ibn arrushd's system is unable toprove deity

8/11/2019 IBN ARRUSHD'S SYSTEM IS UNABLE TOPROVE DEITY

1/19

1

2

3

4

[Year]

[Type the company

name]

AHLUSSUNNAH WALJUAMAAH

[PROOFS OF IBN AR RUSHD IN

SUPPORT OF DIVINE

EXISTENCE AND THEIR

INCONSISTENCY IN RUSHDIAN

OWN SYSTEM]Ibn Ar Rushds 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.


2/19

Page | 2

2

A CRITIQUE OF PROOFS OF DIVINITY IN THE SYSTEM OF IBN AR RUSHD5

UND-LUSI:6

Ibn Ar Rushd{ verroaes} has made several arguments to shew that the PROOFS for the7

Divine Existence presented by a number of Orthodox and Unorthodox sects in Islam are incorrect8

and wrong.9

How ever in this article , the arguments or proofs presented by Ibn Ar Rushd himself are examined10

a, analysed, refuted as according to the INCONSISTENT philosophical system of the so called11

Philosopher namely Ibn Ar Rushd Al Undulusi.12

It may be noted that Ibn Ar Rushd follows the principles of Atheism , though he claims to be a13

believer in Deity. Either he is ignorant of the consequences of his system and arguments or he14

deliberately do not mention them, but deliberately conceal them so that those who agree with him15

in these may reach to the result i.e denial of the Existence Of Deity. In this work it is not tried to16

refute Ibn Ar Rushds argument against proofs Asharites and Maturidites in Supprt of Divine17

Existence. But it is attempted to prove that Arguments for Divine Existence presented by Ibn Ar18

Rushd {Averroes}is in correct according to his own principles of his system of philosophy.19

It may be noted that Deity is impossible to be proved in his system, that is why he did not analyzed20

his own arguments/proofs critically. This provided a chance to others to analyze his provided21

proofs.22

First Argument Of Ibn Ar Rushd about The Existence Of Deity [Divine Existence=DE]23

The first argument is similar to the argument of Design. This argument is somewhat analogous to24

the Intelligent Design Theory proposed to combat Evolution Theories in The science of biology.25

Evolutionist are afraid that that if it is accepted then the Intelligent Designist shall argue that A26

DESIGN implieth a Designer , by using Ibn Ar Rushs argument of Induciveness.Designist like Ibn Ar27

Rushd do not believe in the possibility of Co-incidence .On the other hand Evolutionists believe in28

some what controlled Co-incidence. Whether this Theory of Rational Design or Intelligent Design is29

correct or not , and whether it can give tough time to the theories of Evolutions or not, is not the30

issue. The issue is that whether a Design whether Rational (Intelligent) or Not implies a Designer or31

not. The problem may be simplified as follow:- Where a Design implies a Designer or not.32

In Ibn Ar Rushds system it not only does not but it cannot imply.33

Returning back to CONDUCIVENESS proposed by Ibn Ar Rushd , Ibn Ar Rushd argues that34Conduciveness implies an Intending Agent, which is the Deity. But the system which he is using35

does not and cannot accept this Implication.36

The Argument37

All Existing Things Exist for a Purpose.38

All Existing Things are conducive to human beings.39


3/19

Page | 3

3

This CONDUCIVENESS is related to a Rational Intending Existing Suppositum which is the Agent40

Of this CONDUCIVENESS i.e The Conduciveness of All Thing to Human Beings.41

This CONDUCIVENESS is not a COINCIDENCE since Coincidence is Impossible.42

Any corruption in the Conduciveness implies the destruction of human beings.43

This argument is not according to the System Of Ibn Ar Rushd, as it shall be seen below:-44

EXAMPLE:-45

If a person sees a stone on earth and finds it conducive to be sat on , he realizes that this stone is46

made in this form by some one who is an intelligent / rational Intending Agent. But if the person47

does not see it conducive to any thing he shall not ascribe it to any Intending rational Agent.48

ANALYSIS.49

It appears that this Purpose is this Conduciveness stated above.50

If a thing is conducive to any other thing then Conduciveness (to the second thing ) is the51

Attribute of the first .52

In other words A THING IS CONDUCIVE TO ANOTHER THING IF AND ONLY IF53

CONDUCIVENESS TO THE LATTER THING IS THE ATTRIBUTE OF THE54

FIRST THING .55

This proves that if any one of the two cease to exist this conduciveness stated above also ceases56

exist.57

Ibn Ar Rushd thinks that a minimum change in the prime Conduciveness implies the perfect58

destruction of the latter thing.59

REMARKS:60

Ibn Ar Rushd did not criticize this argument as he did in regard to the arguments of Orthodox and61

Unorthodox systems of Islam.62

If he had done so he would have found that his own system of arguments makes this argument63

invalid and incorrect.64

He cannot defend this argument with out damaging his own system.65

He cannot use the system of other sects to refute these objections since he does not believe in66

them.67

COMMENT:68


4/19

Page | 4

4

In this article it is attempted to prove that this ALLEGED and SO CALLED proof is inconsistent to his69

system as well as incorrect and invalid.70

A)REFUTATION OF FIRST ATTEMTED PROOF OF RUSHDIAN DEITY:71

A,1) FIRST DISCUSSION ON FIRST ARGUMENT.72

According to the dogmas of Ibn Ar Rushd the otherwise of any event is IMPOSSIBLE. For example if73

a Body B is moving from point A to point C in nature SAY EVENT E1 then it is Immpossible in74

Rushdian system that it moves from C to A say event E. The reason for the75

ABSURDITY/IMPOSSIBILITY of the event is as follow:-76

If Event E2 occurs then it implies the Annihilation of Divine Wisdom. Annihilation Of Divine77

Wisdom is Impossible. One that implies an Impossible is itself Impossible. Therefore event E2 is78

Impossible.79

Now if event two is Impossible it is impossible to be in Divine Power since Divine Power is Over80

Possibilities

ONLY81

IF a thing is Not in Divine Power and is IMPOSSIBLE to be In Divine Power then It is also82

Impossible to be Intended[Willed]by Divine Intention[Will]. On similar reasoning it can be proved83

that in the Rushdian system the Non Occurance of Event E1 is also imposible. Suppose that the84

Event E1 did occur at time .At time its Non Occurrence was Impossible There fore it was85

Impossible to be in Divine Power and Impossible to be Intended by Deity at time .. 86

SINCEthe Non Occurance of Event E1 implies the Annihilation of the Divine Wisdom87

, and Annhilation of Divine Wisdom is impossible in Rushdian System.88

So it is not in Divine Power , not to occur event E1, and not possible to89

Not to do E1 by Divine Intention (Will).90

Now if Deity has no alternative to choose , and the Deity cannot NOT DO an act91

then there is no Divine Intention and no Divine Will.(Deity CEASETH to be a Free92

Agent, which implieth that Deity Ceaseth to be the Absolute Free Agent with an93

Absolute Free Intention /Will. Also Deity Ceaseth to be an Omnipotent Agent.) The act of doing E1 is94

therefore certainly not a Voluntary act of Deity. If not a voluntary act then an95

unvoluntary act. If an unvaluntary act then an Immanent Unvoluntary act.96

If so then this argument of Ibn Ar Rushd fails to hold.97

This shews that this attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd is not only inconsistent in his Philosophical system98

but it is incorrect since Ibn Ar Rushd is unable to explain or to define the meaning of Divine99

Intention/Will. What sort of will/intention is in the mind of Ibn Ar Rushd if the Per se Subsistent100

Suppositum to which the Intention/Will is ascribed has no alternative to choose , not even the Suppositum101

is sufficiently free for not to do . This Implies that Deity is an Intention-less[Will-less] Existing102

Suppositum, and the event E1 is occurred with out being intended and with out being willed.This implies103


5/19

Page | 5

5

That it is an unintentional and unvoluntary act.104

It is invalid to attempt to prove a Rational Intending Per se Subsistent Suppositum as an agent of an Act105

which is Involuntary and Unintentional.106

It does appear that Ibn Ar Rush is not ignorant of these flaws in his system and in his this particular107

argument , yet he conceals them supposing that these flaw shall never be detected by any one.108

In his zeal to refute Imam Al , Ibn Ar Rushd made such arguments which could even destroy109

his own arguments. Analyzation and refutation of Arguments coined by Ibn Ar Rushd against the proofs110

of Imam Al is beyond the scope of present discussion.It may amuse a number of Atheists that111

alleged arguments made by Ibn Ar Rushd against Imam Al R. can be used against Ibn Ar112

Rushd him self. So Ibn Ar Rushds own objections are valid on this first proof.113

Ibn Ar Rushd s first argument is invalid. Q.E.D.114

(Some more refutations are in second discussion about Rushds first proof/argument what so ever it may115

be).116

A,2) SECOND DISCUSSION ON FIRST ARGUMENT.117

If the Act(ion) of Induciveness is ascribed to the very Ousia (Substance/Essence) of the Per se118

Subsistent Suppositum THEN this Conduciveness cannot be a Voluntary Act/Action Of the Stated119

above Suppositum irrespective of the cases whether the Suppositum possesses the Attribute of120

Intention or Not, Since the Ousia is unvoluntarily Necessary.This does reduce the whole problem to121

Aristotelian Cause and Effect Problem ,where the cause is with out any Will or Intention. In this122

case Independent of the Intention (Will) of the Supposition , if The Suppositum Doeth Have Any.In123

this case the Rushdian Argument is unsound and invalid in his own system of philosophy. It fails to124

prove an Per se Subsistent Agent with An Intention.125

Possibility of ascription of an act (in this case Inductiveness)126

to the Ousia Of The Per se Subsistent Agent instead of the Intention Of Per se Subsistent Agent127

MAKES the Rushdian Argument Invalid in his ownsystem of Philosophy. There is no Impossibility128

of this , and thus no intending Per se Subsistent Agent is can be proved.129

Summary:- Either the Per se Subsistent Agent is with out any Intention. In this case the argument130

fails, OR it is with an Attribute of Intention. In the latter case there are two possible cases. Either the131

Act(ion)of Conduciveness is Independent of the stated above Attribute (Quality)or Not . If it is then132

the argument fails, and if not then it is discussed in:- A,3)133

A,3) Third discussion On Second FIRST Argument.134

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 is135

some once who can conceive the idea of a non per se subsistent agent can also be refuted.136

137


6/19

Page | 6

6

If this action (of conduciveness ) is ascribed to the Intention of this Agent, and this Intention of138

Agent Is An Attribute Of This Agent , THEN This Conduciveness is an Action Of the Attribute Of the139

Agent. There are two logically possible cases:-140

A,3,1) This Intention (Will) is Not Eternal.141

A,3,2)This Intention (Will) is Eternal.142

If this Intention Is Not Eternal then there are two possible cases.143

A,3,1,1) The Agent is Not- Eternal.144

(Agent and Intention Both are Non Eternal)145

A,3,1,2)The Agent is Eternal.146

(Agent is Eternal and Intention is Not)147

If the gent

and the Intention each one of the two, is Not Eternal ,then Ibn Ar Rushd is entangled in148

further problems and difficulties. )The Agent cannot be the Deity since Even Rushd believed149

Deity to be Eternal . If this Agent is not Deity then the proof becomes invalid.Since Ibn Ar Rushd did150

want to prove the Deity, not a Not-Deity Agent. Deity Must Necessary be Eternal.151

)Either this Agent is brought in Existence from Nothingness by Itself or It is brought in Existence152

by another Agent truly distinct from it. If it is the former case the argument /proof becomes in-valid153

,since if it is accepted that it is Possible for a thing to come in Existence from nothingness , it is self154

brought in existence from non existence , and is Not Eternal, then there is no need of a Deity, who is155

supposed to bring things into existence from nothingness. If it is the latter case then a series of156

Agents each one distinct from the other is implied in the backward direction. This is an infinite157series ,which continues infinitely and is ad infinitum. So Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that the158

Agent of Conduciveness is Not Eternal. So Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain each one of the two.159

Hence160

Thus this case cannot prove Deity. Hence the case Agent and Intention Both are Non Eternal161

cannot be accepted.162

163

Problem Of Non Eternal Intention and Eternal Agent.164

If the Agent is Eternal and the Intention is Temporal then this is IMPOSSIBLE in Rushdian System.165

FOR DETAILS SEE:-166

167

Problem Of Eternal Intention and Eternal Agent.168


7/19

Page | 7

7

If the Agent and its Intention both are Eternalthen the Thing Intended is Also Eternal as according to Rushdian169

system, But The Intended One id est Conduciveness cannot be Eternal.170

FOR DETAILS SEE:-171

If Ibn r Rushdmaintains that each one of the two i.e Agent of this Conduciveness and the Intention172

of the Agent is Eternal then this implies according to his own system of philosophy that The173

Intention of the Agent and the Intended One i.e this Conduciveness is Eternal ,since in this case it is174

an Act(ion) of the Agent , and in his system if an Agent is Eternal then its Act or Action is also175

ETERNAL.This implies that the OBJECT Of the Action is Also Eternal. It must be noted that AN176

ACTION IS A CORRLATION BETWEEN THE AGENT OR ATTRIBUTE OF AGENT AND THE177

OBJECT OF THE ACTION. But this is incorrect.Since CONDUCTIVENESS Of All Things To178

Human Beings Cannot BeEternal. It shall be shewn latter that why it cannot179

be so.180

---------{1}181

(See {2})182

A,3,1,2,1)183

How ever if it is accepted that,,then it may be the case that184it is with out a cause or in is an Effect independent of the will of its Cause. In any case this proof / argument of Ibn185

Ar Rushd is not proveable in his system.Ibn Ar Rushd attempts to prove an Agent with the Attribute Of Intention,186

but if it is accepted then he cannot prove an Agent with the Attribute of Intention. This implies a flaw in his system or187

in his proof or in his argument. His claim cannot be proved at least in tis case , the case under discussion.188

In Essence he had to prove the Impossibilityof each one of the following before arguing in support of a Per se189

subsistent agent Attributed with the Attribute of Intention/Will.190

Ibn Ar Rushd had to prove Each one of the following:- a) An191

Intentionless Eternal Cause of Conduciveness is192

Impossible.193

b) If a cause is Attributed by the Attribute of intention then194it is Impossible that any thing is an Effect of It195

Independent of This Eternal Intention .196


8/19

Page | 8

8

C)It is Impossible that this Conduciveness is Eternal197

Without a cause.198

If any one of the above is not proved in his system the case199

Agent and Intention Both are Non Eternal does beome invalid.200

A,3,1,2,2) REASON WHY CONDUCIVENESS CANNOT BE ETERNAL.201

First:-CONDUCIVENESS is a correlation between All Things and Human Beings.202

According to the System Of Ibn Ar Rushd If one of the correlate (Correlatant) is Not203

Eternal then neither the Correlation is Eternal Nor The Other Correlate is Eternal.204

Since No Human Being is ETERNAL then the Correlation and the other Coorelatant /205

Correlate (All Things) is( are )Not Eternal. But this Non Eternal Correlation is the206

Act(ion) Of An Agent. There fore The AGENT Cannot be Eternal. But Ibn Ar Rushd207

Cannot maintain that this Agent is Non Eternal. Since in this case the Agent must208

require an other Agent and this is Ad Infinitum.209

Second:-An Other Problem is that This Conduciveness Which is a Correlation210

between All THINGS AND Human Beings is an Action/Act of an AgentWHICH211

CANNOT BE AN ETERNAL

g nt

OF THIS ACT ION) WHICH IS NOT ETERNAL ,as212

according to his system.213

Third:- Is not possible for a relation Correlation) to be one and same between and 214

AND .215

..{2}216

(Referred to {1})217

A logical possibility is that the Intention is Eternal but the Agent of Intention is Not Eternal. But this is impossible218

Since this implies an Attribute With Out Any Per Se Subsistent Essence to which it is ascribed. This Implies that219

an Attribute is no more an Attribute but An Essence Or In more scrit wording a Per Se Subsistent Essence.220

CONCLUSION

221

There are logilally possible cases

222

1]The A ction Of Conduciveness is with out an Intention and the

223

Agent of the action is Intentionless.

224


9/19

Page | 9

9

2] The A ction Of Conduciveness is independent of the Intention

225

of the Agent and the Agent is with Intention.

226

3] The Action is Under Intention of the Agent but both the Agent

227

and Intention are Not Eternal.

228

4] The Action is Under Intention of the Agent but both the Agent

229

and Intention are Eternal.

230

5] The Action is Under Intention of the Agent but the Agent is

231

Eternal and the intention of the Agent Intention is not Eternal.

232

6] The Action is Under Intention of the Agent but the Agent is

233

Not Eternal and the intention of the Agent Intention is Eternal.

234

Ibn Ar Rushd cannot hold /maintain any One Of them thus his

235

argument is invalid.

236

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

237

It may be said that the relation or the correlationis not between all things and238

human beings but either between all things and materials of human being or239

materials of all things and materials of human beings. In either case the material are240

eternal but the thing and beings constituted from them are not. So the correlation241

may be Eternal even Human beings are not . Similarly all things which do exist may242

not be eternal yet their materials are eternal. In general the entire Cosmos is not243

Eternal yet the Matterials from which the Cosmos is constituted is Eternal.244

Refutation:

245

The basic problem is that the correlation is neither between All things and the246

Matter form which Human Beings are Constituted, nor between the Matter form247

which All things are constituted and the Matter from which Human Beings are248constituted. The Correlation is between ALL THINGS and Human Beings. If atleast One249

of the two Correlates /Correlatants is Non Eternal, the Correlation is Not Eternal, and250

the other one of the two is also Non Eternal. But there are further problems to this251

answer. The Question is how it the Non Eternal Beings were made or created from252

Eternal Beings (Eternal Matters).253


10/19

Page | 10

10

Since this means that the Eternal Beings Must Necessarily have remained as the were in Eternity for254

an infinite period of time , whether these beings (Eternal Matters) were Eternally Existing255

Contingents (and owe their existence to the Necessary Being)or Necessary Beings (themselves)256

like Deity in Rushdian system what so ever.257

If the Agent of Act(ion) Of Constitution is Eternal then this IMPLICATES and Implies that the258constitution itself is Eternal , AND THIS IS INCORRECT SINCE NO HUMAN BEING IS ETERNAL.259

Limitations Of Ibn Ar Rushd may be seen below:-260

A)If the Action is Not Eternal then the Agent is Not Eternal and this implies that the Rusdhian Deity261

is Not Eternal.262

B)Ibn Ar Rushd Cannot use the concept of Divine Intention (Will) since according to his SCHEMA or263

System Divine Intention (Will) is Not An Essential Attribute Of the Essence (Ousia/Per se Subsistent264

One) Of Deity (As Power, Knowledge,Life Speech are Essential Attributes), but a Correlation which265

ceases to be if one of the correlates ceases to be.266

C) An Infinite Time which has neither Beginning nor End , Existing since Eternity, Cannot and Does267

not cease. So the Divine Intention cannot choose the act of Constitution after an infinite period since268

Eternity. Thus Divine Intention Cannot be responsible for the constitution of the Not Eternal Beings269

from the Eternal Beings using these Eternal Beings as Materials of latter Beings.270

According to the System Of Ibn Ar Rushd An Eternal Per Se Subsistent Cannot be an Agent Of a Non271

Eternal Unless and Other Wise there is Some Mutation or Change in the Eternal Per Se Subsistent.272

A dogma which Asharites and Maturidites Reject. Not only Orthodox Sunni Sects regects but273

unorthodox sects like Mut-z-las also it reject equally. Only Caramites (modified Hashvites) and274

Extreme Hasvites hold this strange view. But Ibn Ar Rushd if agrees with Orthodox sects faces a275problem , since he attempts to criticize them since they reject this dogma, if agrees with Caramites276

faces an other problem. Since Philosophers hold that Deity or cause of all causes is Immutable and277

Unchangeable . Also in this case Ibn Ar Rushd must have to face the Absurdity /Impossibility Of Ad278

Infinitum. Since the question is what is the cause of this alleged Mutation in the Per Se Subsistent279

Deity, and what is the agent of this so called change in the Deity.280

2)SECOND Argument Of Ibn Ar Rushd about The Existence Of Deity [Divine Existence=DE]281

This argument may be renamed as Argument Of Abiogenesis282

It is based on the alleged observation of life issuing from Non Living Matterials , leading us to Know for283 certain that there is a producer and a provider of Life.284

This argument of Ibn Ar Rushd is a subject of many objections in the Philosophical System Of Ibn Ar285

Rushd himself.286

Ibn Ar Rushd maintains that life ( on earth) is produced and provided , and that it Must Necessary287

Have A Producer and A Provider.288


11/19

Page | 11

11

2,a)First objection on second attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd.289

Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that this Producer or Provider (or Both) is Himself (Itself) Produces or290

Provided or Both.291

Since this would imply that this Producer or Provider or Both does require another Producer or292

Provider or Both. This would necessarily continue , and does Imply Ad Infinitum.293

2,a,a)Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that this Producer or Provider or One That is Both, is Eternal since294

If the Producer or Provider or One That Is Both (A PRODUCER AND A PROVIDER) is Eternal then the295

actions / acts of this Eternal Producer or Provider (or Both) Must be Eternal as according to his own296

system. Consequently the Life which is either produced (from Non Living Things) or is provided (to Non297

Living Things) must be Eternal.298

This is impossible since the appearance or production or providence or provision of life, all of them are299

Non Eternal.300

Thus his own argument fails in his own system.301

2,a,b)Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that .304

Since one that is neither produced nor provided is either Eternal or nor Eternal. If Eternal thin this305

contradicts this case. Hence is incorrect. If Non eternal and neither produced nor provided, then it306

means either it comes in existence with out a producer and with out a provider. This implies that307

Existence of Deity is not only Not Eternal but also a co-incidence. But Co-incidence in his system is308

absolutely impossible. Had it been relatively impossible in his system there would have been a309

possibility of validity of this argument/proof in his system.310

The question is did he knew that an Eternal Deity is Impossible in his system?311

312

2,b)Second objection on second attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd.313

Ibn Ar Rushd cannot hold the position by inserting the concept of Divine Intention (Will).314

Unlike and Maturidites who believe that Divine Intention is an Essential Immanent Divine315

Attribute (Like Divine Life, Divine Omniscience,Divine Omnipotence), Ibn Ar Rushd thinks that Divine316

Intention is a Correlation.317

If it is a Correlation then :-318

The intention is Eternal and Actual IF AND ONLY IFthe thing which is intended is also Eternal and319

Actual.320

But the emerged life whether it is provided or produced or both is Certainly Not Eternal.321

Objections to a possible defense against the stated above objection on second attempted proof.322


12/19

Page | 12

12

2,b,a):-An Argument against this argument of Ibn Ar Rushd against in his own system is as follow:-323

The life which is provided or produced or both MUST HAVE BEEN Not- Produced, Not-Provided, and324

Not Emerged during an INFINITE period of time from Eternity to the time of its production,provision325

or emergence or all.In Rushdian system this is Impossible and Absurd . Since in his system the Divine326

Intention cannot be related to one that is intended (i.e life mensioned above) in whih it necessitate its327

outcomming /production/provision etc. after an Infinite endless time, and what has no end neither can328

cease nor does cease.Therefore if life is Intended ,it must not become actual from possible or potential329

unless an infinite endless time has elapsed , which is impossible and absurd.330

2,b,b);-331

Divine Intention issues not only the intended production of life and intended life, but also the inclination332

of the Divine Intention (to each one of them) itself. When this Inclination (which is an Act(ion) of333

Intention/Will) occurs, this requires a mutation or a change in the Said Intention. According to the334

Rushdian system if the Divine Intention (Will) is not inclined to anything and then it does inclines to335

Something then there must be some change or mutation in the said Intention. If there is neither any336

change nor any mutation in the Divine Intention/Will then it does continue to be not-inclined .Since337

An Intention inclines from not-inclined state IF AND ONLY IF there is some Change or Mutation IN THE338

Intention.339

But if the said Intention is Eternal then their canbe no change in Eternal Intention unless340

and otherwise there is either a change or a mutation in the Ousia Of the Suppositum of341

Deity.342

A change or a mutation ( OR BOTH)occurs in the Ousia Of Deity if an only ifa change or a343

mutationOR BOTH)

is (are)POSSIBLE in the Divine Ousia (Ousia Of Deity). But it is Impossible to344

be Possible. (Since if a thing is Impossible then the possibility of the thing is also impossible).345

If it is supposed that MUTATION OR CHANGE (OR BOTH)is (ARE)Possible in the ( Ousia Of) Deity THEN346

This implies THAT a change or a mutation (or both) is(are) also possible in the ( Ousia Of) Deity since347

any change in this Intention is an effect of a change in the Ousia [Essence/Substance/Subsistence] of the348

very Deity. (It must be noted that Ouisa Of Deity /Divine Ouisa is Nothing but the very Deity Himself) This is Impossible.349

Even Caramites(Modified Hash-vides) do not say such a thing.350

If it is not Eternal then it must have an agent.Since change in Divine Intention is an act and an act351

requires an agent. Once again an infinite number of agents each one prior to the next one in352backword direction,This is Ad Infinitum.Ad Infinitum is Impossible and Absurd.353

If no change or no mutation (or none of them) is occurred in the Divine Intention and it is as it was354

since eternity then according to Rushdian system it cannot incline to any thing as it was un-inclined in355

Eternity, unless and otherwise there is a change or a mutation (or both) in the said Intention. The356

consequence is the non production ,non emergence etc. of said life unless and otherwise there is a357

change or a mutation ( or both).358


13/19

Page | 13

13

It is clear that Ibn Ar Rushds system of Philosophy is purely Atheistic and no argument in support of359

Deity is Valid in his system, even his own arguments are invalid in his system. It is a very strong360

probability that he did knew it, and this does makes suspicions whether he really believed in Divine361

Deity /Divine Being or not.362

3) Third Objection on the second attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd.363

This attempted proof depends upon the Abiogenesis theory of life.364

Although it is evident that in the beginning of the planet earth , there was no life on it, and Life on this365

planet began by an Abiogenesis process what so ever, this process is not seen by any human being who366

so ever he may be. Since life appeared prior to human life on earth. So the knowledge of Abiogenesis is367

different from the knowledge of Biogenesis and Reproduction of life from human beings. Yet he368

considers knowledge of both of them equal and similar, where as they are neither of the two. As the369

appearance of life from Non Living thing is never observed , he is certainly in error when he claims that370

life or living things or both appears from non living things or dead things or both. So his argument is371

based on incorrect observation. In strict sense on NON OBSERVATION.372

4)Fourth Objection on the second attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd.373

If animal life or plant life or any other life of being which is neither animal or plant what so ever , is374

eternal then this argument /proof of Ibn Ar Rushd what so ever , becomes invalid and incorrect.375

So there is no explanation of life in his system, how did life appeared on planet earth.376

(It may be noted that Ibn Ar Rushd did not considered earth as a planet. So one may drop the word377

planet with out disturbing the validity of above arguments.) .378

PRIME MOVER OF ARISTITELIAN SYSTEM AND379ITS IMPOSSIBILITY IN RUSHDIAN SYSTEM.380

Ibn Ar Rushd advocates Aristotelian system in general. The founder of the381

system the great Aritotle (Arastu/Artatalis) PROPOSED that there is a382

Eternal Being which is the prime unmoved mover.383

He tried to prove the Deity from from the motion of objects instead of384

creation of things.385

But Rushds system is so Atheistic that even this Unmoved Eternal Mover is386

Impossible in the Rushdian System.387

A,a) If a thing is static or stationary in Eternity, that is its motion is Not In388

Actuality in Eternity, but in Potentiality in Eternity, and its motion did389

come in actuality from the potentiality , at any given Non Eternal time ,390

that is it did begin to move from Eternal Rest at Not Eternal Time then the391


14/19

Page | 14

14

Agent that did move the thing i.e the Agent of the Act of Motion of the thing392

stated above Cannot be Eternal in Rushdian System. Since according to his system if393

the Agent of an Act(ion) is Eternal then the Action of the Agent is also Eternal; and If394

the Action of an Agent is Not Eternal then the Agent is Not Eternal in his System.395

A,a,1) From the above it is implied that if the Agent is Eternal then it implies that the396act of moving the thing from Eternal rest is also Eternal, and this contradicts the397

supposition of the case that it was Eternally Not Moving.398

,a,2) If there is an Eternal Attribute Of Intention Of the Agent Between the399

Eternal Agent and the Non Eternal Action of the Agent then it requires a400

non ending infinite time from Eternity to the given Non Eternal Time to401

Lapse .This is not possible in Rushdian system.402

A,b) If it is supposed that there was neither Potentiality of motion in403

Eternity no Actuality Of Motion in Eternity in the Eternally Static Existing404Thing, then this implies that there was Eternal Impotentiality In Eternity of405

the Motion of the Thing in Eternity. Now this makes a further problem In406

the system of Ibn Ar Rushd. This means that after the lapse of Infinite407

endless time from the Eternity, first the Impotentiality of motion was408

changed some how into Potentiality of Motion and then the Potentiality of409

motion was changed into actuality of motion. Also the question is if their410

was no potentiality of motion in Eternity , was there Potentiality of411

Potentiality in Eternity. This is an Ad Infinitum.412

413

,1) If the prime Mover moves the Eternal Object(s) directly at each distinct414

time since Eternity, such that No Motion at any distinct time is a415

consequence or an implication (or both) of any distinct motion prior to it,416

then each distinct motion of the object stated above, at each distinct NON417

ETERNAL TIMEis Not Eternal. Now any Non Eternal Motion at any418

Non Eternal Time , there is an infinite endless time since Eternity is419lapsed. A lapse of infinite Eternal time is impossible and Absurd.420

,2)It does requires a Non Eternal Intention of the Eternal Agent at each421

time, and this makes things worse in Rushdian system , where a single Not422

Eternal Intention of an Eternal Agent is an unsolvable problem, An Infinite423

series of distinct Non Eternal Intentions of the Eternal Agent is an infinitely424

greater unsolvable problem of Impossibility.425

Ibn Ar Rushds Fallacy.426


15/19

Page | 15

15

Although Ibn Ar Rushd admitted that his given proofs are neither Logically427

Certain Nor Logically Necessary, Yet he claimed that they are based428

upon{like}:-429

B,2,1) The knowledge of human beings{about them selves}as rational430

beings.431

But he made a fallacy by ignoring the differences between Natural Cases and432

Divine Case . Since the Divine Case does Implicate problems in his433

philosophical system but the former do not. Ibn Ar Rushd did admit that the434

Existence Of Deity is neither provable as a necessity of Deductive Logic nor435

as a certainty of the Deductive Logic.436

But the proofs/arguments in support of Deity are Not like The knowledge of human437

beings{about them selves}as rationalbeings.438

439

B,2,2)The Principle Of Induction is also not applicable in the Divine Case,440

since in Natural case this principle does not imply problems in his system.441

But the proofs/arguments in support of Deity are Not like the Induction of natural cases.442

It may be once more stated as follow:-443

Natural casesare not like DivineCase444

SincetheyDO NOT MAKE SUCH PROBLEMS IN HIS SYSTEM BUT THE445ARGUMENTS/PROOFS OF DEITY do make such problems in his system. Thus if he says so446

this means that the invalidity of his system is directly implied by the veryclaims like the447

proofs/arguments are based on the Knowledge of human beings as rational beings or on the448

principle of induction etc.449

450

451

BOOKS OF DEVIANT IBN AR RUSHD452

1] Tahafa tut tahafah.453

2] Al Minhaj Al Adilah fi Aqaid al Millah.454

Work of supporter of the Devient.455

Ibn Rushds criticism of theological arguments for Exitence of GOD.456


16/19

Page | 16

16

By Dr. Ibrahim Y Najjar.457

458

BOOKS OF AHLUSSUNNAH

459

SHARRAH AQAAID BY IMAM SAD UDDIN TAFTAZANI RAHMATULLAH ALAIH.460

NABRAS BY ALLAMAH ABDUL AZIZ PERHARVI AND NOTES BY ALLAMAH461

BARKHURDAR RAHMATULLAH ALAIHUMA462

SHARAH MUVAQQIF463

FIQH AKBAR [ ASCRIBED TO IMAM ABU HANIFAH RAHMATULLAH ALAIH YET464

THIS ASCRIPTION IS DOUBT FUL YET THE ASCRIBED ARTICLES OF FAITH465

ARE CORRECT EVEN IF THE ASCRIPTION IS DOUBTFUL]466

SHARAH FIQH AL AKBAR[ ACBAR] BY MULLA ALI QARI RAHMATULLAH467

ALAIH468

AQAID TAH:AVI-YAH IMAM TAHAVI RAHMATULLAH ALAIH469

AQIDAH OF IMAM IBN ATTAIMIAH RAHMATULLAH ALAIH470

TAFSIR AL CABIR BY IMAM RAZI RH: AND HIS STUDENT SHAHABUDDIN471

AHMAD BIN KHALIL. RH:472

473

AL KHIALI ,ISAGHOJI ,SHARAH TAHZIB,QUTBI, MULLA JALAL, Sallam alUlu:m474

etc.475

Note :1]The word DEITY is Used instead of the word GOD since this latter476

word is often misused by atheist and makes disgracing statements.2]477

DIVINE ESSENCE Is Identical to Deity NOT ONLY IN MAS:DA:Q BUT ALSO478

IN MAFHU:M. THUS ESSENCE OF DEITY IS THE SELF OF DEITY, THAT IS479

DEITY IS THE DIVINE ESSENCE [DIVINITY] AND DIVINE ESSENCE [DIVINITY]480

IS THE DEITY AND THAT IS THE INTRINSIC NECESSARY EXISTENT.481

482


17/19

Page | 17

17

A NUMBER OF ERRORS IN SPELLING MAY BE FOUND DUE TO TYPING483

PROBLEM. AS THIS IS A PROTO TYPE DOCUMENT. ALTHOUGH SLIGHTLY484

IMPROVED FROM THE FIRST PROTOTYPE ARTICLES IT IS STILL A485

PROTOPTYPE ARTICLE. YET IT IS SLIGHTLY IMPROVED WE DO APOLOGY486

FOR GRAMMATICAL[AS:S:ARF VAN NAH:V] AND SPELLING ERRORS. WE487MAY GET RID OF THEM IN SOME ADVANCE VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE.488

SUB HANALLAH VA BI HAMDIHI489

SUB HANALLAHIL AZIM490

TRANSLATION SCHEME

491

LONG A ----- AA OR A: [ as A in CAR]492

LONG I.... II OR I: [as I in POLICE]493

LONG U....UU OR U: [AS U in RUDE]494

SHORT A.....A [as a in SUGAR or in GERMAN]495

SHORT I.....I [as I in THIS,SIT]496

SHORT U....U [as U in PUT].497

NO SIGN IS USED FOR J-ZM , AND TASH-DI:D. FOR TASH-DI:D CONSONENTS498

ARE WRITTEN TWICE EXAMPLE SATTAR AND ARE READ SEPERATELEY. EG499

SAT-TAR.SOME TIMEMAY CONSIDE WITH J-ZM.500

501

NOTES:-502

1] THE EXAMPLES ARE THE BEST POSSIBLE APPROXIMATTIONS503

2]C IS USED IN THE SOUND OF K. EG KALA:M OR CALA:M. BOTH ARE USED AS EXACT504

ALTERNATIVES.505

V IS USED IN SOUND OF W WHEN W IS A CONSONENT . EG WAU OR VAU .506

BOTH ARE USED AS EXACT ALTERNATIVES.507

508


18/19

Page | 18

18

DEFTHONGS509

AI, AU [Alternative forms AY,AW,AV]510

If a sound begins with a vowel the sign or is used [H-MZAH]. IF IT IS MISSED THEN IT511

MAY BE SUPPOSED TO BE UNDERSTOOD.512

FOR guttural AIN OR IS USED BEFORE A VOWEL.513

Some times a short vowel is omitted and is replaced by >SOME time514

this represent a syllable. Some time it is omitted in case of syllables.No515

unique method is used.516

CONSONENTS:517

B,T,518S/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/I519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

.528

529

530

531

532

conclusion533


19/19

Page | 19

19

IbnAr Rushds system maketh it impossible and absurd that Any Non Eternal Thing is an Effect or an534

Action/Act OF Any Eternal (whether the eternal is Per Se subsistent or not), and Any Eternal is a Cause or535

Agent of any Non Eternal, (whether the Eternal is Perse susbsistent or not).536

In delatil whether the Eternal is an537

Act(action/work),Attribute(Quality),Ousia(Essence/Substance/Persesubsistent one),Suppositum, Nature538

etc.539

Thus An Eternal cannot(what so ever) be cause of any Non Eternal (what so ever).540

Thus the system is Atheistic in its nature, and one who does accept this system541

Soon concludes that Atheism is the only conclusion of this system.542

How ever it is shewn in this work that his own arguments cannot by correct if his system is correct.543

And if his system his incorrect the then a number of arguments /proofs of Divine Existence may be544

correct, which Ibn Ar Rushd tried to refute in his Philosophical system.545

546

547

548

549

.550

551

552

ibn arrushd's system is unable toprove deity

Documents