bil Ghair and Its Naz:i:r both Existeth simulteneously. This is Self Absurd in the very same meaning that a thing Existeth and Existeth not Simultaneously. Such a Self Absurdity can not prove that the Self of the Individual is Self Possible.
Similarly it is SELF ABSURD THAT THE WORLD EXISTETH AND EXISTETH NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY. BUT THIS DOETH NOT PROVE THAT THE WORLD IS SELF ABSURD. END OF PART TWO:-
BEGINNING OF PART THREE PART THREE:It has been tried to prove the Self Absurdity from Vah:datul Vuju:d. Vah:datul Vuju:d is not a single dogma, raither there are several dogmas and doctrines unter the title of Vah:datul Vuju:d. Some of them are really Kufr as pointed out by Salafies but Not all of them are Kufr. Some of them are Certainly not Kufr but just some Philosophical Solutions of some Philosophical Problems. Below we present a moderate version that is nither Kufr nor Heresy. DOGMA OF VAH:DATUL VUJU:D. There are only two types of Exiting Things. 1] Uncreated 2] Created. Deity [Divine Essence] and Divine [Essential] Attributes belong to the first type. All Creations belong to the second type. That is an Existent that is neither Deity nor Divine Attribute is Certainly Created. Deity and Creations [Uncreated Existents ] and Created Existents are Seperate. It is perfectly fufr to claim that any Creation is Identical to Deity or Divine [Essential] Attribute. But a Created Existent lacketh the Attribute of Existence. Only Divine Essence [Deity] Existeth With Existence . Existence is the Attribute of Deity [Divine Essence] Only. Created Existents Exist with out Any Attribute of Existence. They depend upon the Divine Existence in order to Exist. This is the valid Formation of Vah:datul Vuju:d. Defination of Manifestation [Z:-hu:ra:t/Maz:a:hir]] and Definitation [Ta"aiuna:t]. If a Creation depeneth on the Existence of its Creator in order to Exist and Exitence is not its Attribute then this Creation is called a Manifestation of the Existence of the Creater.
As the Existence of the Creator is Identical to the Essence of the Creator then it may be called a Menifestation of the Creator or the Seence of the Creator, Since the Essence of the Creator is Identical to the Creator. This Self Implieth that Essence of the Creator is the Creator It/Him Self. It doeth not state Creator is Identical to Creation/Creature. How ever Some dogmas of it do say and they are Kufr. According to Some denouncers of Self Possibility of Naz:a:'ir Holy Prophet is the Best of All Creations [Menifestations/ Definizations]. So any thing better than Him is better than the Best, That is Self Absurd. Similarly Any thing Equal to the Best of All is also Best . This implieth that the thing wich was assumed to be best of All is not Best. This is Self Absurd that any thing is best of all yet not best of all. ANSWER TO THIS ARGUMENT. IN THE CLASS OF SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUALS TO EACH AND EVERY SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUAL THERE IS A DISTINCT SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUAL BETTER THEN IT OR MORE PERFECT THAN IT OR SUPERIOR TO IT. IN THE CLASS OF SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUALS TO EACH AND EVERY SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUAL THERE IS A DISTINCT SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUAL WORSE THEN IT OR LESS PERFECT THAN IT OR
INFERIOR TO IT.
IN THE CLASS OF SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUALS TO EACH AND EVERY SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUAL THERE IS A DISTINCT SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUAL THAT IS NEITHER <<WORSE THEN IT OR LESS PERFECT THAN IT OR INFERIOR TO IT>> NOR << BETTER THEN IT OR MORE PERFECT THAN IT OR SUPERIOR TO IT>>. However in the linne if actuality and creation the there is a Creation that is best of all Creations . It doeth not mean that any thing better that it or exact eaual to it [Naz:i:r] is Self Absurd. It only implieth that such Self Possible Individuals do not Exist and are Not Created. Problem of some texts of Ibn "Arabi and 'Imam Ghaza:li: Some texts of Ibn "Arabi and 'Imam Ghaza:li apperently mean that a World Better then this World is Impossible. But this is incorrect . These Texts Must be Interpreted non Literally and must not be taken apperently.
Maulana: 'Ashraf "Ali: RH: hath interpreted them and explained them otherwise . See Kh:u:s:u:s: Al C-l-m and the foot note on it. VERSE OF SHAIKH: SA"DI: Shaikh: Sa"di: saith in one of his M-S:R-" [Line] Of his Q-t:-" That
LA: YAMK-N 'ATH: TH:-NA: KAMA: KA:NA HAQQ-HU This is used to argue that he negateth Self Possibility.
An answer to this is he negateth Practical Possibility [ Exercisal Possibility]. It cannot be that he negateth Self Possibility. END OF PART 3
BEGINNIG OF PART 4 Some Arguments of the opponents. 1]The Fundamental Principle is that " N:az:i:r of a Self Poasible is Self Possible. On this Principle that is axiomatic the following objection is made. It doeth not mean that Naz:i:r of a Self Possible is Self Possible. It only means that if a Naz:i:r of a Self Possible Existeth it Must Be Self Possible otherwise it is not a Naz:ir. A Similar caase may be seen when it is said that Naz:i:r of a Self Necessary is Self Necessary. It is interpreted that if there is a Naz:i:r of Self Necessary then it Must be Self Necessary other wise it is not a Naz:i:r.
It doeth not mean that Naz:i:ir of Self Necessary is Self Necessary. PROPER RESPONSE: The sentence "Naz:i:r of a Self Possible is Self Possible" is used in two different meanings and each one is correct.
One of the two is that "If a Self Possible Existeth then Its Naz:i:r if it also Existeth is Self Possible, other wise it is not a Naz:i:r". Other one is That "Naz:i:r of a Self Possible is Self Possible". In other sentence r aphormism " It doeth mean that Naz:i:ir of Self Possible is Self Self Possible". Both are two different Principles yet some times each one of the two are represented by similar sentences. This was delebrately confused by some extremists. 2] If the Naz:i:r of a thing is Self Absurd then the Thing is either Self Necessary or Self Absurd. An objection is made on this Argument:= If Negation /Contradiction of an Existing Thing is Self Absurd then it is Self Necessary [Existent]. But it is not so that if the Naz:i:r of a thing is Self Absurd then it is Either Self Necessary or Self Absurd. ANSWER TO THIS OBJECTION:= This is a fallacy . Since both of the two Principles are Correct. How ever it may be noted that those who believe that Divine Essential Attributes are Neither Identical Nor Seperate believe that if the Negation of an Existing Thing is Self Absurd then it is either Self Necessary or Necessarily Implied from the Self Necessary. The fallacy is that the objection maker is presenting the next principle as if it is the correct form of the principle. The objection Maker doeth forget some how that both of the Principles are equally correct. 3] Suppose that A is the Only Child of B. Then if Naz:i:r of A is Possible then the Naz:i:r must also be the only child of B. But if it is so then this is a contradiction since this imply A and Naz:i:r of A say Z(A) both are the only child of B. This is Self Absurd. Responce:= This is based on an invalid defination of Naz:i:r. According to the Proper Defination Tana:z:ur Is a Kind Of Plurality. So this excludes the stated above Attribute of Uniquesness as a Necessary Exception and a Rational Exception other wise it has been proved that Naz:i:r of Every thing whether it be Self Possible or Self Absurd or Self Necessary is Self Absurd not just of one or two Self Possible Individuals. Such a Defination which implieth that the very concept of Naz:i:r is Self Contradicting
or Paradoxial is a Definite and Certain proof that this Defination is incorrect and invalid. Paradox definationâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; a defination that can be shown, using a given set of axioms and definitions, to be both true and false. Paradoxial definations do shew the inconsistencies in a flawed claim. A defination must not be paradoxial atleast in religious , theological and philosophical discussions. Objection on This Answer:= It is the right of a person to coin any sort of defination whether Self Contradiction or Paradoxial. Answer to this Objection:= If one tries to coin a defination that is Paradoxial or Self Contradictin or Both and use it to deny the Absolute Divine Omnipotence then things become religious and such definations are not allowed. For example is some one defineth the Word World by a Defination which is Self Contraditing and say that Deity is not the Creator of the World then this is not allowed since this implies fallacy. The Word Naz:i:r is Neither Self Contradictory Nor Paradoxial.
I