[

]

Ibn Ar Rushd’s own arguments/proofs for the Existence Of Deity are incorrect in his own system. A n strict criticism of Rushdian Arguments/proofs is presented below.

[Year]

[Type the company name]

Ali

1

2

3

4

2

A CRITIQUE OF PROOFS OF DIVINITY IN THE SYSTEM OF IBN AR RUSHD ‘UND-LUSI:

Ibn Ar RushdAverroaes has made several arguments to shew that the PROOFS for the Divine Existence presented by a number of Orthodox and Unorthodox sects in Islam are incorrect and wrong.

How ever in this article , the arguments or proofs presented by Ibn Ar Rushd himself are examined a, analysed, refuted as according to the INCONSISTENT philosophical system of the so called Philosopher namely Ibn Ar Rushd ‘Al Undulusi.

It may be noted that Ibn Ar Rushd follows the principles of Atheism , though he claims to be a believer in Deity. Either he is ignorant of the consequences of his system and arguments or he deliberately do not mention them, but deliberately conceal them so that those who agree with him in these may reach to the result i.e denial of the Existence Of Deity. In this work it is not tried to refute Ibn Ar Rushds argument against proofs Asharites and Maturidites in Supprt of Divine Existence. But it is attempted to prove that Arguments for Divine Existence presented by Ibn Ar Rushd Averroes is in correct according to his own principles of his system of philosophy.

It may be noted that Deity is impossible to be proved in his system, that is why he did not analyzed his own arguments/proofs critically. This provided a chance to others to analyze his provided proofs.

First Argument Of Ibn Ar Rushd about The Existence Of Deity [Divine Existence=DE]

The first argument is similar to the argument of Design. This argument is somewhat analogous to the Intelligent Design Theory proposed to combat Evolution Theories in The science of biology.

Evolutionist are afraid that that if it is accepted then the Intelligent Designist shall argue that A DESIGN implieth a Designer , by using Ibn Ar Rush’s argument of Induciveness. Designist like Ibn Ar Rushd do not believe in the possibility of Co-incidence .On the other hand Evolutionists believe in some what controlled Co-incidence. Whether this Theory of Rational Design or Intelligent Design is correct or not , and whether it can give tough time to the theories of Evolutions or not, is not the issue. The issue is that whether a Design whether Rational (Intelligent) or Not implies a Designer or not. The problem may be simplified as follow:- Where a Design implies a Designer or not.

In Ibn Ar Rushd’s system it not only does not but it cannot imply.

Returning back to CONDUCIVENESS proposed by Ibn Ar Rushd , Ibn Ar Rushd argues that Conduciveness implies an Intending Agent, which is the Deity. But the system which he is using does not and cannot accept this Implication.

The Argument

All Existing Things Exist for a Purpose.

Page | 2

56

789

101112

13141516171819

202122

2324

2526

27282930313233

34

353637

38

39

3

All Existing Things are conducive to human beings.

This CONDUCIVENESS is related to a Rational Intending Existing Suppositum which is the Agent

Of this CONDUCIVENESS i.e The Conduciveness of All Thing to Human Beings.

This CONDUCIVENESS is not a COINCIDENCE since Coincidence is Impossible.

Any corruption in the Conduciveness implies the destruction of human beings.

This argument is not according to the System Of Ibn Ar Rushd, as it shall be seen below:-

EXAMPLE:-

If a person sees a stone on earth and finds it conducive to be sat on , he realizes that this stone is made in this form by some one who is an intelligent / rational Intending Agent. But if the person does not see it conducive to any thing he shall not ascribe it to any Intending rational Agent.

ANALYSIS.

It appears that this Purpose is this Conduciveness stated above.

If a thing بب is conducive to any other thing تthen Conduciveness (to the second thing ت) is the Attribute of the first ب .

In other words ‘’A THING ب IS CONDUCIVE TO ANOTHER THING IF AND ONLY IF CONDUCIVENESS TO THE LATTER THING ت IS THE ATTRIBUTE OF THE FIRST THING ’’. ب

This proves that if any one of the two cease to exist this conduciveness stated above also ceases exist.

Ibn Ar Rushd thinks that a minimum change in the prime Conduciveness implies the perfect destruction of the latter thing.

REMARKS:

Ibn Ar Rushd did not criticize this argument as he did in regard to the arguments of Orthodox and Unorthodox systems of Islam.

If he had done so he would have found that his own system of arguments makes this argument invalid and incorrect.

He cannot defend this argument with out damaging his own system.

He cannot use the system of other sects to refute these objections since he does not believe in them.

COMMENT:

Page | 3

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

474849

50

51

5253

545556

5758

5960

61

6263

6465

66

6768

69

4

In this article it is attempted to prove that this ALLEGED and SO CALLED proof is inconsistent to his system as well as incorrect and invalid.

A)REFUTATION OF FIRST ATTEMTED PROOF OF RUSHDIAN DEITY :

A,1) FIRST DISCUSSION ON FIRST ARGUMENT.

According to the dogmas of Ibn Ar Rushd the otherwise of any event is IMPOSSIBLE. For example if a Body B is moving from point A to point C in nature SAY EVENT E1 then it is Immpossible in Rushdian system that it moves from C to A say event E. The reason for the ABSURDITY/IMPOSSIBILITY of the event is as follow:-

If Event E2 occurs then it implies the Annihilation of Divine Wisdom. Annihilation Of Divine Wisdom is Impossible. One that implies an Impossible is itself Impossible. Therefore event E2 is Impossible.

Now if event two is Impossible it is impossible to be in Divine Power since Divine Power is Over Possibilities ONLY

IF a thing is Not in Divine Power and is IMPOSSIBLE to be In Divine Power then It is also Impossible to be Intended[Willed]by Divine Intention[Will]. On similar reasoning it can be proved that in the Rushdian system the Non Occurance of Event E1 is also imposible. Suppose that the Event E1 did occur at time .At time its Non Occurrence was Impossible There fore it was τ τImpossible to be in Divine Power and Impossible to be Intended by Deity at time τ..

SINCE the Non Occurance of Event E1 implies the Annihilation of the Divine Wisdom , and Annhilation of Divine Wisdom is impossible in Rushdian System.

So it is not in Divine Power , not to occur event E1, and not possible to

‘ Not to do E1’ by Divine Intention (Will).

Now if Deity has no alternative to choose , and the Deity cannot ‘NOT DO’ an act then there is no Divine Intention and no Divine Will.(Deity CEASETH to be a Free Agent, which implieth that Deity Ceaseth to be the Absolute Free Agent with an Absolute Free Intention /Will. Also Deity Ceaseth to be an Omnipotent Agent.) The act of doing E1 is therefore certainly not a Voluntary act of Deity. If not a voluntary act then an unvoluntary act. If an unvaluntary act then an Immanent Unvoluntary act.

If so then this argument of Ibn Ar Rushd fails to hold.

This shews that this attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd is not only inconsistent in his Philosophical system but it is incorrect since Ibn Ar Rushd is unable to explain or to define the meaning of Divine Intention/Will. What sort of will/intention is in the mind of Ibn Ar Rushd if the Per se Subsistent Suppositum to which the Intention/Will is ascribed has no alternative to choose , not even the Suppositum is sufficiently free for not to do . This Implies that Deity is an Intention-less[Will-less] Existing Suppositum, and the event E1 is occurred with out being intended and with out being willed.This implies

Page | 4

7071

72

73

74757677

787980

8182

8384858687

8889

90

91

929394959697

98

99100101102103104

5

That it is an unintentional and unvoluntary act.

It is invalid to attempt to prove a Rational Intending Per se Subsistent Suppositum as an agent of an Act which is Involuntary and Unintentional.

It does appear that Ibn Ar Rush is not ignorant of these flaws in his system and in his this particular argument , yet he conceals them supposing that these flaw shall never be detected by any one.

In his zeal to refute Imam ‘Al ~H aramain , Ibn Ar Rushd made such arguments which could even

destroy his own arguments. Analyzation and refutation of Arguments coined by Ibn Ar Rushd against the

proofs of Imam ‘Al ~H aramain is beyond the scope of present discussion.It may amuse a number of

Atheists that alleged arguments made by Ibn Ar Rushd against Imam ‘Al ~H aramain R.~H can be used

against Ibn Ar Rushd him self. So Ibn Ar Rushd’s own objections are valid on this first proof.

Ibn Ar Rushd ‘s first argument is invalid. Q.E.D.

(Some more refutations are in second discussion about Rushd’s first proof/argument what so ever it may be).

A,2) SECOND DISCUSSION ON FIRST ARGUMENT.

If the Act(ion) of Induciveness is ascribed to the very Ousia (Substance/Essence) of the Per se Subsistent Suppositum THEN this Conduciveness cannot be a Voluntary Act/Action Of the Stated above Suppositum irrespective of the cases whether the Suppositum possesses the Attribute of Intention or Not, Since the Ousia is unvoluntarily Necessary.This does reduce the whole problem to Aristotelian Cause and Effect Problem ,where the cause is with out any Will or Intention. In this case Independent of the Intention (Will) of the Supposition , if The Suppositum Doeth Have Any.In this case the Rushdian Argument is unsound and invalid in his own system of philosophy. It fails to prove an Per se Subsistent Agent with An Intention.

Possibility of ascription of an act (in this case Inductiveness)

to the Ousia Of The Per se Subsistent Agent instead of the Intention Of Per se Subsistent Agent MAKES the Rushdian Argument Invalid in his own system of Philosophy. There is no Impossibility of this , and thus no intending Per se Subsistent Agent is can be proved.

Summary:- Either the Per se Subsistent Agent is with out any Intention. In this case the argument fails, OR it is with an Attribute of Intention. In the latter case there are two possible cases. Either the Act(ion) of Conduciveness is Independent of the stated above Attribute (Quality) or Not . If it is then the argument fails, and if not then it is discussed in:- A,3)

A,3) Third discussion On Second FIRST Argument.

For sake of simplicity the term Per se subsistent Agent is reduced to Agent, also that the discussion may become more general and if there is some once who can conceive the idea of a non per se subsistent agent can also be refuted.

Page | 5

105

106107

108109

110111112113114

115

116117

118

119120121122123124125126

127

128129130

131132133134

135

136137138

139

6

If this action (of conduciveness ) is ascribed to the Intention of this Agent, and this Intention of Agent Is An Attribute Of This Agent , THEN This Conduciveness is an Action Of the Attribute Of the Agent. There are two logically possible cases:-

A,3,1) This Intention (Will) is Not Eternal.

A,3,2) This Intention (Will) is Eternal.

If this Intention Is Not Eternal then there are two possible cases.

A,3,1,1) The Agent is Not- Eternal.

(Agent and Intention Both are Non Eternal)

A,3,1,2)The Agent is Eternal.

(Agent is Eternal and Intention is Not)

If the Agent and the Intention each one of the two, is Not Eternal ,then Ibn Ar Rushd is entangled in further problems and difficulties. )The Agent cannot be the Deity since Even Rushd αbelieved Deity to be Eternal . If this Agent is not Deity then the proof becomes invalid.Since Ibn Ar Rushd did want to prove the Deity, not a Not-Deity Agent. Deity Must Necessary be Eternal.

)β Either this Agent is brought in Existence from Nothingness by Itself or It is brought in Existence by another Agent truly distinct from it. If it is the former case the argument /proof becomes in-valid ,since if it is accepted that it is Possible for a thing to come in Existence from nothingness , it is self brought in existence from non existence , and is Not Eternal, then there is no need of a Deity, who is supposed to bring things into existence from nothingness. If it is the latter case then a series of Agents each one distinct from the other is implied in the backward direction. This is an infinite series ,which continues infinitely and is ad infinitum. So Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that the Agent of Conduciveness is Not –Eternal. So Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain each one of the two.

Hence

Thus this case cannot prove Deity. Hence the case ‘’Agent and Intention Both are Non Eternal’’ cannot be accepted.

Problem Of Non Eternal Intention and Eternal Agent.

If the Agent is Eternal and the Intention is Temporal then this is IMPOSSIBLE in Rushdian System.

FOR DETAILS SEE:-

Problem Of Eternal Intention and Eternal Agent.

Page | 6

140141142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150151152153

154155156157158159160161

162

163164

165

166

167168

169

170

171

7

If the Agent and its Intention both are Eternal then the Thing Intended is Also Eternal as according to Rushdian system, But The Intended One id est Conduciveness cannot be Eternal.

FOR DETAILS SEE:-

If Ibn Ar Rushd maintains that each one of the two i.e Agent of this Conduciveness and the Intention of the Agent is Eternal then this implies according to his own system of philosophy that The Intention of the Agent and the Intended One i.e this Conduciveness is Eternal ,since in this case it is an Act(ion) of the Agent , and in his system if an Agent is Eternal then its Act or Action is also ETERNAL.This implies that the OBJECT Of the Action is Also Eternal. It must be noted that AN ACTION IS A CORRLATION BETWEEN THE AGENT OR ATTRIBUTE OF AGENT AND THE OBJECT OF THE ACTION. But this is incorrect. Since CONDUCTIVENESS Of All Things To Human Beings Cannot Be Eternal . It shall be shewn latter that why it cannot be so.

---------1

(See ……2)

A,3,1,2,1)

How ever if it is accepted that ,< stated above Conduciveness is Eternal

> ,then it may be the case that it is with out a cause or in is an Effect independent of the will of its Cause. In any case this proof / argument of Ibn Ar Rushd is not proveable in his system.Ibn Ar Rushd attempts to prove an Agent with the Attribute Of Intention, but if it is accepted then he cannot prove an Agent with the Attribute of Intention. This implies a flaw in his system or in his proof or in his argument. His claim cannot be proved at least in tis case , the case under discussion.

In Essence he had to prove the Impossibility of each one of the following before arguing in support of a Per se subsistent agent Attributed with the Attribute of Intention/Will.

Ibn Ar Rushd had to prove Each one of the following:- a) An Intentionless Eternal Cause of Conduciveness is Impossible.

b) If a cause is Attributed by the Attribute of intention then it is Impossible that any thing is

Page | 7

172173174

175

176177178179180181182183184

185

186

187

188189190191192193194

195196

197

198

199

200

201

8

an Effect of It Independent of This Eternal Intention .

C)It is Impossible that this Conduciveness is Eternal Without a cause.

If any one of the above is not proved in his system the case

“Agent and Intention Both are Non Eternal” does beome invalid.A,3,1,2,2) REASON WHY CONDUCIVENESS CANNOT BE ETERNAL.

First:-CONDUCIVENESS is a correlation between All Things and Human Beings. According to the System Of Ibn Ar Rushd If one of the correlate (Correlatant) is Not Eternal then neither the Correlation is Eternal Nor The Other Correlate is Eternal. Since No Human Being is ETERNAL then the Correlation and the other Coorelatant / Correlate (All Things) is( are )Not Eternal. But this Non Eternal Correlation is the Act(ion) Of An Agent. There fore The AGENT Cannot be Eternal. But Ibn Ar Rushd Cannot maintain that this Agent is Non Eternal. Since in this case the Agent must require an other Agent and this is Ad Infinitum.

Second:-An Other Problem is that This Conduciveness Which is a Correlation between “All THINGS” AND “Human Beings” is an Action/Act of an Agent WHICH CANNOT BE AN ETERNAL agent OF THIS ACT(ION) WHICH IS NOT ETERNAL ,as according to his system.

Third:- Is not possible for a relation (Correlation) Þ to be one and same between Ω and ∆ AND π.

………..2

(Referred to 1)

A logical possibility is that the Intention is Eternal but the Agent of Intention is Not Eternal. But this is impossible Since this implies an Attribute With Out Any Per Se Subsistent Essence to which it is ascribed. This Implies that an Attribute is no more an Attribute but An Essence Or In more scrit wording a Per Se Subsistent Essence.

CONCLUSION

There are logilally possible cases

Page | 8

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210211212213214215216

217218219220

221222

223

224

225226227228

229

230

9

1]The A ction Of Conduciveness is with out an Intention and the Agent of the action is Intentionless.

2] The A ction Of Conduciveness is independent of the Intention of the Agent and the Agent is with Intention.

3] The Action is Under Intention of the Agent , but both the Agent and Intention are Not Eternal.

4] The Action is Under Intention of the Agent , but both the Agent and Intention are Eternal.

5] The Action is Under Intention of the Agent , but the Agent is Eternal and the intention of the Agent Intention is not Eternal.

6] The Action is Under Intention of the Agent , but the Agent is Not Eternal and the intention of the Agent Intention is Eternal.

Ibn Ar Rushd cannot hold /maintain any One Of them thus his argument is invalid.

A,3,1,2,3) A POSSIBLE ANSWER AND ITS REFUTATION

It may be said that the relation or the correlation is not between all things and human beings but either between all things and materials of human being or materials of all things and materials of human beings. In either case the material are eternal but the thing and beings constituted from them are not. So the correlation may be Eternal even Human beings are not . Similarly all things which do exist may not be eternal yet their materials are eternal. In general the entire Cosmos is not Eternal yet the Matterials from which the Cosmos is constituted is Eternal.

Refutation:-

The basic problem is that the correlation is neither between All things and the Matter form which Human Beings are Constituted, nor between the Matter form which All things are

Page | 9

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250251252253254255256257

258

259260

10

constituted and the Matter from which Human Beings are constituted. The Correlation is between ALL THINGS and Human Beings. If atleast One of the two Correlates /Correlatants is Non Eternal, the Correlation is Not Eternal, and the other one of the two is also Non Eternal. But there are further problems to this answer. The Question is how it the Non Eternal Beings were made or created from Eternal Beings (Eternal Matters).

Since this means that the Eternal Beings Must Necessarily have remained as the were in Eternity for an infinite period of time , whether these beings (Eternal Matters) were Eternally Existing Contingents (and owe their existence to the Necessary Being)or Necessary Beings (themselves) like Deity in Rushdian system what so ever.

If the Agent of Act(ion) Of Constitution is Eternal then this IMPLICATES and Implies that the constitution itself is Eternal , AND THIS IS INCORRECT SINCE NO HUMAN BEING IS ETERNAL.

Limitations Of Ibn Ar Rushd may be seen below:-

A)If the Action is Not Eternal then the Agent is Not Eternal and this implies that the Rusdhian Deity is Not Eternal.

B)Ibn Ar Rushd Cannot use the concept of Divine Intention (Will) since according to his SCHEMA or System Divine Intention (Will) is Not An Essential Attribute Of the Essence (Ousia/Per se Subsistent One) Of Deity (As Power, Knowledge,Life Speech are Essential Attributes), but a Correlation which ceases to be if one of the correlates ceases to be.

C) An Infinite Time which has neither Beginning nor End , Existing since Eternity, Cannot and Does not cease. So the Divine Intention cannot choose the act of Constitution after an infinite period since Eternity. Thus Divine Intention Cannot be responsible for the constitution of the Not Eternal Beings from the Eternal Beings using these Eternal Beings as Materials of latter Beings.

According to the System Of Ibn Ar Rushd An Eternal Per Se Subsistent Cannot be an Agent Of a Non Eternal Unless and Other Wise there is Some Mutation or Change in the Eternal Per Se Subsistent.

A dogma which ‘Asharites and Maturidites Reject. Not only Orthodox Sunni Sects regects but unorthodox sects like Mu’t-z-las also it reject equally. Only Caramites (modified Hashvites) and Extreme Hasvites hold this strange view. But Ibn Ar Rushd if agrees with Orthodox sects faces a problem , since he attempts to criticize them since they reject this dogma, if agrees with Caramites faces an other problem. Since Philosophers hold that Deity or cause of all causes is Immutable and Unchangeable . Also in this case Ibn Ar Rushd must have to face the Absurdity /Impossibility Of Ad Infinitum. Since the question is what is the cause of this alleged Mutation in the Per Se Subsistent Deity, and what is the agent of this so called change in the Deity.

2)SECOND Argument Of Ibn Ar Rushd about The Existence Of Deity [Divine Existence=DE]

This argument may be renamed as Argument Of Abiogenesis

It is based on the alleged observation of life issuing from Non Living Matterials , leading us to Know for certain that there is a producer and a provider of Life.

Page | 10

261262263264265

266267268269

270271

272

273274

275276277278

279280281282

283284

285286287288289290291292

293294

295

296297

11

This argument of Ibn Ar Rushd is a subject of many objections in the Philosophical System Of Ibn Ar Rushd himself.

Ibn Ar Rushd maintains that life ( on earth) is produced and provided , and that it Must Necessary Have A Producer and A Provider.

2,a) First objection on second attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd.

Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that this Producer or Provider (or Both) is Himself (Itself) Produces or Provided or Both.

Since this would imply that this Producer or Provider or Both does require another Producer or Provider or Both. This would necessarily continue , and does Imply Ad Infinitum.

2,a,a) Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that this Producer or Provider or One That is Both, is Eternal since If the Producer or Provider or One That Is Both (A PRODUCER AND A PROVIDER) is Eternal then the actions / acts of this Eternal Producer or Provider (or Both) Must be Eternal as according to his own system.

Consequently the Life which is either produced (from Non Living Things) or is provided (to Non Living Things) must be Eternal.

This is impossible since the appearance or production or providence or provision of life, all of them are Non Eternal.

Thus his own argument fails in his own system.

2,a,b) Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that <<Neither this Producer or Provider (or Both) is Himself (Itself) Produces or Provided (or Both) Nor Ibn Ar Rushd this Producer or Provider or One That is Both, is Eternal>>.

Since one that is neither produced nor provided is either Eternal or nor Eternal. If Eternal thin this contradicts this case. Hence is incorrect. If Non eternal and neither produced nor provided, then it means either it comes in existence with out a producer and with out a provider. This implies that Existence of Deity is not only Not Eternal but also a co-incidence. But Co-incidence in his system is absolutely impossible. Had it been relatively impossible in his system there would have been a possibility of validity of this argument/proof in his system.

The question is did he knew that an Eternal Deity is Impossible in his system?

2,b)Second objection on second attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd .

Ibn Ar Rushd cannot hold the position by inserting the concept of Divine Intention (Will).

Page | 11

298299

300301

302

303304

305306307

308309310311312313

314315

316

317318319

320321322323324325326

327

328

329

330331

12

Unlike ʾAsh˓aritesand Maturidites who believe that Divine Intention is an Essential Immanent Divine Attribute (Like Divine Life, Divine Omniscience,Divine Omnipotence), Ibn Ar Rushd thinks that Divine Intention is a Correlation.

If it is a Correlation then :-

The intention is Eternal and Actual IF AND ONLY IF the thing which is intended is also Eternal and Actual.

But the emerged life whether it is provided or produced or both is Certainly Not Eternal.

Objections to a possible defense against the stated above objection on second attempted proof.

2,b,a):-An Argument against this argument of Ibn Ar Rushd against in his own system is as follow:-

The life which is provided or produced or both MUST HAVE BEEN Not- Produced, Not-Provided, and Not –Emerged during an INFINITE period of time from Eternity to the time of its production,provision or emergence or all.In Rushdian system this is Impossible and Absurd . Since in his system the Divine Intention cannot be related to one that is intended (i.e life mensioned above) in whih it necessitate its outcomming /production/provision etc. after an Infinite endless time, and what has no end neither can cease nor does cease.Therefore if life is Intended ,it must not become actual from possible or potential unless an infinite endless time has elapsed , which is impossible and absurd.

2,b,b);-

Divine Intention issues not only the intended production of life and intended life, but also the inclination of the Divine Intention (to each one of them) itself. When this Inclination (which is an Act(ion) of Intention/Will) occurs, this requires a mutation or a change in the Said Intention. According to the Rushdian system if the Divine Intention (Will) is not inclined to anything and then it does inclines to

Something then there must be some change or mutation in the said Intention. If there is neither any change nor any mutation in the Divine Intention/Will then it does continue to be not-inclined .Since

An Intention inclines from not-inclined state IF AND ONLY IF there is some Change or Mutation IN THE Intention.

But if the said Intention is Eternal then their canbe no change in Eternal Intention unless and otherwise there is either a change or a mutation in the Ousia Of the Suppositum of Deity.

Page | 12

332333334

335

336337

338339

340341

342343

344345346347348349350351352

353

354355356357358

359360361

362363

364365366

13

A change or a mutation ( OR BOTH) occurs in the Ousia Of Deity if an only if a change or a mutation (OR BOTH) is (are) POSSIBLE in the Divine Ousia (Ousia Of Deity) . But it is Impossible to be Possible. (Since if a thing is Impossible then the possibility of the thing is also impossible).

If it is supposed that MUTATION OR CHANGE (OR BOTH) is (ARE) Possible in the ( Ousia Of) Deity THEN

This implies THAT a change or a mutation (or both) is(are) also possible in the ( Ousia Of) Deity since any change in this Intention is an effect of a change in the Ousia [Essence/Substance/Subsistence] of the very Deity. (It must be noted that Ouisa Of

Deity /Divine Ouisa is Nothing but the very Deity Himself) This is Impossible. Even Caramites(Modified Hash-vides) do not say such a thing.

If it is not Eternal then it must have an agent.Since change in Divine Intention is an act and an act requires an agent. Once again an infinite number of agents each one prior to the next one in backword direction,This is Ad Infinitum.Ad Infinitum is Impossible and Absurd.

If no change or no mutation (or none of them) is occurred in the Divine Intention and it is as it was since eternity then according to Rushdian system it cannot incline to any thing as it was un-inclined in Eternity, unless and otherwise there is a change or a mutation (or both) in the said Intention. The consequence is the non production ,non emergence etc. of said life unless and otherwise there is a change or a mutation ( or both).

It is clear that Ibn Ar Rushd’s system of Philosophy is purely Atheistic and no argument in support of Deity is Valid in his system, even his own arguments are invalid in his system. It is a very strong probability that he did knew it, and this does makes suspicions whether he really believed in Divine Deity /Divine Being or not.

3) Third Objection on the second attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd.

This attempted proof depends upon the Abiogenesis theory of life.

Although it is evident that in the beginning of the planet earth , there was no life on it, and Life on this planet began by an Abiogenesis process what so ever, this process is not seen by any human being who so ever he may be. Since life appeared prior to human life on earth. So the knowledge of Abiogenesis is different from the knowledge of Biogenesis and Reproduction of life from human beings. Yet he considers knowledge of both of them equal and similar, where as they are neither of the two. As the appearance of life from Non Living thing is never observed , he is certainly in error when he claims that life or living things or both appears from non living things or dead things or both. So his argument is based on incorrect observation. In strict sense on NON OBSERVATION.

Page | 13

367368369370

371372

373374375376377

378379380381

382383384385386387

388389390391

392

393

394395396397398399400401402403

14

4) Fourth Objection on the second attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd.

If animal life or plant life or any other life of being which is neither animal or plant what so ever , is eternal then this argument /proof of Ibn Ar Rushd what so ever , becomes invalid and incorrect.

So there is no explanation of life in his system, how did life appeared on planet earth.

(It may be noted that Ibn Ar Rushd did not considered earth as a planet. So one may drop the word planet with out disturbing the validity of above arguments.) .

PRIME MOVER OF ARISTITELIAN SYSTEM AND ITS

IMPOSSIBILITY IN RUSHDIAN SYSTEM.

Ibn Ar Rushd advocates Aristotelian system in general. The founder of the system the great Aritotle (Arastu/Artatalis) PROPOSED that there is a Eternal Being which is the prime unmoved mover.

He tried to prove the Deity from from the motion of objects instead of creation of things.

But Rushd’s system is so Atheistic that even this Unmoved Eternal Mover is Impossible in the Rushdian System.

A,a) If a thing is static or stationary in Eternity, that is its motion is Not In Actuality in Eternity, but in Potentiality in Eternity, and its motion did come in actuality from the potentiality , at any given Non Eternal time τ, that is it did

begin to move from Eternal Rest at Not Eternal Time τ then the

Agent that did move the thing i.e the Agent of the Act of Motion of the thing stated above Cannot be Eternal in Rushdian System. Since according to his system if the Agent of an Act(ion) is Eternal then the Action of the Agent is also Eternal; and If the Action of an Agent is Not Eternal then the Agent is Not Eternal in his System.

A,a,1) From the above it is implied that if the Agent is Eternal then it implies that the act of moving the thing from Eternal rest is also Eternal, and this contradicts the supposition of the case that it was Eternally Not Moving.

,a,2Α ) If there is an Eternal Attribute Of Intention Of the Agent Between the Eternal Agent and the Non Eternal Action of the Agent then it requires a non

ending infinite time from Eternity to the given Non Eternal Time τ to Lapse .This is not possible in Rushdian system.

Page | 14

404

405406407

408409

410411

412

413

414415416

417418

419420

421422423

424

425426427428429

430431432

433434

435

436

15

A,b) If it is supposed that there was neither Potentiality of motion in Eternity no Actuality Of Motion in Eternity in the Eternally Static Existing Thing, then this implies that there was Eternal Impotentiality In Eternity of the Motion of the Thing in Eternity. Now this makes a further problem In the system of Ibn Ar Rushd. This means that after the lapse of Infinite endless time from the Eternity, first the Impotentiality of motion was changed some how into Potentiality of Motion and then the Potentiality of motion was changed into actuality of motion. Also the question is if their was no potentiality of motion in Eternity , was there Potentiality of Potentiality in Eternity. This is an Ad Infinitum.

Β,1) If the prime Mover moves the Eternal Object(s) directly at each distinct time since Eternity, such that No Motion at any distinct time is a consequence or an implication (or both) of any distinct motion prior to it, then each distinct motion of the object stated above, at each distinct NON

ETERNAL TIME τ is Not Eternal. Now any Non Eternal Motion μτ at any Non

Eternal Time , τ there is an infinite endless time since Eternity is lapsed. A lapse of infinite Eternal time is impossible and Absurd.

Β,2)It does requires a Non Eternal Intention of the Eternal Agent at each time, and this makes things worse in Rushdian system , where a single Not Eternal Intention of an Eternal Agent is an unsolvable problem, An Infinite series of distinct Non Eternal Intentions of the Eternal Agent is an infinitely greater unsolvable problem of Impossibility.

Ibn Ar Rushd’s Fallacy.

Although Ibn Ar Rushd admitted that his given proofs are neither Logically Certain Nor Logically Necessary, Yet he claimed that they are based uponlike :-

B,2,1) The knowledge of human beings about them selvesas rational beings.

But he made a fallacy by ignoring the differences between Natural Cases and Divine Case . Since the Divine Case does Implicate problems in his philosophical system but the former do not. Ibn Ar Rushd did admit that the Existence Of Deity is neither provable as a necessity of Deductive Logic nor as a certainty of the Deductive Logic.

Page | 15

437438439440441442443444445446

447

448449450451

452

453

454

455456457458459

460

461462463

464465

466467468469470

16

But the proofs/arguments in support of Deity are Not like The knowledge of human beings about them selvesas rational beings.

B,2,2)The Principle Of Induction is also not applicable in the Divine Case, since in Natural case this principle does not imply problems in his system.

But the proofs/arguments in support of Deity are Not like the Induction of natural cases.

It may be once more stated as follow:-

“Natural cases”are not like “Divine Case” Since they DO NOT MAKE SUCH PROBLEMS IN HIS SYSTEM BUT THE

ARGUMENTS/PROOFS OF DEITY do make such problems in his system. Thus if he says so this means that the invalidity of his system is directly implied by the very claims like “ the proofs/arguments are based on the Knowledge of human beings as rational beings or on the principle of induction etc.

BOOKS OF DEVIANT IBN AR RUSHD

1] Tahafa tut tahafah.

2] ‘Al Minhaj ‘Al Adilah fi “Aqaid ‘al Millah.

Work of supporter of the Devient.

Ibn Rushd’s criticism of theological arguments for Exitence of GOD.

By Dr. Ibrahim Y Najjar.

BOOKS OF AHLUSSUNNAH

SHARRAH AQAAID BY IMAM SAD UDDIN TAFTAZANI RAHMATULLAH ALAIH.

NABRAS BY ALLAMAH ABDUL AZIZ PERHARVI AND NOTES BY ALLAMAH BARKHURDAR RAHMATULLAH ALAIHUMA

SHARAH MUVAQQIF

Page | 16

471472

473

474475

476

477

478

479480481482483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495496

497

17

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 ‘AKBAR[ ‘ACBAR] BY MULLA ALI QARI RAHMATULLAH ALAIH

AQAID TAH:AVI-YAH IMAM TAHAVI RAHMATULLAH ALAIH

AQIDAH OF IMAM IBN ATTAIMIAH RAHMATULLAH ALAIH

TAFSIR AL CABIR BY IMAM RAZI RH: AND HIS STUDENT SHAHABUDDIN AHMAD BIN KHALIL. RH:

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]

Page | 17

498499500

501502

503

504

505506

507

508509

510511

512

513514515

516

517518519520521522

523

524

525

526

527

528

18

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.

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

Page | 18

529

530

531

532533534

535

536

537

538539

540

541

542

543

544

545546

547

548549550

551

552553554

555

556

557

19

.

conclusion

Ibn Ar Rushd’s system maketh it impossible and absurd that Any Non Eternal Thing is an Effect or an Action/Act OF Any Eternal (whether the eternal is Per Se subsistent or not), and Any Eternal is a Cause or Agent of any Non Eternal, (whether the Eternal is Perse susbsistent or not).

In delatil whether the Eternal is an Act(action/work),Attribute(Quality),Ousia(Essence/Substance/Persesubsistent one),Suppositum, Nature etc.

Thus An Eternal cannot(what so ever) be cause of any Non Eternal (what so ever).

Thus the system is Atheistic in its nature, and one who does accept this system

Soon concludes that Atheism is the only conclusion of this system.

How ever it is shewn in this work that his own arguments cannot by correct if his system is correct. And if his system his incorrect the then a number of arguments /proofs of Divine Existence may be correct, which Ibn Ar Rushd tried to refute in his Philosophical system.

.

Page | 19

558

559

560

561

562

563

564

565

566

567

568

569570571572

573574575

576

577

578

579580581

582

583

584

585

586

20

Page | 20

587

588