1refutation of ilm ma cana va yacun copy11

Page | 1 REFUTATION OF ILM MACANA VA YAKUN HP7800

[REFUTATION OF ILM MA KANA VA YAKUN.] A REFUTATION OF ARGUMENTS AND ARGUMENTATIONS OF MAULAVI RAZA OF BARAILI ABOUT THE ILM MA KANA VA YACUN [A REFUTATION OF ARGUMENTS ,ARGUMENTATIONST, PROOFS AND REASONINGS OF THE BELIEF OF ILM MA CA NA VA YACUN INVENTED BY MAULAVI RAZA OF BANS BARAILI UNITED PROVINCES BRITISH

INDIA (1857-1947 A.C)ype the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.]

BIS MILLA HIR RAH MAANIR RA HIIM Introduction MAULAVI RAZA/RADA[1856AC-1920/21AC] OF BANS BARAILI UNITED PROVINCES BRITISH INDIA[1858 AC-1947AC] invented a new cult yet he called himself a Sunni. He named his sect as AHL E SUNNAT, and claimed to be the only representative of Sunnism. He declared the rest of the SUNNI UNIVERSE as Non Sunni and some time as Non Muslim as well.He begain to transform minor disputes among Sunnis into major disputes. He held some special believes and these new believes became the criteria of Sunnism as according to his followers[Barailvism].

One of his belief is the belief of ILM MA KAANA VA YAKUUN.

PART ONE THE KNOWLEDGE OF what Has OCCURED AND WHAT SHALL OCCUR AND WHAT DOES OCCUR .

According to Sunnism such a Knowledge is only ascribe to Deity Nounly ALLAH the RABB OF UNIVERSE AND COSMOS. THOUGH DIVINE KNOWLEDGE IS FOR BEYOND THIS AND IS INFINITE, ABSOLUTE AND UNLIMITED , INFINITE AND OMNISCIENCE. But even this knowledge [1] is not known to any one EXCEPT ALLAH SUB HANAHU VA TA ALA. This knowledge is included in ILM AL GHAIB and no one Doeth know Al Ghaib EXCEPT ALLAH. Thus negation of Al Ghaib implieth the negation of this knowledge.

The founder of the sect stated above first disputed over the belief That no one Knoweth AlGhaib Except ALLAH, by supposing a division of two types of ILM AL GHAIB A] DHATI[ESSENTIAL] 2]ILM AL GHAIB AL ATAAI/ATAI [BESTOWED/GIFTED, THEN PROPOSED THE KNOWLEDGE OF EACH AND EVEY THING AND EACH AND EVRY EVENT WHICH DID OCCUR,DO OCCU AND SHALL OCCUR FROM THE BEGINING OF THE COSMIC WORLD TO THE VERY END OF WORLDY COSMOS TO THE ESSENCE OF HOLY PROPHET [S.A.A.V.S]. This supposed Bestowed knowledge was named as ILM MA CAANA VA YACUUN , THE KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THAT DID OCCUR, AND ALL THAT SHALL OCCUR [ LITERALLY ALL WHICH DID BE AND ALL WHICH DO BE /SHALL BE].[2]

Page | 3 THE FOUNDER OF THE SECT [3] ATTEMPTED TO PROVE HIS BELIEF BY ARGUING FROM THE TEXT OF A NUMBER OF AAYAAT AND AHADITH. HIS CERTRAL ARGUMENTATIONS AND ARGUMENTS FOR THIS SORT OF BELIEF IS FROM THE FOLLOWING VERSES. AN N-H-L 89,AL AN AAM38,AND YUSUF 111 He also used the verses AL ANAAM 59, AL QAMAR 51, AND YAA SIIN 12 IN HIS ARGUMENTATIONS AND ARGUMENTS. In this article /work it is tried to refute his arguments and argumentations by the HELP OF ALLAH SUBHAANAHU VATA ALA. If the central arguments are proved to be incorrect then it is useless to discuss the peripheral arguments and argumentations, since the validity of peripheral arguments and argumentations do depend upon the Validity of Central Arguments and argumentations.

So the Verses and Ahadis upon which the peripheral arguments depend are not discussed.

Only the verses upon which the central arguments and argumentations depend are discussed in this article. Sooner or latter they shall also be discussed IN SHAA ALLAH. NOTE . IN THIS ARTICLE THE LETTER C IS OFTEN USED FOR LETTER K, LETTTER V IS OFTEN USED FOR LETTER K, AND LETTER I AND Y MAY BE USED ALTERNATIVELY FOR EXAMPLE KALAM IS ALSO WRITTEN AS CALAM. C IS USED AS A SUBSTITUTE OF K AT TIMES WHEN A,O,U,OR ANY CONSONENT COMES AFTER IT , AND C MAY BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTE OF S IFAFTER I,E Y. There are several technical and non technical reasons of it. For example we consider that K is not a correct approximation of Arabic Kaf, and that S is often pronounced as Z . So ISLAM is unfortunately pronounced as IZLAM, and Muslim as MUZLIM [NAUZU BILLAH]. So one may respell Islam as ICELAM, WHERE SAMS OF S IS CONSERVED,INSTEAD OF S WHERE VOCAL SOUND OF Z replaces the hissing sound of S. But this scheme is a proto type one and may be developed latter. That is why there is a shift of spellings at different places.

FOOT NOTES. [1] ID EST THE KNOWLEDGE ‘ ‘ ILM MA CAANA VA YA CUUN / ILM MA KAANA VA YAKUUN. [2] THE KNOWLEGE OF AL GHAIB IS NOT DIVISIBLE IN ESSENTIAL [DHAATI] AND NON ESSENTIAL [GHAIR DHAATI]. THERE FORE SUCH AN ALLEGED DIVISION IS JUST A MATTER OF THOUGHT [VAHM/WAHM].

EVEN AN INTRINSIC ABSURD MAY BE THOUGHT TO OCCUR. EVEN THE DIVISION OF ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE IN FINITENESS AND INFINITY CAN BE THOUGHT. BUT THIS DOETH NOT PROVE THAT SUCH A DIVISION IS NOT INTRINSICALLY ABSURD. [3 ]THIS SECT/ CULT IS CALLED BARAILVISM OR RAZAISM ]

[4] IT must be noted that MaulavI RAZA SB. OF BANS BARAILI DID CROSS ALL THE LIMITS IN REGARD OF bestowed and temporal KNOWLEDGE. First ,He claimed that the knowledge of all things and events which did occur in past, which do occur in present and which shall occur in future constitute a small portion of the knowledge of the prophet[s.a.a.v.s]. The relation of this knowledge to the whole knowledge of prophet is like the relation of a wave to the ocean. But he was unable to prove the oceanic knowledge and attempted to prove only the knowledge which is like a wave according to him. Secondly,inhis extremism he did not declare a person as kafir or mushric who holds the following belief:<< eternal knowledge of deity [all-h] and temporal knowledge are exactly equal in regard to knowns [malumaat/grammatical objects of attribute of knowledge]. That is what so ever deity knoweth , the holy prophet [p.b.u.h] also knoweth. This is certainly a shirc and some brailvis also declare this belief as cufr or shirc. See the foot notes of the book named addaulatul makkiah both the content of the book and footnotes are from the pen of maulavi raza sb of baraili. This is certainly not sunnism, it is a great heresy and heterodoxy in the name of orthodoxy and sunnism. As a deliberate fallacy[s-f-s-t-h] he ascribes this view to muhaddis of dahlia[dehli/delhi] abdul haqq. Refutation of this thing is beyond the scope of present discussion. But it is necessary information that by limiting the shirc to the belief << attribute of creations, creatures ,created and made ,can be essential >> Maulavi raza sb barailvi had to accept these consequences.

END OF PART ONE

Page | 5

PART TWO BEGINS The founder of the sect of Baraivism argues in support of his belief in the following way. The quotations are given from the work –BNAA AL MUSTAFHA. The most basic work of Barailvism on this particular issue.

His arguments and argumentations are divided into 5 parts for sake of simplicity and are tried to be translate clearly. IT is tried to remain faithful to the original Urdu/Rikhtah text even if there is some problem according to the Grammar of English language.

I]`When/As Furqa:n e H:ami:d is the Description/EXPSOSITION [Baya:n] of Every Thing [Shai’ , Pl: ‘Ashya:’] And Description of what type [Kesa] Luminous [Roshan] ,and Luminous of What degree [ Darajah] EXPLAINED [Mufass-l\Detail Explaination] , and according to the Supersect [Madh-hab] of Sunnites [Ahlussunnah] the word Thing [ Shai’ Pl. ‘Ash-ya:’] is said for every Existent /Being [Mauju:d](1) ; then from the Throne [‘Arsh] to Floor/Hades [Farsh] , all the Universe/ Cosmos and all the Existents /Beings [Maujuda:t] are included in the circumference [‘AH:A:TAH] of Baya:n [Description] of It [id est ‘Al Qur-‘a:n]; and among all the Existents/Beings writings on the Conserved Tablet [Lauh: Mah:fu:z:] also belong to.Hence these Explanations [Bayana:t] in circumference [ Muh:i:t] to these Writings [with full explanation].

II] Now ask it also from QUR’A:N THE GREAT [ THE GREAT QUR’A:N/QUR’A:N ‘’AZ:I:M] , “ WHAT IS WRITTEN ON THE CONSERVED TABLET?”.

The Supreme Deity Saith ,<< VA KULLU SAGHIIRIN…>> “ Every Great and Small is written thing is written [on the Tablet].[ AL QAMAR 51] The supreme deity saith :-<< VA KULLA SHAI IN…>> [YAA SIIN 12]. ‘‘ WE HAVE COLLECTEDEVERY THING IN A LUMINOUS LEADER [PESHVA]”.

The Supreme Deity Saith << VA LAA HABBATIN…….>> [AL AN AAM 59] “ Not a (single) grain in darkness (es) of earth; and any wet nor any dry EXCEPT All things written in A Luminous Book [ id est Tablet]”.

[VERSES ARE NOT TRANSLATED FROM THEIR ORIGINAL ARABIC DIVINE TEXTS BUT THE TRANLATIONS OF THESE VERSES IN URDU BY THE STATED ABOVE FOUNDER ARE TRANSLATED INSTEAD. THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED TO SEE THE DIRECT TRANSLATION MAY CONSULT AN AUTHENTIC TRANSLATION THEMSELVES. WE DO NOT TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS REGARD IF THE TRANSLATIONS ARE NOT FAITHFUL TO THE DIVINE ARABIC TEXT SINCE WE HAVE NOT TRANSLATED THESE VERSES [IN ENGLISH DIRECTLY FROM DIVINE ARABIC TEXTS] OURSELVES BUT TRANSLATED THE [URDU/RIKHTAH] TRANSLATIONS OF THESE VERSES BY FOUNDER OF SECT[AS THEY ARE IN HIS BOOK UNDER DISCUSSION]. WE HAVE TRIED TO TRANSLATE IN ENGLISH ,THE URDU TRANSLATIONS OF THESE VERSES BY THE FOUNDER OF THE SECT AS BEST AS POSSIBLE HOW EVER WE DO OPINE THAT HIS TRANSLATION ARE NOT AUTHENTIC IN GENERAL.] III]It has been proved in Principles that Common Noun [Nakrah] in place of Negation Supports Generalization [ Mufi:d ul “Umu:m] { see verse 38 ‘-N-“A:M] AND THE WORD Kull/Cull [ All/Every] is so general [ “a:m] that that is is never used in particular/ specific sense/meaning,(2) and general word is certain in supporting general meaning, and clear content of text [ N-S:U:S:] ARE TAKEN IN APPEARENT MEANING, and with out any religious proof particularization/specification and Interpretation [TA’WI:L/TA’VI:L] are not permitted, otherwise confidence upon Divine Law [Shariah] ceaseth to be; Neither ‘AH:A:D H:ADI:TH can particularize a Generalization of Qur’a:n , even if it is correct /SAHIH to highest degree. Raither Particularization is a delay [TARAKHI] in Naskh [Cancellation/ABOGRATION] .

[One may translate the sense as follow. Particularization is a twin of Naskh]] And Rational Particularization [ and Rational Exception] does [do] not make dissension of General [so that] based upon it [them] , a particularization can be made by [using] an Uncertain [Z:ANNI:] IV] So by Divine Grace it is illuminated from clear explicit texts that Deity Gave knowledge of All that did occur and that shall occur [MA: KA:NA VA YA KU:NU/ THAT DID BE AND THAT SHALL BE], and not s single (point) (1)particle in east, in west,in sky, on throne,on floor[hades?/Farsh]

Page | 7 remaineth excluded from the [bestowed] knowledge of Holy Prophet [H:UD:U:R] [[S.A.A.V.S] V]And as this [Bestowed] knowledge is bestowed by Qur’a:n the Great as being the Explanation of every thing [Shai’] and it is [crystal] clear that this is the Attribute of Entire [Tama:m] Qur’a:n and not of every verse [or of every chapter/Su:rah], so if the Supreme Deity Did Say in reference to Some Prophets << L-M NAQS -S: HUM ‘’ALAICA / ‘’ALAIKA….>> [AN NISAA 164] , OR inregard to hypocrates It Is Said [BY THE DEITY] << LA T-‘’L-M H-M….>>, [ AT TAUBAH / BARAA’AT 101] IT IS CERTAINLY NOT IN NEGATION TO THESE THREE VERSES AND NOT IN NAGATION TO THE [BESTOWED] KNOWLEDGE OF PROPHET. AS these arguments are extraordinary lengthy it is necessary to summarise these in brief with strict wordings.

SUMMERY

Qura:n has three Attributes . Two of them are Existential Attributes[‘AS:S:FA:TUL VUJUDIAH/’AS:S:IFATUL VUJUDIAH] namely /NOUNLY TABYA:N[EXPOSITION] AND TAFS:i:L [EXPLAINATION], and one of them is Non Existential Attribute[ AS:S:IFATUL’ADAIAH/AS:S:IFA:TIL’ADAMIAH] namely ‘’Adam ut Tafri:t [NON DEFCIENCY].

These attributes of Qur’a:n are connected to every existing thing.

The bestowed knowledge of Prophet [P.B.U.H] CIRCUMFERENCES all these three attributes. ( First implication) This implieth that the Bestowed Knowledge also CIRCUMFERENCES each and evey existing thing to which these Attributes are connected. . ( second implication)

This implieth that the stated above Bestowed knowledge CIRCUMFERENCES the Heavenly Conserved Tablet. (third implication)

This implied that the Bestowed Knowledge CIRCUMFERENCES each and every information written on the stated above Tablet. (Forth implication)

As every act which hath occur ,which does occur and which shall occur from the very beginning of the Cosmos to the very end of the universe is written on the tablet the BESTOWED KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPHET CIRCUMFERENCES each and every event, act etcetera written on the stated above Tablet. Each and every thing which has existed in past or which does exist in present or which shall exist in future is written on the tablet.

As the Bestowed Knowledge circumferences every thing written on the tablet it circumferences each and every thing which existed in past, which does exist in present or which shall exist in future.

ANALYSYS: This argument is of the form an implied B, B implied C, C implied D, D implied E. If it is some how proved that A doeth not Imply B, or B doeth not implied C. etcetera the argument failed.

If it is some how proved that any one of A, B, C, D, E is Rationally Absurd then the whole Proof failed Logicians agree that if Lazim is Rationally Absurd then the Malzu:m is either Rationally Absurd or Rationally Possible. In the case it is Rationally Possible it is Occurancially Absurd.

How ever a number of Logicians believe that if Malzu:m is Rationally Absurd then Lazim is also Rationally Absurd.

An other number believe that if the Malzu:m is rationally Absurd then Lazim is either Ratiionally Possible or Rationally Absurd. In the case it is rationally Possible it is Occurrencially Absurd. In any case LAVA:ZIM Of Absurd are Absurd .

In any case the arguments and argumentations do become incorrect, and invalid if the first one is somehow proved to be Absurd whether Rationally or Occurancially. It is tried to prove that atleast one of the claim is RATIONALLAY ABSURD. The counter claim is IS AS FOLLOWS:THE BESTOWED KNOWLEDGE CANNOT ENCIRCLUMFERENCE THE ATTRIBUTES OF TABYA:N,TAFS:I:L ( Existential Attributes) and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;â&#x20AC;&#x2122;ADAM UT TAFRI:T ( Non Existential Attribute).It is Absurd.

If an Absurd Implieth B,and Bimplieth C and so on the proof becomes invalid and incorrect.

Page | 9 In the following pages it is proved that the original claim is based on absurdity rather rational Absurdity.

General Discussion There are three verses in the text of qur’a:n opon which the auther of Abna; ‘al Mustafa: made his argumentations. The verses are correct beyond doubt but the argumentations and reasonings based on the verses are in correct beyond doubt.These Verses are AL ANAAM 38,AN NAHL 89 aNd YUSUF 111.

IT MAY BE NOTED THAT SOME OF THE LATTER FOLLOWES OF MAULVI RAZA AMENDED HIS ARGUMENTATIONS AND ARGUMENTS BY ADDING AND SUBSTRACTING REASONINGS. In general they do not take the meaning of ARABIC WORD ASHAI as Existent or Existing Thing and avoid the arguments based upon the Heavenly Tablet. As a result their argument becomes more general then their claims. A student of Said Kazimi of KATKOI/ CATCOI AMROHAHUPPER UNITED PROVINCES [ BRITISH] INDIA namely GHULAM RASUL SAIIDII OF PAKISTAN CARACHI PAKISTANI PART OF SUBCONTINENT accepted that these generalizations are of kind AL ISTAGHRAQ AL URFI and not of kind AL ISTAGHRAQ AL HAQIQI.HOW EVER THIS WEAKENS THE ARGUMENTATION AND ARGUMENTS TO THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF WEAKNESS. HOW EVER The official arguments of Barailism FROM THESE THREE VERSES are the arguments of Maulavi RAZA Barailvi himself.If some followers of the cult of Baraivism differ from their ULTIMATE leader and founder [IMAM of cult/sect] THE FIRST THIS TO COMPARE their argument by the Arguments and argumentations of their Imam.The second thing is to reject their differences and to accept the arguments and argumentation of their founder and Ultimate leader [i.e Imam of Barailvism] If their arguments are not in harmany to the arguments of their Imam then they must be asked whether they consider the argumentationas and arguments of their Imam as correct or not. If they consider the arguments and argumentations of their Imam as correct then it is sufficient to discuss the arguments and argumentations of their Imam.Since their arguments are immaterial in compare to the arguments of their Imam. If their arguments and argumentations can be interpreted as according to their Imam namely MAULAVI RAZA SB OF BANS BARAILI S/O MALAVI NAQI ALI SB then they must be interpreted as according to his arguments and argumentations. If they cannot be interpreted then they must be rejected as official argumentations and arguments of the cult Barailvism.

NOTES: •

THE LITERAL MEANING OF THW WORD SHAI’ (Pl. ‘Ash-ya:’) IS AN EXISTANT OR AN EXISTING THING.

(2)In logical form it may be restated as follow:“ NO USE OF THE WORLD KULL\CULL IS PARTICAULAR”.

Its negation is:SOME USES FOR THE WORD KULL\CULL IS PARTICULAR.

END OF PART 2 PART THREE BEGINS Both the original statement and the negation can not be true ,since the contradict each other.

The Law of contradiction or law of non contradiction is valid.

It can be proved that this Negation is true hence the original statement is false. Yet it is not required since the falsification of the claim and Invalidity these arguments does not depend on this claim. There fore no discussion is made on it.For sake of an argument this false statement is supposed to be true. The entire discussion is based on this supposition in order to refute a supposed strong case instead of an actual weak case. Some Barailvi scholars do accept that the original claim is false yet the opine that Examples which falsify this claim constitute only rare cases. But they do not explain the conditions where these rare cases occur. SOME also do accept that the Umum[ Generalization/ Universality] of the word CULL/KULL is AL ISTAGHRAQ AL URFI AND NOT AL ISTAGHRAQ AL HAQIQI. Since Al Istaghraq al Haqidi implies an equlity of Eternal Knowledge and Not Eternal Knowledge, which even they do not consider as Islamic.

How ever the founder of the cult Maulavi RAZA SAHIB strongly claim that if some one claims the Equality of Eternal Knowledge Of Deity and Temporal Knowledge of Prophet, HE STILL REMAINS IN GROUP OF Urfa.[Nau dhu billah.] See the Foot Notes of AD-DAULATUL MAKKIAH by the founder of sect.

THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PRESENT DISCUSSION .

Note@ According to a great Philosopher [MATURIDI-ASHARI ]Of India The heavenly Tablet is a Great Cosmic Brain or Mind. Years before the invention of computers and their hard drives, the concept of a Supreme intelligent Brain or mind was proposed by ASHARITE-MATURIDITE AMULGUM IN INDIA. [A number of Indian Sunnis ar both Asharite and Maturidite since the study both and dotry to make hormony between these two Sunni Majority Sects and consider them as one single sect.

Some even use the word ASHAIRAH not in the meaning of Pure Asharites but for the collection of ASHAIRAH AND MATURIDIAH.]

Page | 11 SUMMERY OF ARGUMENTS AND ARGUMENTATIONS. The Argumentations and arguments stated by the Author Of -bna Al Mustafaconsists of the following preliminaries.

1]TABYA:N/ TABIAN ,TAFSIL and ADAM TAFRIT are the ATTRIBUTES OF QURAAN. 2] These Attributes are connected and are related to each and every Existing Thing/Existent.

3] The Bestowed Knowledge circumferenceth each one of the stated Attribute Of QURAAN Stated Aboveâ&#x20AC;Ś 4]This IMPLIETH THAT the Bestowed Knowledge [Of Holy Essence (DHAAT) Of Holy Prophet S.A.V.S] each and every thing to which these Attributes are connected, related and Pertain to.5]This implieth that the Bestowed Knowledge circumferenceth the Heavenly Conserved [MAHFUUZ]Tablet and the informations written on the Tablet[ or recorded in the memory of the Tablet.]

Since they are existing things.

5] This Implieth that the Bestowed Knowledge circumferenceth {ENCLOSETH/COMPREHENDETH} all the things which were created in the Past ,Which are created in Present and which shall be created in future from the beginning of the Cosmos to the very end of the Cosmos, each and every event which has occurred in the Past, which is occurring in Present and which Shall occur in future from the very Beginning of the Universe/Multiverse to the very end of the Universe/Multiverse/Cosmos.

[A COLLECTION OF TWO OR MORE UNIVERSES MAY BE CALLED AS A MULTIVERSE. NOT NECESSARY THE ONLY DEFFINATION] Since All Of them are written On the Tablet [Recorded on in the memory of the table] 6]This implieth that the created essence which does posses this Bestowed Knowledge does know all these things and events stated above from the very beginning of the universe [Multiverse] to the very end of it This is a bounded omniscience.

7]The author used the following verses to shew all these thing are written on the Tablet.

1] AL- AN AAM: 59 [1] 2]AL-QAMAR: 51 3]YA SIIN: 12 8] Using these preliminaries the said author attempted to negate the verses

AN NISA 164 and ATTAUBAH [BARA T] 101.

How ever he did not confess that he negates each one of them. In Real what he attempts to Prove by all his arguments and argumentations do negate these two verses.

COMMENTS AND REMARKS. IF some one claims that he can prove this belief form these three verses then he must have to choose at least one of the following statements as article of belief of his sect/cult what so ever. Since atleast one of them is the ORIGIN [ NECESSARY PREMILINARY / NECESSARY PREREQUISITE ] of the belief.

A] AN ATTRIBUTE OF ETERNAL CAN BE BESTOWED. B] ACTS OF DEITY [ NOUNLY

ALL-H SUBH:ANAHU: VA TA’’A:LA:] ARE

BESTOWED [‘ AT:A:’I:].

C] A BESTOWED ATTRIBUTE [ OR SOME BESTOWED ATTRIBUTES] CAN CIRCUMHERENCE A NON BESTOWED ATTRIBUTE [OF DEITY].

D] A NON ETERNAL ATTRIBUTE OR NON ETERNAL ACT OF ETERNAL IS BESTOWED. E]AL KALAM AL LAFZIYV IS

‘AT:A:’I: [BESTOWED].

F]AN ETERNAL CAN BE ATAAI. G]WHEN DEITY CREATETH A THING HE BESTOWETH THE THING TO HIS DIVINE SELF. [NA UDHUBILLAQH] H]ACTS OF CREATED SUPPOSITA ARE THE ACTS OF DEITY [NA’’U:DHU BILLH].

I] TO CREATE AN ACT IS TO DO THE ACT IN THE GERAMMATICAL INFINITIVE SENSE. EG TO CREAT THE ACT OF STEALING OF A RATIONAL SUPPOSITUM SAY A HUMAN BEING IS TO STEAL HIMSELF[HIS DIVINE SELF] BY THE UNCREATED CREATER OF THE ACT [NA UDHUBILL-H].

NOTE THAT IF SOME ONE REFUSES TO ACCEPT ANY ONE OF THEM ACTUALLY CONTRADICTS HIMSELF SOME WHERE IT IS ARGUMENTATIONS

Page | 13 [REASONING] AND ARGUMENTS EITHER IN INTIAL STEPS OR IN MIDVIAL [INTERMEDIATE]STEPS OR IN FINAL STEPS OR ELSE. [ALL THESE STATEMENT ARE NOT NECESSARY INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER] ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENTS AND ARGUMENTATIONS IN THE SO CALLED PROOF The form of the argument in the alleged proof is as follow# A implieth B

OR A ⊃B

B Implieth C

OR B⊃C

C implieth D

OR C⊃D

D implieth E

OR D⊃E

And E is the desired belief [CLAIM]

.; .

E

Q.E.D ⊃ = IMLIETH /IMPLY/ DO\DOETH IMPLY If it is shewn that A Doeth Not Imply B , then all the alleged proof falls down and declines.There is a series of implications among the occurrances of different events and things./ If it is shewn that any one of them can not occur or is intrinsically Absurd to occur ,the entire proof becomes wrong, incorrect, invalid and unsound.

To attack this form of proof it is sufficient to shew that any one of A,B,C,D doeth not imply the next consecutive one /statement..

Logicians do agree that if Active Participle of L-zuum [Lazim] is Rationally/Intrinsically absurd[2]then the massive participle Malzuum[MALZU:M] is either Intrinsically /Rationally Possible or Intrinsically/Rationally Absurd depending upon the kind,type,nature,intrinsic properties,charecterstics,of the IMPLICATION[ L-ZUUM/ L-ZU:M].

Logicians are how ever divided what if MALZUUM is Rationally/Intrinsically Absurd .Some holds the opinion that if Malzuum is Intrinsically Absurd then Lazim is either Intrinsically absurd/Rationally Absurd or Intrinsically /Rationally Possible depending upon the Nature,Type etc of Implication as stated in the former case stated immediately above.

Some hold the view that If MALZ:UM is Intrinsically Absurd then La:zim is Intrinsically absurd.

Some do go in minute detains. A majority of Excogitators [Muhaqqiqin/Researchers in logic/M-NAT-QAH] believe that Intrinsic Implication is either between an Intrinsic Absurds or between Intrinsic Possibles.But Extrinsic Implication may be between an INTRINSIC ABSURD AND INTRINSIC POSSIBLE. In any case all agree that it is Rationally/Intrinsically Absurd that there is an Implication between OCCURANCIALLY POSSIBLE[CONTINGENT] and Intrinsically/ ABDURD irrespective and regardless of LAZIM or Malzum [3].

PARADOXES ARE ALSO INTRINSICALLY ABSURD IN THE CASE OF DEITY AND DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. A PARADOX IS DEFINED AS A STATEMEN WHOSE AFFIRMATION AND NEGATION BOTH IMPLIES A CONTRDICTION. A SPECIAL CASE OF PARADOX IS A STATEMENT IN WHICH ITS NEGATION IMPLIES ITS TRUTH. EX << TRUTH OF NEGATION OF THIS STATEMENT IMPLIES ITS TRUTH>>ETC.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 FOOT NOTES. [1] Some of the latter Barailvis have use this verse not for the stated abive Lauh: but for the Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;a:n. But then there is a dispute between Maulvi Rda Of Baraili and some of his followers , The words and opinion of Maulavi Rad:a/Raz:a of Baraili is preferred over his followers, and the official statement of Barailvism is one that is of Maulavi Rad:a: of Bans Baraili ,United Provinces British India. But if it is supposed that he is wrong and those followers who have diputed are right, even then it does not make

Page | 15 Any difference. Since there is no difference therefore That is why there is no need for providing references of Barailvi Scholars who opined differently from their Imam in this regard, also since they cannot be equal to their said Imam.

Such people may be found in both sides of Subcontinent, i.e India And Pakistan.

[2] In general Rationally Absurd and Intrinsic Absurd are used as alternative terms ,yet some do make some distinction between these two terms. A CONTRADICTION is an Intrinsic Absurd.Some may use the term Logical Absurd for an Intrinsic ABSURD. AS FOR WE, We consider ANNHILIATION OF DIVINE ESSENCE ,INCARNATION OF DEITY in animal or human Natures and forms as Intrinsically and logically ABSURD. A number of theologians use the word Rationally absurds even for those Intrinsic Possibles which Imply antrinsic Absurd and there are some rational arguments on the Implication.It must be noted that this type of implication s Extrinsic but Rational id est there are some Rational Proofs on the Extrinsic Implication. How ever in this work both terms i.e Intrinsically Absurd and Rationally Absurd are used as alternatives unless and other wise stated explicitly.

It may be noted that if some thing externally implies a Contradiction then it may not be an Intrinsic Absurd. But if some thing implieth a Contradiction Intrinsically it is Certainly Intrinsically Absurd.( IF ANY THING IMPLIES AN INTRINSIC ABSURD INTRINSICALLY THEN IT IS NOT IN DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE BUT IF ANY THING IMPLIETH AN INTRINSIC ABSURD EXTRINSICALLY THEN IT MAY BE IN DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE IF IT IS ITSELF NOT A CONTRADICTION) It must be noted that an intrinsically absurd is also logically absurd.So death of Deity is logically absurd since DEITY IS INTRINSICALLY AND LOGICALLY NECESSARY. There is a saying of a great logician of India that logic begans with the Necessity of Divine Essence [PROBEBLY ATTRIBUTED TO IMAM QASIM OF NANAUTAH ,UNITED PROVINCES BRITISH INDIA].

[3] If A implies B then B is Lazim Of A.Active and Passive participles are according to ARABIC LANGUAGE.The word ISTALZAM is however more close to modern logicians then the words L-ZUUM,LAZIM OR MALZUM. A number of Logicians opine that Malzum cannot be with out Lazim but Lazim can be with out Malzuum [Malzu:m]. That is if A implies B IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT B may be implied by some thing else say C. If A implies B and if B is false then A is False but if B is intrinsically ABSURD THEN IT IS NOT NECESSAY THAT A IS INTRINSICALLY ABSURD./ Thus if A occurreth then B occurreth and B doeth Not Occur that proveth A doeth not occur.

But If A occurreth then B occureth and B is Intrinsically Absurd, it Doeth not prove that A is Intrinsically Absurd.

A definition of L-zoom may give a more clear idea but not necessary the only definition.

If the meaning of a word coined for it can not be with out an Eternal thing then it is an Implication.

NOTES/ . THE WORD KALAM/CALAM MEANS SPEACH AND NOT WORD.

SO KALAM IS NOT A WORD BUT A SPEECH [DICTIONIS/DICTUM ]But this speech is Simple [BASIIT/BASI:T:] and an ATTRIBUTE, NOT CONSTITUTED OF WORDS [LAFZ OR KALMAH]. IF LOGOS STANDS FOR WORD THEN IT IS NOT A LOGOS IN MEANING. SPEECH IS NOT A HYPOSTASIS BUT AN ATTRIBUTE IN THEOLOGY. EVEN IF LOGOS WAS BELIEVED TO BE AN ATTRIBUTE AND NOT A HYPOSTASIS EVEN THEN SPEECH IS NOT WORD. NEITHER THE LOGOS IS BELIEVED TO BE CONSTINUTED OF LETTERS NOR THE SPEECH IS CONSTITUTED OF LETTERS. BUT THIS IS AN KALAM AN NAFSIY. BUT IF KALAM AL LAFZIY IS NOT ETERNAL THEN IT IS CONSTITUTED OF WORDS OTHERWISE NOT.

END OF PART 3 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 PART 4 BEGINS

Page | 17 CASE 01 DISCUSSION ON KALAM AN NAFSIY. If by the Word QUR’A:N <<IDEAL DICTIONIS>> / IDEAL DICTUM [ AL KALAM AN NAFSI] IS MEANT THEN All toAhlusunnah Wal Jamaah who do believe in Ideal Dictionis do believe that it is ETERNAL. The founder of the cult Maulivi Rada/Raza Sahib[1856-1920/21] Of Bans Baraili [United Provinces British India 1857A.C to 1947A.C~~] denies that AL KALA:M AL LAFZI AND AL KALA:M AN NAFSI as two Attributes and consider them as One., he did not deny the Eternity of this Single Kalam /Dictionis /LALIA. Thus Kalam An Nafsiy Al Qadim is meant.

IF KALAM An NafsiyAlQadim is meant in these verses then TABYA:N [EXPLOSURE], TAFS:I:L [EXPLAINATION] AND ‘ADAM ‘AT TAFRI:T :[NO DEFIENCY IN STATING THINGS] are the Attributes of KALAM AN NAFIS [IDEAL DICTIONIS].

Two of these Attributes are Existential Attributes [ ASSIFATUL VUJUDIAH]and One of them is Non Existential Attribute [Assifatul Adamiah pl. ASSIFATUL ADAMIAH].

DISCUSSUION ON EXISTENCIAL ATTRIBUTES. TABYAN AND TAFSIL ARE THE EXISTENTIAL ATTRIBVUTES. If Tabyan and Tafsil are the existential Attributes of Ideal Dictionis then they cannot be BESTOWED [GIFTES/ ATAI/ATAIAH].SINCE IT IS AN AGREED UPON ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT NO ATTRIBUTE OF ETERNAL CAN BE BESTOWD AND IT IS ALSO AGREED UPON ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT AL KALAM AN NAFSI IS ETERNAL.From the death of Maulvi Rza of bans baraili India in 1930 ac to the year 2013ac not a single Barailvi Alim has ever claimed that Some Attributes of Eternal [QADIM] CAN BE ATAI[ BESTOWED].

ALSO It is Rationally and Intrinsically Absurd for an Attibute of Eternal to be Bestowed.

Similarly not a single Barailvii Alim of Indian Subcontinent [TARROTARIES INCLUDING India and Pakistan both before and after 1947 A.C] HAS CLAIMED THAT AL KALAM AN NAFSI IS NOT ETERNAL. THUS BOTH OF THESE ATTRIBUTES ORE NOT BESTOWED. [1] ALSO NO TYPE/KIND [ QISM ] of QADIIM IS BESTOWED. It is an agreed upon Article of faith that << THE UNBESTOWNED [GHAIR AL ATAI] ATTRIBUTES OF ETERNAL CAN NOT BECIRCUMFERENCED [ AHATAH] BY BESTOWED ATTRIBUTES, NEITHER COLLECTIVELY NOT INDIVIDUALLY.[2THUS ANY CLAIM OR INFERENCE WHICH CONTRADICTETH ] ATLEAST ANY ONE OF THESE ARTICLES OF FAITH IS WRONg AND FALSE.

Up till now no follower of Maulavi Raza of Bans Baraili [UNITED PROVINCES BRITISH INDIA] hath ever claimed any thing against STATED ABOVE ARTICLES OF FAITH. The ARGUMENTATION that , << If the BESTOWED KNOWLEDGE CIRCUMFERENCETH THE ATTRIBUTES OF TABYAN AND TAFSIL, THEN IT IS IMPLIED THAT THE BESTOWED KNOWLESDGE CIRCUMFERENCETH each and every existing thing which is connected to these Attributes>> does become incorrect and invalid.

Since it is INTRINSICALLY ABSURD AND RATIONALLY ABSURDFOR BESTOWED KNOWLEDGE TO CIRCUMFERENCE THE STATED ABOVE ATTRIBTES OF THE ETERNAL AL KALAM AN NAFSI. THE entire argumentation is based upon the implication of the supposed occurrence of Circumference , which is Intrinsically/Rationally Absurd .Not even the Circumference of a single finite existing thing is implied, since the very implication is from the [SUPPOSED ]occurrence of a thing which is Intrinsically/Rationally Absurd to Occur To claim the circumference [AHATAH] OF MORE THAN ONE THING IS PRIMARILY ABSURD ON THE SAME GROUNDS OF ARGUMENTATION AND REASONING. ALSO TO CLAIM THE CIRCUMFERENCING OF MORE THAN ONE EXISTING THING [IN THIS WAY] IS NOTHING BUT MORE THAN ONE INTRINSIC/RATIONAL ABSURDS [IMPOSSIBLES].

Thus the arguments from the implication of supposed occurrences of things which are impossible to occur do become invalid and wrong.

DISCUSSION ON NON EXISTENTIAL ATTRIBUTES Non Existential Attribute is the Non Existence [Negation/ Lackness] of an Existential Attribute. One may say that NON EXITENTIAL ATTRIBVUTES are NO ATTRIBUTES OR NOT ATTRIBUTES, but this is a verbal dispute. A non Existential Attribute cannot be empty [Cannot Exclude] from ONE of the the TWO Mutually Exhaustive,Mutially Exclusive and Mutually Contradicting cased.

A] It is an Attribute of Perfection. B] It is Not an Attribute of Perfection.

If a Non existential Attribute of denied [Negateth] an [EXISTENTIAL] Attribute of Perfection then it is Not an Attribute of Perfection.If a NON EXISTENTIAL ATTRIBUTE DENIETH [ NEGATETH] an [Attribute Of] Imperfection then it is an ATTRIBUTE oF PERFECTION IFF it is based on an[Existential] Attribute Of Perfection.[There are two sub cases but to discuss them is beyond the scope of present topic] EXAMPLES. NOT DYING OF DEITY [ LA YAMUTU] is a NON EXISTENTIAL ATTRIBUTE Attribute Of Deity , AND IS BASED [MABNI] UPON THE EXISTENTIAL ATTRIBUTE OF LIFE OF DETY , WHICH IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF PERFECTION [ OF DEITY].But Not Dying of some thing which doeth not exist or is impossible to exist is not an Attribute of Perfection even in apparent it is the denial of an IMPERFECTION say DYING. SINCE THERE IS NO BASIS [ BANA] which is the Attribute of Perfection.

It is an Article of faith that each and every Attribute of Deity is an Attribute of Perfection whether it be an Existential Attribute or Non Existential Attribute.[3]

Page | 19 As TAFRI:T: [DEFIENCY [of mentioning things in SPEACH]] is an Attribute of Imperfection, Non Existence [Negation] [ ADAM AT TAFRIT] is a Non Existential Attribute. As the ADAM AT TAFRIT IS THE ATTRIBUTE OF ETERNAL It is an Attribute Of Perfection [SINCE IT IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF IDEAL DICTIONIS AND IDEAL DICTIONIS IS ETERNAL AND ATTRIBUTE OF ETERNAL [ESSENCE OF DEITY]].As this NON EXISTENTIAL ATTRIBUTE IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF ETERNAL IT MUST BE BASED UPON SOME [EXISTENTIAL] ATTRIBUTE OF PERFECTION OF [ THE] ETERNAL, WHERE IT BE TABYA:N OR TAFSIL OR SH.MUL or ELSE. It is an article of faith that no Attribute of Eternal can be CIRCUMFERENCED BY BESTOWED KNOWLEDGE neither individually nor collectively, whether the Attribute of the Eternal is Existential or Non Existential.

Since this is INTRINSCALLY /Rationally Absurd.

THUS NOT ONLY ADAM ATTAFRIT BUT THE BASIS [B-NA:’] UPON WHICH IT IS BASED [MABNI] CANNOT BE CIRCUMFERENCED BY BESTOWED KNOWLEDGE, Since this is Intrinsically/Rationally Absurd for CREATED BESTOWED KNOWLEDGE to Circumference the Attributes of UNCREATED [and] ETERNAL. CONCLUSION OF DISCUSSIONS OF BOTH TYPES OF ATTRIBUTES. Any argument or any argumentation based upon the implication of the occurrence of CIRCUMFERENCE of NON EXISGTENTIAL ATTRIBUTE OF ETERNAL[5] in support of said belief is incorrect,invalid,unsound and wrong , Since this circumference stated above is Rationally/Intrinsically ABSURD. IT IS WELL KNOWN TO LOGICIANS THAT IF OCCURRANCE OF A IS CLAIMED TO IMPLY THE OCCURRANCE OF B , BUT A IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OCCUR , THE ARGUMENT[ATUION] BECOMETH INVALID AND THE INFERENCE IS WRONG. EXPLAINATION

If some one tries to prove the occurrence of B as an implication of occurrence of A,he has to prove two things. 1] Occurrence of A 2] An Implication between the Occurrence of A and Occurrence Of B. If some one refutes him by shewing that A is RATIONALLY/ INTRINSICALLY ABSURD TO OCCUR [ THAST IS A CANNOT OCCUR] then the entire proof with all its arguments and argumentations based upon the SUPPOSED Occurrence of the UNOCCURABLE falls down, declines and is broken.

As the Necessary consequence the claim [result] is falsified.

Thus all the three Attributes Prove that the argument is incorrect and wrong. Since it is based on a false supposition.

CASE 02 DISCUSSION ON KALAM AL LAFZIY..

Majority of followers of Maulavi RAZA OF BANS BARAILY UNITED PROVINCES INDIA believe that AL KALAM AL LAFZIY [ VERBUM DICTIONIS] Is Eternal. A small Minority of his followers however believe that Kalam AL Lafziy is Not Eternal [i.e it is Temporal] Maulivi Raza Of Uniterd Provinces India himself believes that both KALAM AL LAFZIY and AL KALAM AN NAFSIY are One and Same, But he does not deny The Eternity Of Verbum Dictionis.

Let it be supposed that AL KALAM AL LAFZIY Is Eternal [QADIM]

DISCUSSION ON KALAM AL LAFZIYAL AL QADIM.

If by the Word QUR’A~N VERBUM DICTIONIS / IDEAL DICTUM [ AL KALAM AL LAFZIY] IS MEANT THEN According to a larger majority of the cult AL KALAM AL LAFZIY AL QADIM is meant.

If Kalam Al Lafziy Al Qadim is MEANT THEN then the ATTRIBUTES of TABIAN/Tab-ya:n [exposition] ,TAFS:I:L [explanation] and ADAM TAFRI:T are the Attributes of the Eternal, and no Attribute of ETERNAL eIther Existential or Non EXISTENTIALCANBE CIRCUMFERENCED BY DESTOWED ATTRBIBUTES ,NEITHER COLLECTIVELY NOR INDIVIDUALLY.Thus all the arguments and argumentations based upon the OCCURRANCE Of The Circumference do become invalid and incorrect SINCE The Occurrance Of The CIRCUNFERENCE is IMPOSSIBLE [ Rationally/Intrinsically Absurd].As every aspect in the case of ETERNITY OF VERBUM DICTIONIS is Similar tom the Case Of Eternity Of IDEAL DICTIONIS, readers are requested to recall the former discussion upon IDEAL DICTIONIS [ AL KALAM AN NAFSIY] and apply it in the present case as a mental exercise, since it is not difficult at all.

CONCLUSION IF IN THE VERSES [(a) AN NAHL 89.(b)YUSUF 111 AND(c) AL ANAM 38] KALAM AL LAFZIY IS MEANT AND IF AL KALAM AL LAFZIY IS ETERNAL THEN KALAM AL AL LAFZIY AL QADIM IS MEANT IN THESE VERSES ANDALL THE ARGUMENTATION AND ARGUMENTS DO BECOME INVALID.

DISCUSSION ON KALAM AL LAFZIYAL AL HADITH.

Page | 21 If KALAM AL LAFZIY [ VERBUM DICTIONIS] is HADIS [ NOT QADIM/TEMPORAL/NOT ETERNAL] then this is the only case in which there are appearently some rooms for the validity of arguments and argumentations in this regard./ Since Majority of the followers of the founder of the sect/cult believes in the Eternity [ OF VERBUM DICTIONIS ]and rejects the opinion of their minority, who believe in the temporality [Not Eternity/ HUDUS] of Verbum Dictionis, ONE MAY LEAVE THE DISCUSSION ON IT. The Minority of The followers of the sect has to combat not only the MAJORITY OF THE followers OF THEIR SECT BUT ALSO THEIR FOUNDER since They all believe in the ETERNITY OF VERBUM DICTIONIS. As opposed by the MAJORITY AND THE IMAM [FOUNDING LEADER] the opinion of minority can not be the official dogma of the entire sect.

If it is supposed that these arguments and argumentations are valid if Verbum Dictionis is supposed to be Temporal[ not eternal] , even then the Majority can not argue, and the arguments of the Majority against the minority in support of Eternity is an other problem for the minority.

SINCE the Minority of the followers of Mailavi RAZA of Baraili of Indian Subcontinent must have to refute the MAJORITY OF THE FOLLOWERS OF THEIR IMAM before making any argument or argumentation under the supposition that AL KALM AL LAFZIY is Not ETERNAL. Further they have to claim that the leader and the founder of the sect is is wrong and is in error when he claims the UNITY OF DICTIONIS [ VAHDATUL KALAM], AND DECLAIRS ALL THOSE who do not believe in the Unity as in ERROR. [ SEE MALFUZAT PART IV]It may be noted that what so ever is said by the Founder Of The Sect Namely Maulavi RAZA of Baraily/Baraili/Breli/Barelie cannot be contradicted easily by his followers.The official Dogmas and Articles Of Faith of the sect are first the believes of the founder iof the sect as he himself stated in VASAYAH SHARIF. In case if he is silent on an issue the OFIICIAL DOGMAS AND BELIEVES OF THE SECT ARE THE DOGMAS AND THE BELIEVES OF THE MAJORITY OF THE SECT. That is in this case the MAJORITY OF THE SECT is the Official representative of the sect.

There fore one may safely neglect the minority of the sect stated above , and it is not necessary to discuss them at all. But it is well known that not necessary does not mean necessary not. Therefore it is discussed below in order to complete the discussion.

Discussion On AL KALAM AL LAFZI IF IT IS NOT ETERNAL [TEMPORAL].

Let it be supposed that Verbal Dictionis /Verbum Dictionis [Al Kalam Al Lafz:iy / Al Calam Al Lafz:iy] is NOT ETERNAL [ GHAIR AL QADIM]. IF VERBUM DICTIONIS IS NOT ETERNAL the each and every Attribute [SIFH] Of Verbum Dictionis Is Not ETERNAL. Any thing which is Not Eternal Is Temporal Since IT IS INTRINSICALLY /RATIONALLY ABSURD FOR AN ATTRIBUTE OF A HADIS /HADIS TO BE ETERNAL [QADIM].Hadith [Temporal] meaneth NOT ETERNAL. Thus VERBUM DICTIONIS and All Of Its Attributes Are Temporal [NOT ETERNAL].If Verbum Dictionis [Verbal Speach] and Its Attributes Are TEMPORAL then THERE IS A MIDDLE / MEDIUM [WASITAH /VASITAH] Between ADH DHATI [ The Essential]] and AL ATAI[ The Bestowed].

But if there is No MIDDLE / MEDIUM between ESSENTIAL and BESTOWED,N and Principle Of Exclusion Of Middle / Medium [ Usul Kharij Al Vast]’MTINA:’U ’IRT-FA:’’UL VASA:’IT IS valid between the Essential and the Bestowed, then AL KALAM AL LAFZI can not be Temporal.

If it can not be Temporal then it is not temporal. If it is not temporal then it i must be Eternal.If it must be eternal then it is Eternal.

If It Is Eternal then Each and Every Attribute Of It Is NOT BESTOWED [ GHAIR AL ATAI]..

CONCLUSION IF SOME ONE BELIEVETH THAT VERBUM DICTIONIS AND ITS ATRIBUTES ARE NOT ETERNAL THEN IT IS NECESSARY [ VAJIB / WAJIB] UPON HIS BELIEF THAT THEY ARE NEITHER ESSENTIAL NOR BESTOWED. [ LA DHATI WALA ATAI].

IF SOME ONE BELIEVETH THAT LAW OF EXCLUSION OF MIDDLE IS APPLICABLE BETWEEN AD DHATI AND AL ATAI AND THAT THERE IS NO MIDDLE AND NO MEDIUM BETWEEN ESSENTIAL AND BESTOWED, THEN THAT PERSON CAN NOT BELIEVE THAT VERBUM DICTIONIS IS TEMPORAL. IF SOME ONE BELIEVE THAT VERBUM DICTIONIS IS TEMPORAL YET BELIEVES THAT ITS ATTRIBUTES ARE BESTOWED THEN HIS BELIEF IS TOTALLY WORNG AND ENTIRELY FALSE.SINCE NO ATTRIBURE OF UNSESTWOED CANBE BESTOWED. DISCUSSION ON BESTOWED KNOWLEDGE AND ATTRIBUTES OF VERBUM DICTIONIS. If a person beleave th that verbum dictionis and its attributes are not eternal y et belie veth that the y can be circumference d by bestow ed know ledge [immensely or not] then such a person can not be excluded from two s tates /cases [ ahval] .

1] He believeth that Verbum Dictionis Verbum Dictionisand Its Attributes are Bestowed.

2] He believeth that Verbum Dictionis and Its Attributes are Neither Essential nor Bestowed.

If he believeth in the first then he is a denouncer of the following agreed upon ARTICLES of FAITH. NO BESTOWED [ATAI] THING CAN BE ASCRIBED TO THE ETERNAL[ QADIM] NEITHER ATTRIBUTIVELYU NOR ACTIVELY [ SIFTAN WA FILAN] irrespective of any interpretation [TAVI] and any Reasoning [TAUJIH].

If he believeth in the second , yet still believeth that BESTOWED KNOWLEDGE can CIRCUMFERENCE/ ENCIRCLE these Attributes then he is a denier of AN Agreed Upon Article Of Faith which may be stated as follow.

ONE THAT IS NOT BESTOWED CAN NOT BE CIRCUMFERENCED['AH:A:TAH] BY ONE THAT IS BESTOWED.

Page | 23 In any case any argumentation [â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;ISTADLA:L] Which is based [ MABNI:] upon on the negation of the article of faith stated just above is support of Bestowing Of Knowledge from the very beginning of the Cosmos to the very end of the Universe is based upon a false article of a false faith [i.e the basis/ground B-NA:' is Wrong] . Certainly not on the true faith,.

It is not required to falsify such an argumentation with additional proves, evidences, arguments,argumentations,reasonings etcetera, but it is sufficient to to prove that such an argumentation, or such an argument or such an alleged proof is based upon this wrong article of heresy or heretic claim.

Epilogue If Velum Dictions is Temporal [NOT ETERNAL]then Verbum Dictions Of Deity and Its Attributes are Neither Essential Nor Bestowed, hence Attributes Of Verbum Dictions can not be Circumference edgy Bestowed Attributes, irrespective and regardless of number of things to which Verbum Dictions and Its Attributes Are Connected.

OBJECTIONS AND THEIR ANSWERS. OBJECTION1 Minority of Ahlussunnah say Salaphites believe in<< Temporal but Not Created>>[HADITH GHAIR MAKHLIQ] [ OUR COMMENT :- THAT IS THEY BELIEVE IN THREE KINDS OF THINGS. A] ETERNAL, B] TEMPORAL NOT CREATED, C] TEMPORAL AND CREATED. EVEN THEY DO NOT BELIEVES IN <<NOT TEMPORAL BUT CREATED AND ETERNAL BUT CREATED>>] But Majority Of AHLUSSUNNAH BELIEVES that TEMPORALITY AND CREATION are ONE and the SAME. Thus HADIS GHAIR ATAI is just an influence of Minority Of AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMAAH over the Majority of AHLUSSUNNA WAL JAMAAH. Hence those Ahlussunnah who belong to Majority and are not influenced by the Minority ,can not accept this influence.

ANSWER< FIRST. Some Salphites do claim such a thing but there texts of books are interpreted and reason [ TA'VI:L and TAUJI:H]AS ACCORDING TO ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES.So it reverts to a verbal dispute.A detail discussion is how ever beyond the scope of this work.

There are some works which can not be interpreted or reasoned. In such cases the belief of the Majority is preferred [TARJI:'']T he view of such writers is rejected.Yet we give the benefit of doubt with a good will, and hope that they were unable to EXPRESS their views correctly.

Secondly. 'ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES do believe that Every Temporal is Created and Every Created is Temporal . But they do NOT believe THAT every TEMPORAL IS BESTOWED. Thus this objection is with out any basis [BANA].

IMAM 'ASHARI [RAHMATULLAH ALAIH] died in the year 991 A.C and IMAM MATURIDI [RAHMATULLAH ALAIH] died in the year 994 A.C, just three years after the death OF IMAM ASHARI RAHMATULLAH ALAIH. From the year of death of Imam ASHARI [RAHMATULLAH ALAIH] to present moment [ in 2013 A.C]ASHARIR.H no ASHARI have ever used the word/term ATAI [BESTOWED] for Verbum Dictionis,Attributes Of Verbum Dictiobnis, Acts Of Deity and active Attributes Of Deity.

Similarly From the year of death of Imam MATURIDI [RAHMATULLAH ALAIH] to present moment [ in 2013 A.C]ASHARIR.H no MATURIDI have ever used the word/term ATAI [BESTOWED] for Verbum Dictionis,Attributes Of Verbum Dictiobnis,Acts Of Deity and active Attributes Of Deity.

It is well known that a number of ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES of latter periods did differ from their IMAMS on several issues.

For example a number of ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES IN BRITISH INDIAN SUBCONTINENT BEGAN TO BELIEVE THAT THE Essential Attributes Of Deity ARE IDENTICAL To The ESSENCE OF DEITY, where as these two IMAMS [ IMAMAIN RAHMATULLAH ALAIHUMA] strongly rejected the DOGMA OF IDENTITY OF ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES AND THE ESSENCE. Perhaps this deviation was due to the influence of IMAM IBN AL HAZAM [RAHMATULLA ALAIH].But they did not claim that the Active and Rerlative Attributes are also Identical to DIVINE ESSENCE .

A number of latter ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES rejected the DOGMA OF JUZZ LA YATAJAZZA as well. AN OTHER DEVIATION from the central DOGMAS OF AHARITES and Maturidites.

Some even began to believe in JAL AL MURAKKAB [Compound Making] INSTEAD OF JAL AL BASIT[Simple Making].SOME even accepted the DOGMA OF UNICITY OF EXISTENCE and rejected the DOGMA OF PLURALITY OF EXISTENCES. SOME denied the distinction between AL KALAM AN NAFSIY AND AL KALAM AL LAFZI, probably due to the influence of SALAPHITES and HANABALAH. But from the periods of these two greatest theologians of all times namely IMAM ASHARI AND IMAM MATURITDI TO PRESENT MOMENT no one ever used the Word /Term of ATRAI / Bestowed FOR VEBUM DICTIONIS, ITS ATTRIBUTES, AND ACTS OF DEITY. This is a proof that there is a silent Ijma ['IJMA:'' 'ASSUKU:TI:] That these terms ATAI or Bestowed OR HIBA can not be used forVerbum Dictionis,and Its Attributes et cetera.In theological matters the non existence of a belief about Deity is a proof that such a belief is incorrect.There fore the term ATAI cannot be used for every temporal.

Page | 25 If it is argued that ‘’The Deity Is The Real Agent/Doer/Actor/worker [AL FAAIL AL HAQIQI] there fore Deity is the DOER/ACTOR/AGENT Of every act/doing/act/activity/work [FI’L], therefore the REAL AGENT/ACTOR/DOER ETCETERA OF ACTS AND DOINGS of Human Beings[ INSAN/BASHAR.IBAD] is also the Deity then the acts of Deity are also ATAI/ BESTOWED, since the Acts Of Human Beings are Bestowed/ATAI.’’, THEN THIS IS A FALLACY. THE ANSWER PROPER IS GIVEN BELOW. ANSWER.THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF ACTS,DOINGS,WORKS ETC. A] ACTS AND DOINGS OF CREATIONS AND CREATURES [CREATED BEINGS AND CREATED EXISTENTS/ NOT- DEITY/ GHAIL AL ILAH].

B]ACTS AND DOINGS OF DEITY [UNCREATED EXISTENT].

DEITY IS THE CREATOR OF BOTH TYPES/KINDS OF THESE ACTS ,ACTIVITIES,DOINGS/WORKS. BUT ACTS/DOINGS ETCETERA OFCREATIONS,CREATURES AND CREATED SUPPOSITA [SAY HUMAN BEINGS] are ascribed to creatures and created beings in the meaning of grammatical infinitive [AL-MASDAR] . THEY ARE NOT ASCRIBED TO DEITY IN THE ABOVE MEANING AND SENSE [ID EST GRAMMATICAL INFINITIVE] THEY ARE ASCRIBED TO DEITY IN THE MEANING OF A CREATION ASCRIBED TO ITS CREATOR.ACTS/DOINGS/WORKS/ACTIOVITIES OF DEITY/DIVINE BEING.DIVINITY ARE ASCRIBED TO THE DEITY IN BOTH OF THE ABOVE MEANINGS AND SENSES. THUS INTHE MEANING OF GRAMMATICAL INFINITIVE ACTS/WORKS/ ET CETERA OF NOT – DEITY ARENOT ASCRIBED TO DEITY WHETHER THEY ARE THE ACTS ETC. OF RATIONAL SUPPOSITA [say human beings, angelic beings, jinn beings]OR IRRATIONAL SUPPOSITA[say wind, fire, sun] etc.

EXAMPLE:A] If a person say Zaid worshippeth Idols, it can not be said that THE DEITY WORSHIPETH IDOLS [NAUDHUBILLAH.MAY DEITY FORBID TO /WRITE/PRONOUNCE IT EVEN IN NEGATION.] B]IF A PERSON COMMITETH ROBERY, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT DEITY COMMITETH ROBERY. C]If a Jin Being incarnateth as a human being it can not be said that DEITY INCARNATETH AS A HUMAN BEING. D]If a Male human being begets no one saith that<< THE DEITY BEGETETH [NAUDHU BILLAH]>>.

E]If a Female human being conceiveth , no one saith that << THE DEITY CONCIEVETH [NAUDHU BILLAH]>>

F]DEITY CREATETH THE PREGNENCIES OF FEMALE HUMAN BEINGS[whether immaculate or not] YET NO ONE SAYS THAT <<DEITY IS THE PREGNENTOR OF THE PREGNECIES, OR PREGNENTIZOR OF THEM [NA’’U:DHU BILL-H] >> THUS DEITY IS A REAL AGENT IN THE MEANING DEITY IS THE REAL CREATOR, THE ONLY CREATOR, THE OMNIFIC THE CREATIVE CAUSE, AND NOTHING CAN OCCUR WITH OUT THE ACT OF CREATION OF DEITY.BUT NOT IN THE MEANING THAT THE ACTS AND DOINGS OF CREATED SUPPOSITA /SUPPOSITUM ARE THE ACT OF THE DEITY IN THE GRAMMATICAL INFINITIVE [ MANI AL MASDARI] irrespective of the fact that they are VOLUNTARY ACTS OR DOINGS ETC OR INVOLUNTARY ACTS OR DOINGS OF THE SUPPOSITUM WHETHER RATIONAL OR NOT.Deity is is the Only and Omni Cause and the Voluntary Cause ['AL 'ILLATUL MUKHTA:RAH]' IN FACT THIS WAS A DOUBT PRESENTED BY MUTAZILA. VA QAD YATAMASSAC BI INNAHU LAU CANA KHALIQAN LI AF AAL AL IBAAD LA CANA HUVA AL QAAIM VA ASH SHAARIB VA AZZANUI ILAA GHAIR DHALIC. SHARH AQAID IMAM TAFTAZANI ALAIHIRRAHMAH DIED IN 793 A.H AND VARILY THEY ARGUE THAT IF HE [THE DEITY] IS THE CREATOR OF ACTS OF HUMAN BEINGS THEN HE [ THE DEITY] IS THE STANDER,SITTER, DRINKER,FORNICATOR ETC. [NAUDHUBILLAH.] IMAM TAFTAZANI R.H IN HIS FAMOUS BOOK/WORK FIRST QUOTETH THIS MUTAZILITE DOUBT THEN HE ANSWERETH THEM BY VERY STRONG AND INFINITELY POWERFUL ARGUMENT. ONE MAY SEE SHARH AL AQAID HIMSELF TO SEE THE AREA FACE TO FACE. HOW EVER ONE CAN ALSO RESPONCE AS FOLLOW [AS WELL], SINCE PLURALITY OF ANSWERS AND RESPONCES EXIST.ACTS OF RATIONAL SUPPOSITA [SAY HUMAN BEINGS ,JIN BEINGS ETC.] ARE BESTOWED AND CREATED, AND ACTS OF DEITY ARE CREATED BUT NOT BESTOWED. THUS IN ORDER TO ASCRIBE A TEMPORAL ACT TO DEITY THE NECESSARY CONDITION IS THAT IT IS TEMPORAL AND CREATED BUT NOT BESTOWED. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT THE ATTRIBUTE OF CREATIVITY [ATTRIBUTE OF VERB TOBE /TACVIN/TAKVIN] IS ETERNAL BUT ITS RELATIONS AND CONNECTIONS [ACTS OF ATTRIBUTE OF CREATIVITY] ARE NOT ETERNAL.YET THEY ARE ASCRIBED TO DEITY. BUT THE CONNECTED ONES OR RELATED ONES [ GRAMMATICAL OBJECTS OF CONNECTIONSI.E CREATED ACTS AND SUPPOSITA] CANNOT BE ASCRIBED TO DEITY AS ACTS OF DEITY OR ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY OR BOTH BUT AS CREATURES AND CREATIONS OF DEITY. NOW IT IS NECESSARY TO DISCUSS VOLUNTARY ACTS OF DEITY. A Voluntary Act/Doing Of DEITY Is Not Eternal [ GHAIR AL QADIIM] since It Is Necessary for an Etrernal to be Excluded Not Only From OMNIPOTENCE OF DEITY [GHAIR MAQDUURUL BARI ] but also from OMNI-VOLUNTAS [OMNI-INTENTION] OF DEITY [GHAIR MASBUQ BIL IKHTIYAAR].

Page | 27 Thus Voluntary Acts Of Deity Are are Temporal but not BESTOWED. Since every MASBUQ BIL IKHTIAR IS HADIS. HOW EVER SALPHITES MAKE AN ERROR/MISTAKE at this point when they claim ‘’ TEMPORAL YET NOT CREATED;, unless and otherwise they are interpreted as according to ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES. There are several Voluntary Acts and Doings Of Deity Stated in Qur’an 1[ DEITY SHAPETH see 104/3 2] DEITY RAISETH see 13/2 3]DEITY SUMMONETH see 10/25 4] DEITY HONOURETH 17/70 5] DEITY GUIDETH 17/97 6] DEITY CHARGETH 4/11 7] DEITY HELPETH/ ASSISTETH 3/121-3

N.B [1] THE VERBS ARE WRITTEN IN FORM OF PRESENT TENSE AND IN FORM OF GRAMMATICAL THIRD PERSON. IT IS NOT NECESSAY THAT THWEY ARE IN THIS FORMS IN THE DIVINE VERSES. [2] MIRACLES WERE ALSO THE WORK OF DEITY AND CAN NOT BE ASCRIBED TO ANY CREATION EVEN IF THEY WERE MADE TO BE SHEWN ON THE HANDS OF CREATED PROPHETS. [3] NAJJARIAH HOW EVER BELIEVE IN TWO DIVINE INTENTIONS ONE FOR DIVINE ACTS AND ONE FOR ACTS OF CREATED SUPPOSTA BUT AHLUSSUNNAH BELIEVE IN A SINGLE DIVINE ETERNAL INTENTION FOR BOTH OF THEM. YET THEY MAKE A SHARP DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIVINE ACTS AND ACTS OF CREATES SUPPOSTA. [4] MU’’TAZLAH HOWEVER BELIEVE THAT ACTS OF RATIONAL SUPPOSITA ARE INDEPENDENT OF DIVINE INTENTION NA’’UDHU BILLAH.

None of the Divine Acts and DOIINGS Of DEITY can be ascribed to created Supposita/ Suppositums say human beings or Jin beings or Angel Beings etc. Otherwisw it Shall be a Manipulation [TAHRIIF] In The Text Of Qur’an.

THE CONNECTIONS OF SEEING AND LISTENING ARE NOT VOLENTARY[some time called ACTS OF SEEING /WATCHING ANDHEARING / LISTENING ] SINCE THEY ARE THE NECESSARY CONNECTIONS OF ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES. THUS DEITY CONNOT MAKE HIMSELF TO CEASE TO HEAR AND CANNOT CEASE HIMSELF FROM SEEING.

[ SOME GRAMMATICAL DAVIATIONS MAY BE FOUND IN THIS SENTENCE BUT THIS IS DONE IN ORDER TO CONVAY THE REAL SENSE WHICH MAY BE LOST IF THE GRAMMATICAL ERROR IS REMOVED] Elders of Maturidiah believe that Act[FI;L] Is An Essential Attribute Of Deity, instead of an Act or an Active Attribute Of DEITY.ASHAIRAH BELIEVE THAT AN ACT IS NOT AN ATTRIBUTE. They argue that if ACTS are Eternal then they SELF- CEASE to be Voluntary.Latter Muturidites used the word Tacvin/TAKVIN/TAKWIN for the very same Attribute.

But this doeth shew Act Of Deity cannot be termed as Bestowed, in there terminology.

The word Act is just a name for the Attribute Since this Essential Attribute is the MANSHA [Originater] of temporal voluntary acts/doings etc.

[The correct term for this Attribute may be Generator or Source of Act/Work/Doing/Acticity Of Deity. Thus the Generator of Act et cetera is neither a Divine Act nor an Active Attribute Of Deity but An ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY.] If it is assumed that THIS Attribute Of Originator OF ACTS/DOINGS is not tacvin, then the total number of KNOWN ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE increases up to nine [ atleast].

How ever this is an ambiguous term since it maketh confusion between an Act and an [ESSENTIAL ]ATTRIBUTE Of Deity. Neither ASHARITES NOR MATURIDITES EVER USED THE TERM OF ATAI FOR ANY TEMPORAL AND VOLUNTARY ACT/DOING OF DEITY. EVEN SALAPHITES/SALAFITES and HANABALITES never use this term for them.

The same is true for CALAM AL LAFZ:IY and Its Attributes , since they are included in divine Acts, If they are included in DIVINE ACTS/DOINGS, they are not Bestowed.

But if they are not included in Divine Acts they are still not Bestowed.

ALL THOSE ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES WHO CONSTITUTE A VERY LARGE MAJORITY OF THEM BELIEVE THAT AL KALAM AL LAFZIY Is Temporal but never use they word Bestowed for AL KALAM AL LAFZIY and ITS ATTRIBUTES. IF VERBAL SPEECH/ DICTIONIS OF DEITY ARE BESTOWED, then it can not be scribed to Deity just as Verbal Speech Of human beings cannot be ascribed to Deity, Bestowed Knowledge cannot be ascribed to Deity. acts of eating etc. Can not be ascribed to DEITY EXCEPT they are Creation [and Creatures] Of Deity.

Sufies of Sunnism often use the terms ZAHURAT [CALMINATION] and TAJALLIYAT [MENIFESTATION]. They consider them as Temporal and not Eternal. Yet it is not seen in any authentic work of Sunni Sufism that they uses the wor Bestowing ATAI for these TAJALLIYAT AND ZAHURAT. If culmination s and manifestations are Divine Acts then they are certainly not Bestowed. If they are not then either they are higher then Divine Acts or equal to Divine Acts or lower than Divine acts. That is tracheotomy is applicable in regard to theological issues. But

Page | 29 Divine acts can not be lower then them .Thus in any case if they can not be termed as ATAI / BESTOWED, DIVINE ACTS CAN ALSO NOT BE TERMED AS Atai or Bestowed.

SOLUTION OF NAJJARIAH AND ITS REFUTATION:NAJJARIAH is a sect which is out of the folds of Ahlussunnah. They made a distinction between ACTS OF DEITY and ACTS OF CREATED RATIONAL SUPPOSITA by proposing That there are two DIVINE INTENTIONS [WILLS]. ACTS DUE TO THE FIRST ONE ARE THE DIVINE ACTS AND THE ACTS DUE TO THE SECOND ONE ARE ACTS OF THE CREATED SUPPOSITA. But this distinction is rejected by all Sunnis. They believe in ONLY ONE DIVINE INTENTION [WILL /VOLUTION]. So they distinction between a Divine Voluntary Act and a Non Divine Voluntary Act is that the POSTERIORLY Stated acts are BESTOWED , AND THE ACTS WHICH ARE PRIORLY Stated are NEITHER ESSENTIAL NOR BESTOWED.

IT IS HOPED BY THE DIVINE GRACE THAT THE OBJECTION AFTER THIS DETAILED ANSWER IS CEASED TO BE INSHAA ALLAH[4] OBJECTION 2 It may be the case that all the ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES ARE IN ERROR. ANSWER. ONLY A DEVIANT CAN CLAIM SUCH A THING. IF not deviant from Ahlussunnah then a deviant from the Majority of Ahlussunnah.

Maulavi Raza was a deviant since he did declair all Asharites and Maturidites in error since they believe that AL CALAM AL LAFZIY and AL CALAM AN NAFSIY are two Attributes ,and not One Attribute.This does prove that the founder of sect was a deviant from the Majority Of Sunnism. This shall be discussed latter.

EPILOGUE..

A] IF by the word QURâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;AN ~VERBAL DICTIONIS~ is meant then VERBAL DICTIONIS Is either Eternal or Not Eternal. If It is Not Eternal then It is Either BESTOWED or NOT-BESTOWED. If It Is Eternal then No Attribute Of Verbal Dictionis Can Be Bestowed.If Attributres Of Verbal Dictionis like TABYAAN,TAFSIIL,SIDQ[Truth of Assertive or Negative statements]etc are Exitential Attribute Of Verbal Dictionis and are NOT BESTOWED. NO bestowed Attribute can circumference any one of the Non Bestowed Attributes , neither collectively nor individually,irrespective to their connections and pertaining to All Existing Things or Some Existing Things.The Non Existential Attributes of Verbum Dictionis is based on some Existential Attribute Of Verbum Dictioniswhich cannot be Circumferenced by Bestowed Attributes [Neither collectively Nor Individually].HENCE NEITHER THE NON EXISTENTIAL

ATTRIBUTE NOR THE EXISTENTIAL ATTRIBUTE upon which the Non Existential Attribute is based can be circumference by the Bestowed Knowledge.

B] If the Verbum Dictionis Of Deity Is Temporal then All Of Its Existential Attributes Are Temporal. Since NoExistential Attribute Of Non Eternal Is ETERNAL , AND No Attribute Of Eternal Can be Non Eternal.

But in this case None Of Them Can Be Bestowed. SinceThey are Ascribed to the Eternal Deityand No BESTOWED ATTRIBUTE can be ascribed to Deity in the meaning and sense, in which DIVINE VERBAL DICTIONIS and Its Attributes Are Ascribed To Deity,

C]The Non Existential Attributes in this case are based upon Not Bestowed Temporal Attributes As the Existential Bases of Non Existential Attribute Of Not Bestowed VERBUM DICTIONIS can not be circumference by Bestowed Attributes say Bestowed Knowledge, the Non Existential Attibibutes can not be circumference by Bestowed Attrbutes.

D] It is stated above that no NOT-BESTOWED ATTRIBUTE whether Eternal Or Temporal can be circumference by Bestowed Attributes.

Up till now no Follower of Maulvi Raza Of Baraili has claimed that a Non Bestowed Attribute can be circunferenced by BESTOWED ATTRIBUTES. SINCE the Non Bestoweness excludes the Bestowing/Bestowness just like eternal excludes the Non Eternal.

E] If Deity Createth a Thing it can not be said in any sense of the grammatical infinitive { TO BESTOW }that Deity hath bestowed the thing to His Divine Self.

Since no thing can be bestowed to Deity, No one can bestow any thing to Deity Not even The Great Deity Himself since these are all Intrinsic Absurd just like stealing of any thing is Intrinsically Absurd for Deity.

But it may be noted that the ACTIVE ATTRIBUTES Of DEIT Y are neither Essential Not Bestowed Not only according to the standard of Maturidiah but also according to the standard of Aashairah, and the Philosophical Deviants Of Ashairah and Maturidian in Indian Subcontinent who disputed from IMAM ASHARI AND IMAM MATURIDI on several Issues and also from the ELDERS [ First Generation] of ASHAIRAH AND MATURIDIAH.,

CASE 03

Page | 31 THE DOGMA OF UNICITY OF KALAM The founder of the cult of Baraivism himself believed that there is ONLY ON KALAM [DICTIONIS/DICTUM] This ONLY KALAM is NAFSIY as well as Lafziy. In other words it is both AL LAFZIY AND NAFSIY. This Calam/Kalam cannot be Not-Eternal, otherwise there cannot be any Eternal Kalam.

If this Kalam is Unique [VAHID] and Eternal, then NONE of its Attributes can be BESTOWED. Thus once again all the discussions for the ETERNAL IDEAL DICTIONIS are valid since AL KALAAM AL VAHID [ONLY KALAM/UNIQUE KALAM] or Unique Dictionis is ETERNAL. One may be astonished that How can the majority of Barailvism dispute from their leader and founder on the issue on the Unity of Dictionis. The answer is quite simple. The mensioned above [Founding ] Leader Of the Cult stated his belief in Malfuzat. Malfuzat is not taught in MADAARIS of Barailvism of Subcontinent whether in India Or in Pakistan. This is the reason that the latter generation of Indo Pak Subcontinent was not informed. But the question is why a number of Barailvi scholars of a generation earlier were not informed. The answer is once again quite simple. The they did not read the book since after receiving the degree of AALIM [DARS AN NIZAMI] from Barailvi Madaris ;a Great number of Barailvi Ulma do not study the works of their leader and founder in detail in general and in minute detail in particular.

If they had studied his works they must have believed as according to his sayings, writings works, books, pamphlets .THE BARAILVI SCHOLARS OF SUBCONTINENT IN TERRITORIES INCLUDED IN PAKISTAN AND BARAILVI SCHOLORS IN TERRITORIES OF SUBCONTINENT INCLUDED IN INDIA AFTER DIVISION OF BRITISH IONDIA DO DISAGREE ON SEVERAL ISSUES. [5] Note . The dogma of Unicity Of Kala:m /Cala:m is a deviation from Great Imams i.e Imam Ashari and Imam Maturidi.Imam Ashari him self believeth that AL KALAM AN NAFSI is audible , WHILE the official openion of Maturidis is that ,It is Not. Yet there is no dispute that Al Kalam Al Lafz:I is audible.

CONCLUSION This shews with perfect clarity that even based on the opinion of the founder of the sect/cult is not possible to argue in the favour of the belief that Bestowed Knowledge circumferences each and every Existing Thing With or with out the exception of the Eternal Existent[s]. Since all the arguments and argumentations becometh invalid ,incorrect and inaccurate.

CASE04 The case is to claim that Dictionis [Kala:m ] IS NEITHER AL LAFZ:IY NOR AN NAFSIY. But uptil know no one has claimed that there is such a KALAM which is neither 'AL LAFZ:IY nor 'AN NAFSIY, neither with other KALAMS nor without other KALAMS OF DEITY. There fore such a claim is a heresy.

If some one is somehow able to prove the belief in this case it is sufficient to shew that the basis upon which the arguments and argumentations are based is a heretical belief and there fore all the arguments and argumentations are incorrect.

BANA AL BATIL 窶連LAL BAT:IL [BASIS OF WRONG IS UPON WRONG].

Even THE FOUNDER OF THE CULT CLAIMED THAT ALKALAM AL LAFZIY and AL KALAM AN NAFSIY both are ONE and same ,He did not claimed that there is a Kalam which is Neither AlLafziy Nor An Nafsiy.

There is an infinite difference in the claim <<A IS Band C>> [A IS BOTH B and C], and THE CLAIM << A Is Neither B Nor C>>.

CASE 05 If some one does claim that there is a third Kalam which is a Union Of TWO Distinct Kalams namely AL LAFZIY and Kalam AN NAFSIY, AND each one of the two Mutually Distinct Kalams are the members of the Union, then there are the following cases.

1]Both the members of the Union are Eternal.

Page | 33 2] Both the members of the Union are Not Eternal.

3] Any one of the member is Eternal and the other one is Not. In the first case the Union Kalam constituted by Not Union Kalams [say member Kalams] can not be Not Eternal, since Union Of Eternal Attributes cannot be a Temporal Attribute. Thus this alleged Union is Eternal. In this Case all the discussions on ETERNAL KALAM AN NAFSI BECOME VALID IN THIS CASE. IF BOTH the members are Temporal then Union of Temporals cannot be Eternal. But this is not possible as one of them is AL KALAM AN NAFSIY which is Eternal as an agreed upon fact among all who believe in AL KALAM AN NAFSIY. Hence this case is discarded.

If one of the members Kalams of the Union Kalam is Eternal then it must be Al Kalam An Nafsiy, since no one believes that AL KALAM AL LAFZIY IS ETERNAL AND AL KALAM AN NAFSIY IS NOT ETERNAL. Thus the only logical option is that a person [Rational Suppositum] may claim that There is a Union of two members a] AL KALAM AL LAFZIY AL HADITH. B] AL KALAM AN NAFSIY AL QADIM. One of the greatest objections on it is that there is no such union possible [SINCE SUCH A UNION I.E UNION OF ETERNAL AND NON ETERNAL IS INTRINSICALLY ABSURD] which is constituted by two or more Eternal and Non Eternal members.

In other words Eternal and NON ETERNAL neither can constitute a Union nor can form a union. Thus the constitution of Eternal and Not Eternal is Intrinsically ABSURD.[ NEITHER ETERNAL CAN UNITE WITH NON ETERNAL NOR NON ETERNAL CAN UNITE WITH ETERNAL,ALSO THEY CAN NOT UNITE MUTUALLY. THESE ARE ALL INTRINSICALLY ABSURD, HENCE NOT IN DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE.] BUT FOR SAKE OF AN ARGUMENT IF THERE IS SUCH A UNION THEN IT IS EITHER TEMPORAL OR ETERNAL . If temporal then all the discussions on AL

KALAM AL LAFZIY AL HADITH [ TEMPORAL VERBUM DICTIONIS] are applicable in this case. If Eternal then all the discussions of AL KALAM AN NAFSIY AL QADIM [ETERNAL IDEAL DICTIONIS] are applicable. One may see them or recall them .

It is claimed by some fanatics that AL KALAM AL LAFZIY is nothing but an aspect of TAKVIN/ TACVIN and there is no AL KALAM AN NAFSIY probably in order to justify the unacceptable claim of the founder that both of Al Kalam AL LAFZIYU and AL KALAM AN NAFSIY are one. One may not discuss this claim that there is no AL KALAM AQN NAFSIY and AL KALAM AL LAFZIY is just an aspect of SIFATUTTAKVIN. How ever it is now generally accepted that THE FOUNDER OF SECT OF BARAILVISM was some how influenced by SALAPHITES and HANABALAH, at least on the issue of KALAM. Instead of directly denying AL KALAM AN NAFSIY he denied the distinction.[6].

CASE 06.

If it is claimed that the Eternal Dictionis assumed a non Eternal Nature just like Logos of Athanasian Christianity assumed a Non Eternal Nature with the difference that instead of temporal human nature, The Eternal Assumed the Temporal Bookish Nature and the copied of Quran are like Eucharistic breads, then the response is that all such supposed events are Intrinsically Absurd and Must not be accepted. A UNION OF TEMPORAL HUMAN NATURE AND ETERNAL DIVINE NATURE IS INTRINSICALLY ABSURD AS THE UNION OF ANY OTHER TEMPORAL NATURE AND DIVINE NATURE. THERE IS NO EXCEPTION FROM THIS INTRINSIC ABSURDITY].

Note: Sunnis do not use the word Nature for Deity and Divine Attributes . They use the word ESSENCE. At best Nature is just an ATTRIBUTE of DIVINE ESSENCE..

~~~~ There are two Barailis [i.e two places of same name] in United Provinces[India] A] RAI BARAILI. 2] BANS BARAILI. Citizen of both Barailis are called Barailvis /Barilwis. But this generates ambiguity. So one may make a distinction by calling the citizen of Rai Baraili AS Rai Barailvi, and the citizen of Bans Baraili as Bans Barailvi.But the very same word is now used for a sect or cult which do claim to be only Sunnite group on the globe .This sect or cult was founded by Maulvi RAZA/RADA BANS BARAILVI[1856-

Page | 35 1920/21]. The name of the sect/cult is Barailiah, Barailviah , Barailvism, Barailviat. Some use the letter V and other use the letter W in Languages using Latin Alphabets and Latin script. As their is no confusion as a sect or ascribed to sect the word Bans is not used for a follower of the cult and for the sect. The sect/cult is also known as RAZA KHANIAH or RAZA KHANISM or RAZAIAH or RAZAISM . The words derived from the noun Raza [RAD:A] the proper noun of the founder of the sect. A follower of the sect/cult is called Razai as well.Some also write BARAILI AS BRELI [ Bailvi as breli]. Also Barilee, Barailee,Barely ect.

The letter Da:d is read as Zad or Zwad OR Zuad In Urdu ,hence D is read as Z. [Foot Noot Of page 1] [1] Uptill now no Barailwi/Barailvi Scholor has ever claimed that AL KALAM AN NAFSI is not etrernal.[Foot Note Of page 1] [2]Some may also claim that Every [Existential] Attribute Of Eternal is Eternal. This is a very strong statement. Even the [relatively] weaker statement is sufficient to refute these arguments and argumentations. There fore the strong statement is neglected . Also this strong statement is controversial and disputed. All Sunnis who deny Barailvism do not agree with the strong statement in General.

[3] A Bestowed Attribute is an Imperfection for Deity hence NO ATTRIBUTE Of DEITY can be Bestowed ,WHETHER IT BE ESSENTIAL OR ACTIVE,ABSOLUTE OR RELATIVE ,IMMENENT OR NOT IMMENENT OR ELSE. [Foot Note Of page 2] [4]All the Attributes,Qualities,Properties,Acts,Doings,Works Of Created Supposita ARE CREATED, TEMPORAL and Bestowed [MAKHLUUQ, HAADITH, AND ATAAI/ATAI] But no Act and no Attribute Of Deity are bestowed.. THEY ARE ALL UNBESTOWED. Essential Attributes Of DEITY are Uncreated,Not Temporal [Eternal], AND UNBESTOWED. The Active Attributes Of Deity Are Eternal According to Hanabalah ,Salaphites AND A MINORITY OF Maturidiah.[But according to ASHARITES they are Temporal but not Bestowed [ HADIS GHAIR ATAI]. Since No Asharite has ever used the term

/word Atai/Ataai/Bestowed for any one of them. RATIONALITY AND INTELLEGENCE DEMAND THAT NO THING CAN BE BESTOWED TO DEITY/DIVINITY. Majority of Maturidite believe that Active Attributes are just the aspects of Essential Attribute AT TAKVIN/AT TACVIN. Attakvin is Neither Created Nor Temporal but Eternal. No aspect of Eternal can be Bestowed.

Hence there is an IJMAA on this issue that No Attribute whether Essential or Active is Bestowed. The same is true for the Relative Attributes of Deity. It may be noted that as each Essential Attribute Of Deity is Absolute , they may be termed as ABSOLUTE Attributes as well.

Even the Relative Attribute of Deity are not Bestowed.The difference between the Active attributes and Relative Attributes may be stated as follow: The opposite of Active Attributes never Occur while the Opposite of Relative Atrribute may also occur. For example Injustice is an opposite of Justice , As Justice is an Active Attribute injustice never occurs, but R-DA is a Relative Attribute and its oppositte GH-D:-B may also occur. An other example of Relative Attribute is Forgiveness [ the punishment]. Yet some may be Punished as well.

Deity Loveth yet Deity Doeth not love Evil.Had love been an Essential Attribute Deity would have love Good and Not Good say Bad or Evil All alike, with Intrinsic Necessity. {In this case it would have been INTRINSICALLY ABSURD NOT TO LOVE ANY THING.} If Love have been an Active Attribute Deity would have loveth Good and Evil with Extrinsic Necessity or Relative Necessity.{ In this case it would have been EXTRINSICALLY ABSURD NOT TO LOVE ANY THING.} If Forgiveness would have been an Essential Attribute then Deity would have been unable to Punish any one with Intrinsic Necessity and would punish every one with Intrinsic Necessity .

Imperfections upon DIVINE ESSENCE IS INTRINSICALLY ABSURD. Had it been an Active Attribute Deity would have punish every one with Extrinsic Necerssity even if he would have the Power to Punish. The difference between Extrinsic Absurd and Relative Absurd is that A relative Absurd is An Extrinsic Absurd of a particular Act or event. For example It is TO FORGIVE FIRAUN IS AN EXTRINSIC ABURD BUT THE ACT OF FORGIVING IS NOT EXTRINSIC ABSURD. So the act of forgiving a particular Suppostum

Page | 37 is Relatively Absurd. But a rock so heavy that Deity CANNOT Lift or Move is Intrinsically Absurd. .Essential Attributes Of Divinity are LA GHAIR, Whether AIN OR LA AIN VA LA GHAIR. Maturidiah consider TACVIN as the MANSHA of relations between Divine Act and TACVIN OR QUDRAH. These Relations are some time also called Active Attributes.

[FOOT NOTE OF Page 11] [5] Same is the case of Attributes Of Deity .In Subhan Assubbuh the] founder of Barailvism Explitly clearifies that he believes that Divine Attributes are LAVAZIM OF DIVINE ESSENCE. In his extremism he even croses the limits and believes in LAZIM OF LAZIM as well. But as few today study this work , number of scholars of latter generations of Barailvism believes in Identity / AIN instead of Lazim in general due to influence of Khairabadi and Rampuri cults which are akin to Barailvism on several issues.[Foot Note Of Page 13].

Differences between Khairabadis and Barailvis is an open area of research, and scholars are invited to study this area.

[6] Different uses of the word Essential.

Some time it is used against the word Active.Eg.Active Attribute and Essential Attributes Of Deity Some times it is used against the word Bestowed. E.g. Essential Knowledge of Deity and Bestowed Knowledge of Created Rational Suppositum say a human being.

Some times it is used in the meaning of Substantial.

Some time it is used in the meaning of a Direct and Intrinsic Implication Of Essence.[TAQADAA OR IQTIDAA UDH DHAAT] In different uses the meanings do change slightly.

The word Essence is also used in the meaning of Fundamental and Principle reality which is the Substratum for Attributes and Nature.

The word Essence is used in the meaning Of Subsistent as well.

It may be noted that Divine Knowledge is Essential not only against the concept of the word Bestowed but also against the concept of Active.

Divine Active Attributes say Justice, Truth Of Statement, Mercy etc are neither Essential Nor Bestowed. This the fundamental sense/MEANING in which the word is used in this article.

[Foot note of page 16]

Books of Barailvism 1] SUBHAANUSSUBUUH BY MAULVI RAZA OF BANS BARAILI UNITED PRIVINCES INDIA 2] VASAYA SHARIF BY MAULVI RAZA OF BANS BARAILI UNITED PRIVINCES INDIA

3] MALFUZ:A:T BY MAULVI RAZA OF BANS BARAILI UNITED PRIVINCES INDIA

4] ‘-NBA AL MUSTAFA BY MAULVI RAZA OF BANS BARAILI UNITED PRIVINCES INDIA

5] AL AMAN WAL ULA BY MAULVI RAZA OF BANS BARAILI UNITED PRIVINCES INDIA

6]CANZ AL IMAN AND AL KHAZAAIN AL IRFAN BY MAULVI RAZA OF BANS BARAILI AND MAULVI NAIIMUDDIN MURADABADI UNITED PRIVINCES INDIA BOOKS OF AHLUSSUNNAH SHARRAH AQAAID BY IMAM SAD UDDIN TAFTAZANI RAHMATULLAH ALAIH.

Page | 39 NABRAS BY ALLAMAH ABDUL AZIZ PERHARVI AND NOTES BY ALLAMAH BARKHURDAR RAHMATULLAH ALAIHUMA SHARAH MUVAQQIF FIQH AKBAR [ ASCRIBED TO IMAM ABU HANIFAH RAHMATULLAH ALAIH YET THIS ASCRIPTION IS DOUBT FUL YET THE ASCRIBED ARTICLES OF FAITH ARE CORRECT EVEN IF THE ASCRIPTION IS DOUBTFUL] SHARAH FIQH AL 窶連KBAR[ 窶連CBAR] BY MULLA ALI QARI RAHMATULLAH ALAIH AQAID TAH:AVI-YAH IMAM TAHAVI RAHMATULLAH ALAIH AQIDAH OF IMAM IBN ATTAIMIAH RAHMATULLAH ALAIH

AL KHIALI ,ISAGHOJI ,SHARAH TAHZIB,QUTBI, MULLA JALAL, Sallam al Ulu:m etc.

Note :1]The word DEITY is Used instead of the word GOD since this latter word is often misused by atheist and makes disgracing statements.2] DIVINE ESSENCE Is Identical to Deity NOT ONLY IN MAS:DA:Q BUT ALSO IN MAFHU:M. THUS ESSENCE OF DEITY IS THE SELF OF DEITY, THAT IS DEITY IS THE DIVINE ESSENCE [DIVINITY] AND DIVINE ESSENCE [DIVINITY] IS THE DEITY AND THAT IS THE INTRINSIC NECESSARY EXISTENT.

A NUMBER OF ERRORS IN SPELLING MAY BE FOUND DUE TO TYPING PROBLEM. AS THIS IS A PROTO TYPE DOCUMENT. ALTHOUGH SLIGHTLY IMPROVED FROM THE FIRST PROTOTYPE ARTICLES IT IS STILL A PROTOPTYPE ARTICLE. YET IT IS SLIGHTLY IMPROVED WE DO APOLOGY FOR GRAMMATICAL[AS:S:ARF VAN NAH:V] AND SPELLING ERRORS. WE MAY GET RID OF THEM IN SOME ADVANCE VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE. SUB HANALLAH VA BI HAMDIHI SUB HANALLAHIL AZIM

TRANSLATION SCHEME LONG A ----- AA OR A: [ as A in CAR] LONG I.... II OR I:

[as I in POLICE]

LONG U....UU OR U: [AS U in RUDE] SHORT A.....A [as a in SUGAR or in GERMAN] SHORT I.....I [as I in THIS,SIT] SHORT U....U [as U in PUT].

NO SIGN IS USED FOR J-ZM , AND TASH-DI:D. FOR TASH-DI:D CONSONENTS ARE WRITTEN TWICE EXAMPLE SATTAR AND ARE READ SEPERATELEY. EG SAT-TAR.SOME TIME – MAY CONSIDE WITH J-ZM.

NOTES:1] THE EXAMPLES ARE THE BEST POSSIBLE APPROXIMATTIONS 2]C IS USED IN THE SOUND OF K. EG KALA:M OR CALA:M. BOTH ARE USED AS EXACT ALTERNATIVES. V IS USED IN SOUND OF W WHEN W IS A CONSONENT . EG WAU OR VAU .

BOTH ARE USED AS EXACT ALTERNATIVES.

DEFTHONGS AI, AU [Alternative forms AY,AW,AV] If a sound begins with a vowel the sign ‘ or ‘ is used [H-MZAH]. IF IT IS MISSED THEN IT MAY BE SUPPOSED TO BE UNDERSTOOD. FOR guttural AIN “ OR ” IS USED BEFORE A VOWEL.

Page | 41 Some times a short vowel is omitted and is replaced by << - >>SOME time this represent a syllable. Some time it is omitted in case of syllables.No unique method is used.

CONSONENTS: B,T, 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

.