THE PROBLEM OF SELF POSSIBILITY OF NAZ:I:R

The word Nazir is often translated as Identical Copy of a thing. But actually
it does not means a copy but plurality of Exaxtly alike things such that each
one of them is genuine or original or both.
[ IF THING A IS A NAZ:IR OF AN OTHER THING B THEN IT INCLUDES ALL
ATTRIBUTES WITH THE NECESSARY AND RATIONAL EXCEPTION OF
ATTRIBUTES WHICH EITHER CONTRADICTETH NAZ:I:R OR IMPLIETH THE
NEGATION OF NAZ:I:R. BUT KHAIRABADI SCHOOL OF THOUGHT INCLUDETH
THEM AS WELL].
For convenience one may say Real Copy or Identical Copy, but copy does
not mean a copy but both identical distinct exact alike original and genuine
individuals. The word Identical is not used in the meaning of One and the
Same "Ainiah but Exactly alike.

According to Khairabadi School of Thought the Naz:i:r of Holy Prophet is

Muh:a:l Bidh" Dh:a:t and not In Power of Omnipotence of 'ALL-H.
On the Contrary according to Ahlussunnah Naz:a:'ir [Pl of Naz:i:r] are Self
Possible [Mumkin Bidh:Dh:a:t].
There are two arguments advanced by Khairaba:di School of Thought.
1] Holy Prophet is First of All Creations and Last of All Prophets.
If a Naz:i:r of Holy Prophet is Supposed then There are the following
Logically Possible Cases.
1.1] The Naz:ir Doeth have these to properties, But this is Self Absurd.
Since two first of all means that each one of the two is prior to the other
this is Muh:a:l Bidh: Dh:a:t [Self Absurd].
Similarly two Last of all means two things each posterior to the other and
This is Self Absurd.
1,2] The Naz:i:r does lack either one of the two Attributes stated above or
both of them then it ceaseh to be a Naz:i:r.
2] A Naz:i:t implies Kidh:b of Deity and that is Muh:a:l Bidh:dh:a:t.
Discussion on the first argument of Khairabadis.
'Auvalul Makhlu:qa:t doeth mean :=a ]Created Existent Prior to that one
Infinite Existents are Self Possible yet not Created. Even the very self of
Priority is Self Possible [Per Se Possible].
b] Neither Prior Nor Posterior to that one Infinite Existents are Possible Yet

Not Created.
Similarly Khatim 'An Nabiyi:n Meaneth that:=a] Posterior to that one
Infinite Prophets are Self Possible yet never to be Created [With Certainty].
b] Neither Prior Nor Posterior to That One Infinite Prophets are Self
Possible Yet Never to be Created.
In more explicit deduction a Khatim is One whoese Neither Posterior is
Created Nor " Neither Posterior not Prior Is Created.
As Naz:i:r is an Special Case of Neither Posterior nor Prior , KHATIM is one
Whose Naz:i:r is not Created INSPITE if Its Self Possibility.
It is not the Case that its Posterir or "Neither Posterior Nor Prior" is Self
Absurd.
So in any case a Naz:ir of Holy Prophet is Self Possible Since the Possibility
of Naz:i:r is one of the Self Possibilities Stated above.
So If a Naz:i:r Of Holy Prophet is Supposed to Exist then in the Case of:=
a] 'Auvalul Makhluqa:t it is the Self Possibility of an Existent that is Prior to
all Created Existents except the first Created One of Created Existent to
which it is Neither Posterior Nor Prior.
b] Kha:tim 'An Nabiyi:n it is the Self Possibility of an Existent that is
Posterir to all Created Except the Last Created One of Created Prophets to
which it is Neither Posterior Nor Prior.
So to argue that the Naz:i:r of Holy Prophet Must have these to Attributes
is a fallacy.
Since it Self- Implieth that Naz:i:r of a thing With out Naz:i:r must be With
out a Naz:i:r.
This condition is incorrect and invalid.
So the Naz:i:r of Holy Prophet does not Existeth Since Rasu:liullah Is
Kha:tim 'An Nabiyi:n and a Kha:tim 'An Nabiyi:n is one Whose Naz:ir 'ALL-H
Doeth Not Create even if It is Self Possible.
So the Word Kha:tim is the Non Occurance of a Self Possible act of 'ALL-H
[i.e Creation of Naz:i:r] and not the Self Absurdity of the Naz:i:r.
Similarly the Word 'Auval is the Non Occurance of a Self Possible act of
'ALL-H [i.e Creation of Naz:i:r] and not the Self Absudity of the Naz:i:r.
So this is the fallacy that Maulvi Fad:l H:aqq Khairabadi confused to Self
Possibility and Occurance.
He confused the Act of Qudrah and act of Takvi:n.

In 'Ash"arite system his fallacy is that he confused two types of Acts of

Qudrah [Omnipotence] of 'ALL-H. A] Self Possible Acts.
b] Excercised Acts.
When Deity Excercised the First act it did means that there were infinite act
Self Possible prior to it and Infinite acts Self Possible which were Neither
Prior to It Nor Posterior to It.
To each Possible Act there are finite act which are Prior to It and there are
infinite acts which are Neither Posterior to it nor Prior to it.
It doethnot mean that any act prior to it was Self Absurd or any act neither
prior to it not posterior to it was self absurd or both.
Similrly When Deity Excercised the First [or Last ] act of a kind [ Creating
Prophets] it did means that there were infinite act Self Possible posterior to
it and Infinite acts Self Possible which were Neither Prior to It Nor Posterior
to It.
It doethnot mean that any act posterior to it was Self Absurd or any act
neither prior to it not posterior to it was self absurd or both.
Also even the posteririty and priority are Self Possible and to each
excercised or possible [or both] priority or posteriority there are infinite
Self Possible Posteriorities and Priorities.
Divine Omnipotence and Divine Omniscience are Upon each one of them.
Also Eternity is infinitely Prior to each one of the stated above Posteriority.
So this discussion excludes Priority of Eternity and Eternals with Self
Necessity and Rational Necessity.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE APPROACHES OF KHAIRABADI SCHOOL OF
THOUGHT AND AHLUSSUNNAH APPROACH OF THOUGHT.
According to Khairabadi approach of thought the Self Possibilities of a
thing are discreate ,finite and limited. In the domain of Creation there is a
Possible Existent [i.e A Thing that is Possible to be Created by 'ALL-H , not
in the meaning that this thing EXISTETH] such that :=
1] There is Self Aburdity for any Self Possible thing Prior to It.
2] There is a Self Absurdity for any Self Possible thing Neither Posterior to
it nor Prior to It.
This they call by the Term First of all Existents.
If such a thing Existeth it is the First of all Creations.
Similarly they say about the last of things.

For example Holy Prophet is the Last of Prophets and the Final Prophet. So
according to Khairabadi School of Thought Holy Prophet is the Last prophet
means that :=
1]It is Self Absurd for any Self Possible Prophet to be Posterior to Him.
2] It is Self Absurd for any Self Possible Prophet to be Neither Posterior to
Him Nor "Neither Posterior to Him nor Prior to Him.
In this meaning Holy Prophet is the Last and the Final Prophet as according
to Khairabadi School of thought.
According to the Pure Ahlussunnah School Of Thought things are other
wise.
To each and every Self Possible there is a Self Possible, That is Self Possible
to be Prior to It.
To each and every Self Possible there is a Self Possible that is Self Possible
to be Posterior to It.
To each and every Self Possible there is a Self Possible that is Self Possible
to be Posterior to It.
To each and every Self Possible there is a Self Possible that is Self Possible
to be " Neither Posterior to it nor Prior to it.
Even the Posteriority , Priority, and Neither Posteriority Not Priority of a
Self Possible to an other Self Possible are Self Possible.
All these Self Implies Infinite Many of each kind stated above.
Now we come to another Point.
There are infinite many Self Possibles such that to each one of them there
is atleast one distinct self Possible Self Possibly Prior to it.
So if Deity Createth any one of these Self Possibles [Self Possible Existents
(Self Possibles which are Creatable or Self Possible to Exist)] the as the
First Act of Creation Deity Selecteth one of the Self Possible individual from
the series of infinite Series of Self Possibles , not selecting infinite many
Self Possible Individuals Prior to it [the selected one].
Similarly the same is true for Neither Posterior nor Prior Self Possible
Individual.
So if a thing is first of all Creations then this Self Implieth that there are
infinite may Self Possible Individuals that are Prior to it and Neither Prior to
It nor Posterior to it but they are not Created.
Similarly if a Prophet is the last of all Prophets then it meaneth that there
are Infinite many Self Possible Individuals of Prophet Posterior to it but

NONE OF THEM are to Be Created, and There are Infinite Many Individuals
of Prophets which are Neither Posterior nor Prior to Him Yet they are Never
Created.
A Naz:i:r is a Special case of an Individual that is Neither Posterior Nor
Prior.
So If an Existent is Self Possible and Is First of All Existents then this
meaneth that its Naz:i:r is Self Possible but Absurd With Seperate.
Since if a thing is First of All Creations then it is first of All Creations if and
only if :=
1] Any Self Possible Individual Prior to it is Absurd with Seperate.
2] Any Self Possible Individual Neither Posterior to It nor Prior to It is
Absurd With Seperate.
3] Its Naz:i:r is Absurd With Seperate.
4] Self Possible Individuals Posterior to It are Not Absurd With Seperate.
5] The Existent itself is a Self Possible Individual.
Since if an Individual Existing Prophet is Last of All Created Prophets then
the Prophet is the last of All Created Prophets if and only if :=
1] The Prophet is a Self Possible Individual.
2] Any Self Possible Individual Prophet Posterior to the Individual Existing
Prophet is ABSURD WITH SEPARATE [MUH:A:L BIL GH:AIR].
3] Any Individual Self Possible Prophet that is Neither Posterior to the
stated existing Individual Prophet Nor Prior to the Stated above
individual ,is Absurd with Seperate.
4] Its Naz:i:r is Absurd With Seperate.
5] Self Possible individuals Prior to the Stated above are not Absurd With
Seperate.
So if a thing is last of all Prophet Self Implieth that it its Naz:i:r is Absurd
With Separate.
If the Naz:ir of a thing is Not Absurd With Separate then the Thing is
Neither First of all its Kind nor last of all its type. This is the point to be
noted.
Now we come to discuss to famous question of Khairabadi School of
Thought.
The question consisteth of two parts.

a] If Naz:ir of an Existing thing that is First of all of its Kind existeth then if
its Naz:ir is supposed to exist then either it is either prior to it or posterior
to it.
In the first case the said thing ceaseth to be first. Hence ceaseth to be a
Naz:ir. In the second case the the individual that is the Naz:ir becometh the
second and not first. Second is not a Naz:i:r of First.
b] a] If Naz:ir of an Existing thing that is Last of all of its Kind existeth then
if its Naz:ir is supposed to exist then either it is either prior to it or
posterior to it.
If it is Prior to the last then it is not Last and Last cannot be a Naz:i:r of one
that is not Last.
If it posterior to it then the thing ceaseth to be the Last and the Naz:ir
becometh the Last. Last cannot be A Naz:i:r of a thing that is not Last.

A RESPONCE TO THIS TYPE OF FALLACIOUS

ARGUMENTS:=
Answer Of This Question is as follow:=
A Naz:i:r of a Thing is NEITHER PRIOR to it NOR POSTERIOR to it.
It is Self Possible for 'ALL-H to Create two or more things Simultaneously [in the
meaning that None of The Two are Posterior to the other and none of the two are
Prior to the Other].

Naz:i:r is a Special Case of " Neither Posterior Nor Prior" .

Since if there is a Thing such that its Naz:i:r Existeth then its Naz:i:r is
Neither Posterior to it Nor Prior to
it.
But if A and B are any two things such that B is Neither Posterior to A ,Nor
Prior to A, then it is not necessary that Bis Naz:ir of A.
So the converse is not True in this case.
But if A and B are any two Distinct Existing things such that A is Naz:i:r of B
then A is Neither Posterior to A nor Prior to A. [ [They are Simultaneous in
the meaning Neither Posterior Nor Prior].
Also:=
If a thing A is the Naz:i:r Of B then B is the Naz:i:r Of A.
Now the Question is as fallow:=
Is it in Omnipotence of Deity 'ALL-H to Create two or More Distict Self

Possible Individuals Simultaniously .

The answer is It is Self Possible and Not Self Absurd.
If the Na:zi:r of a thing Existeth then it is Neither First of ALL nor Second of
All nor Third of All , nor Forth of all ,... and so on till Last of All.
If a thing is any one of the thing stated above say

th

of All then it Has No Naz:i:r.

The Fallacy of Argument:
In the argument 'Auvaliah and 'A:kh:irah are supposed to be the Attributes of a
Thing and its Naz:i:r.
This is incorrect.
Since if the Naz:i:r of an Existent [Existing Thing] Doeth Not Exist then Non
Existence of its Naz:i:r is Supposed to be one of Its Attributes and then this
Attribute is claimed to be required for any other thing to be Its Naz:i:r.
This demand is incorrect.
Suppose that Naz:i:r of any Self Possible Existing thing is Absurd With Separate
then the Absurdity With Separate of its Naz:i:r is claimed to be one of Its
Attributes. Then this Attribute is demanded in the Naz:i:r Self Implying that two
things with out Naz:i:r are Naz:i:r of one another.
Existence of Naz:i:r is a Direct Contradiction and Negation of Non Existence of
Naz:i:r.
So demand of this attribute that contradicteth the very Naz:i:r is not required as
an attribute of Naz:i:r.
Similarly the Non Existence of Naz:i:r is not Required as an Attribute of the thing
whose Naz:i:r is under discussion.
So the dispute is over the defination of Naz:i:r in which Khairaba:di school of

Thought included the Non Existence of Naz:i:r , and if the Naz:i:r of a thing doeth
not exist then this school of thought included the Non Existence of its Naz:i:r
among its attributes, in order to shew that Naz:i:r of Holy Prophet is Self Absurd.
But in the end they concided with Hash'sha:miah Mu"t-zilah who believed that
Mith:a:l of each and every Created Existent is Impossible.
Since in this defination Naz:i:r of each and every Creation becomes Self Absurd.
Ghu:la:m Rasu:l Sa"i:di in his vol three of Comentary of S:ah:i:h: Muslim has
claimed that Naz:i:r of every Person is Self Absurd.
But the fallacy has been pointed out. They demand the nonExistence of the
Naz:i:r as not only the Attribute of the Created Existent but also of its Naz:i:r .
Self Implying that the Naz:i:r of each and every self Possible as Self Absurd, not
just of Holy Prophet.
But this condition is incorrect and invalid.
Naz:i:r includes all the Attributes which do neither contradict Naz:i:r nor implieth
its Negation.
In other words if a Thing doeth Exist THEN either its Naz:i:r Existeth or Doeth not
Exist.
In the first case its Naz:ir is Neither Posterior to It Nor Prior to It.
In the second case It has the attribute of Non Existence of its Naz:i:r.
So if its Naz:i:r if supposed to exist also have this Attribute or not.
If not then it is not the Naz:i:r. Since A Naz:i:r of a thing is equal to the thing in all
Attributes.
But this is Self Absurd since in this case two distinct things are Naz:i:r of one an
other such that none of them hath a Naz:i:r.

But according to Ahlussunnah A Naz:i:r of a Created Self Possible thing

is equal in all Attributes with the Necessary and Rational Exception of all
Attributes which do contradict the Existence Or Occurance of the Naz:i:r.
To coin a defination of the Naz:i:r which implieth that Naz:i:r of every
thing whether Self Necessary Or Self Possible Or Self Absurd
is Self Absurd.Such a defination is incorrect and is nothing but toying
and playing with terms and denial of Law and Logic of Exception.
Necessary Exception of a thing doeth not contraditeth the defination.
The Term Naz:i:r by defination excludeth any Attribute with
ccontradicteth the Occurance or Existence of the Naz:i:r [Pl:
Naz:a:'ir].There is nothing Self Contradictory or Paradoxial or Both in the
Defination of the Term Naz:i:r. The basic fallacy in the whole discussion
is to define the term such that the defination becometh Self
Contradictory or Paradoxial when aplied to any thing whether it be Self
Necessary Existent or Self Possible Existent or Self Absurd Existent
[Va:jib Al Vuju:d Lidh:atihi:,Mumkin 'Al Vuju:d Vuju:d Lidh:atihi: or
Mumtana"ul Vuju:d Lidh:atihi:/Muh:a:lul Vuju:d Lidh:atihi:Respectively].If
the Naz:i:r of Self Necessary Existent is Muh:a:l Bidh: Dh:a:t IT IS NOT
DUE TO ANY SELF CONTRADICTION IN THE DEFINATION OF THE TERM,BUT
DUE TO THE SELF ABSURDITY OF PLURALITY OF SELF NECESSARY
ESSENTIAL EXISTENTS [ SELF ABSURDITY OF PLURALITY OF EXISTING
ESSENCES].
A defination of Na:z:ir which self implieth that Naz:i:r of each on of Self
Necessary Existence,Self Absurd Existent and Self Possible Existent is

Self Absurd is Self Absurd in itself, and an incorrect defination. If correct

even then not used by any one except the Khairaba:di School of thought
AND those who borrowed from them.
SUMMARY:=
There is No Self Possible Prior to which a Self Possible is Self Absurd.[This
discussion excludes Divine Attributes if they are considered as Self Possible
as Necessary Exception].
There is No Self Possible POSTERIOR to which a Self Possible is Self Absurd.
[This discussion excludes Divine Attributes if they are considered as Self
Possible as Necessary Exception].
There is No Self Possible NEITHER Prior to which Nor Posterior to it a Self
Possible is Self Absurd. [This discussion excludes Divine Attributes if they
are considered as Self Possible as Necessary Exception].
Holy Prophet is the Last Of Prophets in Regard to Divine Act of Creativity.
So Not Creating a Naz:i:r is an Act of Deity and this act is a relative
Attribute of Holy Prophet.
Note : Some Scholars of H:adi:th: have pointed out that Pen is the First
Created Existent and Holy Prophet is the Last Created Prophet.
In this case a similar problem occurs for the Naz:i:r of Pen.
So the answer to the problem is that Negation of a Self Possibility of Naz:ir
is one thing and Negation of Excercise of a Possibility is an other thing. In
the second case 'Auval and 'A:khir [Kha:tim] are the Non Ocuurances of
Infinite Possible Acts, and not the Non Occurances of Self Absurd Acts. in
the present case under discussion.
THE CASES ARE THAT:=

1]A CREATED EXISTENT IS FIRST OF ALL CREATED EXISTENTS WHOSE PRIOR

EXISTENT IS SELF POSSIBLE YET NOT CREATED , WHOSE NEITHER
POSTERIOR NOR PRIOR EXISTENT IS SELF POSSIBLE YET NOT CREATED .
AND WHOSE NAZ:I:R IS SELF POSSIBLE YET NOT CREATED.
2] A CREATED PROPHET IS LAST AND FINAL OF ALL CREATED PROPHETS
WHOSE POSTERIOR PROPHET IS SELF POSSIBLE YET NOT CREATED , WHOSE
NEITHER POSTERIOR NOR PRIOR PROPHET IS SELF POSSIBLE YET NOT
CREATED . AND WHOSE NAZ:I:R IS SELF POSSIBLE YET NOT CREATED.
THE CASES NOT THAT:=

1]
A CREATED EXISTENT IS FIRST OF ALL CREATED EXISTENTS WHOSE PRIOR
EXISTENT IS SELF ABSURD HENCE NOT CREATED , WHOSE NEITHER
POSTERIOR NOR PRIOR EXISTENT IS SELF ANSURD HENCE NOT CREATED .
AND WHOSE NAZ:I:R IS SELF ABSURD HENCE NOT CREATED.
2]
A CREATED PROPHET IS LAST AND FINAL OF ALL CREATED PROPHETS
WHOSE POSTERIOR PROPHET IS SELF PSELF ABSURD HENCE NOT CREATED ,
WHOSE NEITHER POSTERIOR NOR PRIOR PROPHET IS SELF ABSURD HENCE
NOT CREATED . AND WHOSE NAZ:I:R IS SELF ABSURD HENCE NOT CREATED.
HENCE THE FIRST ARGUMENT IS A FALLACY. BASED ON INCORRECT
DEFINATIONS OF SELF POSSIBLE FIRST AND LAST.
That is why scholars, logicians, philosophers, and dialectics all agree that
Maulivi Fad:l Haqq Khairabadi errerd in the concepts of Self Possible of first
and last.

2] As for the second argument it is stated that Kidhb is Muh:a:l Bil Ghair
therefore one may see a number of thse discussions in this Scribd form. So
it is not necessary to discuss it further.

[1]

REASON WHY THIS DEBATE CEASED TO BE EXCERCISED.

It is very evident that Khairaba:di: school realised that this debate is based
just on the Verbal Disputes and not upon real disputes and there is no need
to discuss it since they agree with the 'Ahlussunnah on the Essence ,
Substance and Reality.
But 'Ah:mad Rad:a: of Bans Baraili continued this debate and did not
consider it as a verbal dispute.

More discussion may be added LATTER.

This is one of the several responses to there arguments.
1] TAH:QI:Q AL FATVA
[ALLEGELY WRITTEN BY FAD:L H:AQQ KHAIRABADI
2] IMTINA:" 'AN NAZ:I:R
[ALLEGELY WRITTEN BY FAD:L H:AQQ KHAIRABADI] Those who want to see
the Persian work may FIND it on URL:=
https://www.scribd.com/user/8469278/sunnivoice
===================================================
===================================================
===================================================
===================================================
===================================================
===================================================
==========================================

[1]
AS THIS WAS MISSING IN THIS ARTICLE IT
IS ADDED BY
REFUTING ALIMIRZA ON SCRIPT FROM
DIFFERENT SOURCES.
WE HAVE TRIED TO SUMMARISE THE
DISCUSSION IN A NUTSHELL FROM
DIFFERENT SOURCES AS FOLLOW:=
NAQS: UPON 'ALL-H IS MUH:A:L BIDH DH:A:T . IN THIS PRINCIPLE DIVINE
ESSENCE AND DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES ARE INCLUDED SINCE
NAQA:'IS: UPON ANY ONE OF THEM ARE MUH:A:L BIDH: DH:A:T .THIS IS THE
BELIEF OF MAJORITY OF AHLUSSUNNAH NOUNLY 'ASHA:'RAH AND
MATURIDIAH [MAY ALL-H BLESS THEM]. SOME SALAFITES AND
H:ANABALITES WHO CONSTITUE MINORITY OF AHLUSSUNNAH [MAY ALL-H
ALSO BLESS THEM] CLAIM EACH AND EVERY DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS ESSNTIAL.
BUT AN ATTRIBUTE OF A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE EXCLUDETH THE DIVINE
ATTRIBUTES. ALL THESE DEBATES AND DISPUTES ARE INREGARD TO DIVINE

ATTRIBUTES AND NOT IN REGARD TO [RELATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF DIVINE

ATTRIBUTES].
S:IDQ IS A RELATIVE ATTRIBUTE OF THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE OF 'ALL-H I.E
SPEECH [KALA:M].SO IT IS SEPERATE AND DISTINCT FROM ALL-H AND
DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.
ITS OPPOSITE IS ALSO DISTINCT AND SEPERATE FROM ALL-H AND DIVINE
ATTRIBUTES.
THAT IS THE REASON EATING .DRINKING,DISEASES,SLEEPING, SECTUAL
ACTIVITIES ARE MUH:AL BIDH: DH:A:T UPON 'ALL-H, SINCE THEY ARE
NAQA:'IS: UPON ALL-H AND HIS ATTRIBUTES.
ON THE CONTRARY KIDH:B IS A NAQS: THAT IS GHAIRULLAH AND A
OPPOSITE OF SIDQ WHICH IS JUST A RELATIVE ATTRIBUTE OF AN ATTRIBUTE
OF ALL-H HENCE IT IS MUH:A:L BIL GHAIR.
BUT KIDH:B UPON DIVINE ESSENCE IS MUH:A:L BIDH DH:A:T. THIS IMPLIETH
NOT THAT ANOTHER KIND OF KIDH:B THAT IS SEPERATE FROM DIVINE
ESSENCE AND DIVINE ATTRIBUTES IS ALSO MUH:A:L BIDH DH:A:T. THIS IS A
PROOF WITH CERTAINTY THAT THIS TYPE OF KIDH:B [FALSEHOOD] IS
MUH:A:L BIL GHAIR.
ONE MUST DIFFERENTIALTE BETWEEN DIVINE ATTRIBUTES AND ATTRIBUTES
OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.
NO DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS 'ALL-H.
RELATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE NEITHER DIVINE
ESSENCE NOR DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.
MAULAVI RAD:A OF BANS BARAILI CLAIMED THAT S:DIQ IS LAZIM OF A
LAZIM OF 'ALL-H SINCE HE DID
KNOW THAT IF HE ACCEPTED THAT IT IS A RELATION OF LA:ZIM THEN HE
MUST HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT KIDH:B AS A NAQS: OF S:IDQ ,IS MUH:A:L BIL
GHAIR ,WHERE S:IDQ IS A RELATIVE ATTRIBUTE.
EVEN IF ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES ARE SUPPOSED NOT BE IDENTICAL AND
NOT "NEITHER IDENTICAL NOR SEPERATE" EVEN THEN S:IDQ IS A RELATIVE
ATTRIBUTE.
EVEN IF ALL DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE BELIEVED TO BE IDENTICAL WHETHER
THEY ARE ESSENTIAL OR ACTIVE , THE RELATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF DIVINE
ATTRIBUTES ARE SEPERATE AND DISTINCT FROM THEM AND FROM DIVINE
ESSENCE.
IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE
IDENTICAL THEIR MAFHU:MAT [SENSES/MEANINGS] ARE STILL DIFFERENT
FROM THAT OF ESSENCE , AND INREGARD TO THEIR MEANINGS THE

RELATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF ATTRIBUTES ARE NEITHER DIVINE ESSENCE NOR

DIVINE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES BUT RELATIONS IN REGUARD TO THEIR
MEANINGS.
THAT IS THE REASON THAT NO SCHOLAR OF ANY SCHOOL OF THOUGHT
DENY RELATIONS IN REGUARD TO DIVINE ATTRIBUTES EVEN IF HE CLAIMS
THEIR IDENTITY TO DIVINE ESSENCE.

A number of People have asked that Kidh:b [Falsehood/Falsity] Upon 'ALL-H is

Muh:a:l Bidh: Dh:a:t.
To there reponce it must be noted that:
Either a Naqs: is Ghairullah or Not.
If Not then it is Naqs: Upon 'ALL-H [Naqs: "Alall-H]
Naqs: "Alall-h is Muh:a:l Bidh: Dh:a:t.
If it is Ghairullah then either it is Naqs: Upon Ghairullah Or It is Qa:'im Bi
Nafsihi: [Per Se Subsistent].
In the first case it is Mumkin Bidh:Dh:a:t Since Naq: Upon Ghairullah is
Mumkin Bidh: Dh:a:t.
In the Second case it is a Creation of Deity 'ALL-H such that Naqs: Of the
Creation is Identical to the Essence of the Creation.
Now the Kidh:b in Cala:m 'Al Lafz:i: is NAQS: "Ala: Ghairillah, since Cala:m 'Al
Lafz:i: is Ghairullah and H:a:dith: .
So this is the Self Possibility ['Al 'imka:n 'Adh: dh:a:ti:] is Upon Ghairullah and
not Upon 'ALL-H.
According to Real Ahlussunnah Naqs: Upon Divne Essential 'Attributes are
Also Self Absurd [Muh:a:l Bidh: Dh:a:t].
What if it is claimed that 'Al Cala:m 'Al Lafz:i: Is Eternal.
In thios case a type second type of Cala:m 'Al Lafz:i: that is Ghairullah and is
H:a:dith: is Self Possible and not Self Absurd.
So in this case at most the denouncers of the Self Possibility Of Kidh:b can not
claim that this type of Cala:m 'Al Lafz:i: is Muh:a:l Bidh: Dh:a:t.
But there is no proof that if Cala:m 'Al Lafz:i: is Eternal [Qadi:m] then an other
type of Cala:m 'Al Lafz:i: is Mumkin Bidh Dh:a:t. At most they can claim that
such a Kala:m 'Al Lafz:i: is Muh:a:l Bil Ghair.
But this is Sufficient to shew that such a Cala:m 'Al Lafzi: if it doeth not Exist

is Self Possible even if a Type of Cla:m 'Al Lafz:i: is Eternal.

If two Divine Cla:ms are Eternal one Eternal Nafsi: and One Eternal Lafz:i:
then one is Non Eternal Lafz:i: is atleast Self Possible even if it doeth not
exist.
Any how Naqs: like Kidh:b Upon Deity is Muh:a:l Bidh: Dh:a:t then not upon
Non Eternal Cala:m 'Al Lafz:i: whether it existeth or not.

END OF PART ONE

BEGINNING OF PART TWO

THE PROBLEM OF DEFINATION
The Term Naz:i:r must not be defined as some thing Self Contradictory.
So it must exclude the attribues which contradicts the Non Exitence of the
Naz:ir .
The basis objection on the posibility of Naz:ir: [say B] of any thing that is first
of all of certain kind or of all things is that either a is the first or b is the first
but not both.
One that is not the first is not the Naz:ir of the one that is the first.
But such Attributes are excluded as a Necessary Exception.
For examble in the term Mumtan-"un Naz:i:r , Ma"du:mun Naz:i:r and "Adi:m
An Nazi:r the "Adam and 'Imtina:" are excluded as a Necessary Exception.
Since if not then any existing thing which is Mumtana" An Nazir or "Adi:mun
Naz:i:r or Ma"du:m 'AnNaz:i:r becomes Non Existence.
That is the flaw and the fallacy. Similarly such Attributes that negates the Self
Posibility and Existence of Naz:i:r are Self Excluded as a Necessary Exception
from the Defination of the Term Naz:i:r.
An other thing is that of the Naz:ir of a thing Exists then neither the thing is
first of all nor its Naz:i:r is the first of all but both of the two are Firsts of all.
The conversion from Only First of All to the Not Only first of all is possible.
If any thing is first of all then this means its naz;i: does not exist not that its

Naz:ir is impossible [i.e IT MEANETH NOT THAT IT IS SELF ABSURD].

So if its Naz:i:r Existeth then it ceases to be "first of all".
The only thing that is impossible [Self Absurd] is that a thing exixts and its
Nazir also exixsts yet it is still First of all. But this Self Absurdity doeth not
prove the Self Absurdity of Naz:i:r.
So by defination a Existing Self Possible "First of all" is a thing whose Naz:i:r is
Self Possible yet it doeth not exist and not that is is Impossible [Self Absurd]
and doeth not exist. Since Nazi:r of an Self Possible Individual [Non Eternal] is
possible.
So if Nazi:r of a thing if it exists implieth a falsehood of the
statement/sentence which stateth or Implieth that its Nazi:r does not exist.
This falshood is Possible and not impossible.
Since if the statement/Sentence remains true yet its Naz:ir is supposed to be
existeth then the problem of self contradition of the statement emerges.
So a self contradiction of the statement/senteences is implied since it is
implied that its nazir existeth and does not existeth.
So the First of all Existing Self Possible Individual is one whose Whose Naz:i:r
is Self Possible and Doeth Not Exist , and not that its Naz:ir is Self Impossible
or Self Absurd.
So under the definations of the term First of All and Naz:ir , the Naz:ir of an
Existing Self Possible First of all is Self Possible and Doeth not Exist, not that
it is Self Aburd and doeth not Exist.
So any sentence which says that a thing is self Possible Yet its Nazi:r does not
exist is falsified if the Nazi:ir of the thing existeth.
The only thing that is impossible is that the sentence is true yet the Nazi:r of
the thing existeth.
Since it is no thing but that the sentence is true and false simultanously. This
does not imply the self Absudity of the Nazi:ir.
THE BEGINNING OF THE PROBLEM
Khairabadi school of thought began to deny the Self Possibility of Naz:i:r be
giving it a defination with out making an agreement on the defination with
their opponents.
On the contrary True Ahlussunnah thought that Khairabadis School of
Thought is using the term in a defination in which they themselve use.

How ever after a long series of debates it was recognised that they differ on
the definations of a term. When this was identified the dispute was
immediately reduced to a verbal dispute.
Khairabadi Defination:
According to Khairabadi school of thought THE TERM MAY BE DEFINE AS
FOLLOW:
If two or more things are equal in all Attributes then each one of them is a
Naz:i:r of the them rest, and togather they are Naz:a:'ir.
[Naz:i:r ;pl Naz:a:'ir]
Defination Of Naz:i:r by Pure 'Ahlussunnah
If two or more Individuals are equal in those Attributes which do not
contradict their equality and Plurality then each one of them is the Naz:i:r of
the other and togather they are Naz:a:'ir .
So if Naz:i:r of a given individual is Self Absurd then its Self Absurdity is not
Self Implied by the very defination of the term.
THE FLAW IN THE KHAIRABADI DEFINATION.
If Kh:airabadi defination is accepted then Naz:i:r of each and every thing
whether it be Self Necessary or Self Possible or Self Absurd is Self Absurd.
But this is certainly not the case.
So if a Self Possible Existing Individual is First of All of a certain kind or of all
kinds then Its Naz:i:r is not Self Absurd but it simply existeth Not.
Being first of All implies that Its Naz:i:r doeth not exist not that its Naz:ir is
Self Absurd.
If the Existing thing [Individual] is [Non Eternal] Self Possible then its Naz:i:r is
Self Possible and Doeth Not Exist.
In an other sentence it may be stated as follow:=
If the Existing thing [Individual] is [Non Eternal] Self Possible then its Naz:i:r is
Self Possible and Absurd With Seperate.

If the Naz:i:r of an Existing Self Possible Individual Existeth then it is not the
"first of all".

Also it may be re sentenced as follow:=

If the Naz:i:r of an Existing Self Possible Individual Existeth then it is not the
"Mumt-na" 'An Naz:i:t Bil Ghair" [One whose Naz:i:r is Absurd With Seperate].

Since First of all meaneth first of all existing things either of all kind or of a
single kind. It doeth not mean First of All Self Possible individuals since to
each and every self Possible individial there is a self Possible Individual Prior
to It.
If The Creater Createth or Chooseth any Self Possible Individual then He
Doeth not Createth infinite Self Possible Individual that are prior to it, and
Doeth leave them unchosed.
It hath been discussed in the first part of the discussion.
Similarly one can say about "Last of All", Second Of All, Third Of All, Forth Of
All and so On .
For students we have left the discussion for "Last of All" etc. as an excercise.
Any how one may define the First Of All as an existing Individual such that:
1] there is no thing prior to it.
2] There is nothing that is neither Prior to It nor "Neither Prior to it not
posterior to it.
3] Its Naz:i:r doeth not exist.
It may be noted that 3 is a corollary of 2.
The term First Of All neither imply that it is Self Absurd that any thing is prior
to it nor Imply ....etc.
If it is implied it is implied from the individuals like Divine Essence and Divine
Essential Attributes.
In case of a Self Possible [Non Eternal ] Individual Self Possibility is accepted.
So if a Non Eternal Existing Self Possible Existeth as First of All then any Self
Possible Prior to it simply doeth not exist not that it is Self Absurd. Similarly
Any Individual that is neither Posterior to It Nor Prior to it also doeth not exist.
Additionally Its Naz:ir doeth not exist.
So this term only imply that its naz:i:r is Absurd with Seperate and Not Self

Absurd.
The defination of "First Of All Existing Self Possible" means a Self Possible
That Existeth , no Self Possible that is Prior to It doeth not Exist, no Self
POSSIBLE that is Neither Prior to It Nor Posterior to It Existeth , and no Self
Possible Naz:i:r of it Existeth.
In this defination it doeth mean that:= To say that First Of All Existing Self
Possible [Non Eternal] Individual and its Naz:i:r both Existeth means nothing
but :=
A THING WHOSE NAZ:I:R IS ABSURD WITH SEPERATE AND ITS NAZ:I:R BOTH
EXISTETH.
This implieth that a Thing is Absurd with Seperate Yet not Absurd With
Seperate.
In more technical sentence and words it is nothing but to say :=
A thing that is Mumt-na" 'An Naz:i:r Bil Ghair and Its Naz:i:r both Existeth
simulteneously.
This is Self Absurd in the very same meaning that a thing Existeth and
Existeth not Simultaneously. Such a Self Absurdity can not prove that the Self
of the Individual is Self Possible.
Similarly it is SELF ABSURD THAT THE WORLD EXISTETH AND EXISTETH NOT
SIMULTANEOUSLY. BUT THIS DOETH NOT PROVE THAT THE WORLD IS SELF
ABSURD.
END OF PART TWO:-

BEGINNING OF PART THREE

PART THREE:It has been tried to prove the Self Absurdity from Vah:datul Vuju:d.
Vah:datul Vuju:d is not a single dogma, raither there are several dogmas and
doctrines unter the title of Vah:datul Vuju:d. Some of them are really Kufr as
pointed out by Salafies but Not all of them are Kufr. Some of them are
Certainly not Kufr but just some Philosophical Solutions of some Philosophical
Problems.
Below we present a moderate version that is nither Kufr nor Heresy.
DOGMA OF VAH:DATUL VUJU:D.

There are only two types of Exiting Things.

1] Uncreated
2] Created.
Deity [Divine Essence] and Divine [Essential] Attributes belong to the first
type.
All Creations belong to the second type. That is an Existent that is neither
Deity nor Divine Attribute is Certainly Created.
Deity and Creations [Uncreated Existents ] and Created Existents are
Seperate.
It is perfectly fufr to claim that any Creation is Identical to Deity or Divine
[Essential] Attribute.
But a Created Existent lacketh the Attribute of Existence.
Only Divine Essence [Deity] Existeth With Existence . Existence is the
Attribute of Deity [Divine Essence] Only. Created Existents Exist with out Any
Attribute of Existence. They depend upon the Divine Existence in order to
Exist.
This is the valid Formation of Vah:datul Vuju:d.
Defination of Manifestation [Z:-hu:ra:t/Maz:a:hir]] and Definitation
[Ta"aiuna:t].
If a Creation depeneth on the Existence of its Creator in order to Exist and
Exitence is not its Attribute then this Creation is called a Manifestation of the
Existence of the Creater.
As the Existence of the Creator is Identical to the Essence of the Creator then
it may be called a Menifestation of the Creator or the Seence of the Creator,
Since the Essence of the Creator is Identical to the Creator. This Self Implieth
that Essence of the Creator is the Creator It/Him Self.
It doeth not state Creator is Identical to Creation/Creature. How ever Some
dogmas of it do say and they are Kufr.
According to Some denouncers of Self Possibility of Naz:a:'ir Holy Prophet is
the Best of All Creations [Menifestations/ Definizations].
So any thing better than Him is better than the Best, That is Self Absurd.
Similarly Any thing Equal to the Best of All is also Best . This implieth that the
thing wich was assumed to be best of All is not Best.

This is Self Absurd that any thing is best of all yet not best of all.
ANSWER TO THIS ARGUMENT.
IN THE CLASS OF SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUALS TO EACH AND EVERY SELF
POSSIBLE INDIVIDUAL THERE IS A DISTINCT SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUAL
BETTER THEN IT OR MORE PERFECT THAN IT OR SUPERIOR TO IT.
IN THE CLASS OF SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUALS TO EACH AND EVERY SELF
POSSIBLE INDIVIDUAL THERE IS A DISTINCT SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUAL
WORSE THEN IT OR LESS PERFECT THAN IT OR

INFERIOR

TO IT.

IN THE CLASS OF SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUALS TO EACH AND EVERY SELF

POSSIBLE INDIVIDUAL THERE IS A DISTINCT SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUAL THAT
IS NEITHER
<<WORSE THEN IT OR LESS PERFECT THAN IT OR INFERIOR TO IT>> NOR
<< BETTER THEN IT OR MORE PERFECT THAN IT OR SUPERIOR TO IT>>.
However in the linne if actuality and creation the there is a Creation that is
best of all Creations . It doeth not mean that any thing better that it or exact
eaual to it [Naz:i:r] is Self Absurd. It only implieth that such Self Possible
Individuals do not Exist and are Not Created.
Problem of some texts of Ibn "Arabi and 'Imam Ghaza:li:
Some texts of Ibn "Arabi and 'Imam Ghaza:li apperently mean that a World
Better then this World is Impossible.
But this is incorrect . These Texts Must be Interpreted non Literally and must
not be taken apperently.
Maulana: 'Ashraf "Ali: RH: hath interpreted them and explained them
otherwise . See Kh:u:s:u:s: Al C-l-m and the foot note on it.
VERSE OF SHAIKH: SA"DI:
Shaikh: Sa"di: saith in one of his M-S:R-" [Line] Of his Q-t:-"
That

LA: YAMK-N 'ATH: TH:-NA: KAMA: KA:NA

HAQQ-HU

This is used to argue that he negateth Self Possibility.

An answer to this is he negateth Practical Possibility

[ Exercisal Possibility].
It cannot be that he negateth Self Possibility.
END OF PART 3

BEGINNIG OF PART 4
Some Arguments of the opponents.
1]The Fundamental Principle is that " N:az:i:r of a Self Poasible is Self
Possible.
On this Principle that is axiomatic the following objection is made.
It doeth not mean that Naz:i:r of a Self Possible is Self Possible.
It only means that if a Naz:i:r of a Self Possible Existeth it Must Be Self
Possible otherwise it is not a Naz:ir.
A Similar caase may be seen when it is said that Naz:i:r
of a Self Necessary is Self Necessary. It is interpreted that if there is a
Naz:i:r of Self Necessary then it Must be Self Necessary other wise it is
not a Naz:i:r.

It doeth not mean that Naz:i:ir of Self Necessary is Self

Necessary.
PROPER RESPONSE:
The sentence "Naz:i:r of a Self Possible is Self Possible" is used in two
different meanings and each one is correct.
One of the two is that "If a Self Possible Existeth then Its Naz:i:r if it
also Existeth is Self Possible, other wise it is not a Naz:i:r".
Other one is That "Naz:i:r of a Self Possible is Self Possible". In other
sentence r aphormism " It doeth mean that Naz:i:ir of Self

Possible is Self Self Possible".

Both are two different Principles yet some times each one of the two
are represented by similar sentences. This was delebrately confused by
some extremists.
2] If the Naz:i:r of a thing is Self Absurd then the Thing is either Self
Necessary or Self Absurd.
An objection is made on this Argument:=
If Negation /Contradiction of an Existing Thing is Self Absurd then it is Self
Necessary [Existent].
But it is not so that if the Naz:i:r of a thing is Self Absurd then it is Either Self
Necessary or Self Absurd.
ANSWER TO THIS OBJECTION:=
This is a fallacy . Since both of the two Principles are Correct.
How ever it may be noted that those who believe that Divine Essential
Attributes are Neither Identical Nor Seperate believe that if the Negation of
an Existing Thing is Self Absurd then it is either Self Necessary or Necessarily
Implied from the Self Necessary.
The fallacy is that the objection maker is presenting the next principle as if it
is the correct form of the principle. The objection Maker doeth forget some
how that both of the Principles are equally correct.
3] Suppose that A is the Only Child of B. Then if Naz:i:r of A is Possible then
the Naz:i:r must also be the only child of B. But if it is so then this is a
contradiction since this imply A and Naz:i:r of A say Z(A) both are the only
child of B.
This is Self Absurd.
Responce:=
This is based on an invalid defination of Naz:i:r. According to the Proper
Defination Tana:z:ur Is a Kind Of Plurality.
So this excludes the stated above Attribute of Uniquesness as a Necessary
Exception and a Rational Exception other wise it has been proved that Naz:i:r
of Every thing whether it be Self Possible or Self Absurd or Self Necessary is
Self Absurd not just of one or two Self Possible Individuals. Such a Defination
which implieth that the very concept of Naz:i:r is Self Contradicting or
Paradoxial is a Definite and Certain proof that this Defination is incorrect and
invalid.

Paradox defination a defination that can be shown, using a given set of

axioms and definitions, to be both true and false. Paradoxial definations do
shew the inconsistencies in a flawed claim. A defination must not be
paradoxial atleast in religious , theological and philosophical discussions.
Objection on This Answer:=
It is the right of a person to coin any sort of defination whether Self
Contradiction or Paradoxial.
Answer to this Objection:=
If one tries to coin a defination that is Paradoxial or Self Contradictin or Both
and use it to deny the Absolute Divine Omnipotence then things become
religious and such definations are not allowed.
For example is some one defineth the Word World by a Defination which is
Self Contraditing and say that Deity is not the Creator of the World then this
is not allowed since this implies fallacy.
The Word Naz:i:r is Neither Self Contradictory Nor Paradoxial.
NOTE : IF NA:I:R OF HOLY PROPHET EXISTETH THEN THIS IMPLIETH
FALSEHOOD OF DIVINE SENTENCE . IF NAZ:I:R EXISTETH AND TRUTH OF
DIVINE SENTENCE IS CONSERVED THEN THE NAZ:I:R BECOMETH SELF
CONTRADICTORY.
BUT FALSEHOOD OF DIVINE SENTENCE IS ABSURD WITH SEPERATE AND NOT
SELF ABSURD.
IF MAY BE ARGUED THAT DIVINE SENTENCE INFORMS ABOUT AN ATTRIBIUTE
OF THE HOLY PROPHET.
BUT THIS ATTRIBUTE IS ACTUALLY AND REALLY A RELATION OF NON
CREATION OF ANY NAZ:I:R.
THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE OF CREATION OF A SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUAL AND
THE VERY SELF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUAL IT SELF. THE DEFINATION OF THE
NAZ:I:R MAY PLEASE BE KEPT IN MIND .
NOTE: ALTHOUTH 'ASH:IRAH DO NOT BELIEVE THAT TAKVI:N IS AN DIVINE
ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE BUT THE BELIEVE IN TWO TYPES OF CONNETIONS OF
ABSOLUTE OMNIPOTENCE.
1] ETERNAL 2] NON ETERNAL.
THE LATTER ARE CALLED ACTIVE [FI"LI] CONNECTIONS AND THE FORMER ARE
CALLED POTENTIAL [S:LU:H:I].

SO TAKVI:N OF MATURIDAH MAY BE CONVERTED IN QUDRA WITH RESPECT TO

ACTIVE CONNECTIONS OF 'ASHA:"IRAH AND QUDRAH OF MATURIDIAH CAN BE
CONVERTED TO QUDRAH WITH RESPECT TO POTENTIAL CONNECTIONS IN ALL
DISCUSSIONS.
ONE MUST DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN EXISTENTIAL ATTRIBUTES [ 'AS:S:IFA:T
'AL VUJU:DIAH] AND NON EXISTENTIAL ATTRIBUTES ['AS:S:IFA:T 'AL
"ADAMIAH].