1

2
[Type the company
3 name]
4 Ali

[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
1
5A CRITIQUE OF PROOFS OF DIVINITY IN THE SYSTEM OF IBN AR RUSHD
6UND-LUSI:
7Ibn Ar Rushd{Averroaes} has made several arguments to shew that the PROOFS
8for the Divine Existence presented by a number of Orthodox and Unorthodox sects
9in Islam are incorrect and wrong.
10How ever in this article , the arguments or proofs presented by Ibn Ar Rushd himself
11are examined a, analysed, refuted as according to the INCONSISTENT philosophical
12system of the so called Philosopher namely Ibn Ar Rushd Al Undulusi.
13It may be noted that Ibn Ar Rushd follows the principles of Atheism , though he
14claims to be a believer in Deity. Either he is ignorant of the consequences of his
15system and arguments or he deliberately do not mention them, but deliberately
16conceal them so that those who agree with him in these may reach to the result i.e
17denial of the Existence Of Deity. In this work it is not tried to refute Ibn Ar Rushds
18argument against proofs Asharites and Maturidites in Supprt of Divine Existence.
19But it is attempted to prove that Arguments for Divine Existence presented by Ibn
20Ar Rushd {Averroes} is in correct according to his own principles of his system of
21philosophy.
22It may be noted that Deity is impossible to be proved in his system, that is why he
23did not analyzed his own arguments/proofs critically. This provided a chance to
24others to analyze his provided proofs.
25 First Argument Of Ibn Ar Rushd about The Existence Of Deity [Divine
26Existence=DE]
27The first argument is similar to the argument of Design. This argument is somewhat
28analogous to the Intelligent Design Theory proposed to combat Evolution Theories
29in The science of biology.
30Evolutionist are afraid that that if it is accepted then the Intelligent Designist shall
31argue that A DESIGN implieth a Designer , by using Ibn Ar Rushs argument of
32Induciveness. Designist like Ibn Ar Rushd do not believe in the possibility of Co33incidence .On the other hand Evolutionists believe in some what controlled Co34incidence. Whether this Theory of Rational Design or Intelligent Design is correct or
35not , and whether it can give tough time to the theories of Evolutions or not, is not
36the issue. The issue is that whether a Design whether Rational (Intelligent) or Not
37implies a Designer or not. The problem may be simplified as follow:- Where a Design
38implies a Designer or not.
39In Ibn Ar Rushds system it not only does not but it cannot imply.
40Returning back to CONDUCIVENESS proposed by Ibn Ar Rushd , Ibn Ar Rushd argues
41that Conduciveness implies an Intending Agent, which is the Deity. But the system
42which he is using does not and cannot accept this Implication.
2Page | 2
3

3
4
43 The Argument
44All Existing Things Exist for a Purpose.
45All Existing Things are conducive to human beings.
46This CONDUCIVENESS is related to a Rational Intending Existing Suppositum which
47is the Agent
48Of this CONDUCIVENESS i.e The Conduciveness of All Thing to Human Beings.
49This CONDUCIVENESS is not a COINCIDENCE since Coincidence is Impossible.
50Any corruption in the Conduciveness implies the destruction of human beings.
51This argument is not according to the System
52seen below:-

Of Ibn Ar Rushd, as it shall be

53EXAMPLE:54If a person sees a stone on earth and finds it conducive to be sat on , he realizes
55that this stone is made in this form by some one who is an intelligent / rational
56Intending Agent. But if the person does not see it conducive to any thing he shall
57not ascribe it to any Intending rational Agent.
58ANALYSIS.
59It appears that this Purpose is this Conduciveness stated above.
60If a thing is conducive to any other thing then Conduciveness (to the second
61thing )is the Attribute of the first .
62 In other words A THING IS CONDUCIVE TO ANOTHER THING IF AND ONLY
63IF CONDUCIVENESS TO THE LATTER THING IS THE ATTRIBUTE OF THE
64FIRST THING .
65This proves that if any one of the two cease to exist this conduciveness stated
66above also ceases exist.
67Ibn Ar Rushd thinks that a minimum change in the prime Conduciveness implies the
68perfect destruction of the latter thing.
69REMARKS:
70Ibn Ar Rushd did not criticize this argument as he did in regard to the arguments of
71Orthodox and Unorthodox systems of Islam.
72If he had done so he would have found that his own system of arguments makes
73this argument invalid and incorrect.
5Page | 3
6

4
7
74He cannot defend this argument with out damaging his own system.
75He cannot use the system of other sects to refute these objections since he does
76not believe in them.
77COMMENT:
78In this article it is attempted to prove that this ALLEGED and SO CALLED proof is
79inconsistent to his system as well as incorrect and invalid.
80A)REFUTATION OF FIRST ATTEMTED PROOF OF RUSHDIAN DEITY :
81A,1) FIRST DISCUSSION ON FIRST ARGUMENT.
82 According to the dogmas of Ibn Ar Rushd the otherwise of any event is IMPOSSIBLE.
83For example if a Body B is moving from point A to point C in nature SAY EVENT E1
84then it is Immpossible in Rushdian system that it moves from C to A say event E.
85The reason for the ABSURDITY/IMPOSSIBILITY of the event is as follow:86If Event E2 occurs then it implies the Annihilation of Divine Wisdom. Annihilation Of
87Divine Wisdom is Impossible. One that implies an Impossible is itself Impossible.
88Therefore event E2 is Impossible.
89Now if event two is Impossible it is impossible to be in Divine Power since Divine
90Power is Over Possibilities ONLY
91 IF a thing is Not in Divine Power and is IMPOSSIBLE to be In Divine Power then It is
92also Impossible to be Intended[Willed]by Divine Intention[Will]. On similar reasoning
93it can be proved that in the Rushdian system the Non Occurance of Event E1 is also
94imposible. Suppose that the Event E1 did occur at time .At time its Non
95Occurrence was Impossible There fore it was Impossible to be in Divine Power and
96Impossible to be Intended by Deity at time ..
97SINCE the Non Occurance of Event E1 implies the Annihilation of the Divine
98Wisdom , and Annhilation of Divine Wisdom is impossible in Rushdian System.
99So it is not in Divine Power , not to occur event E1, and not possible to
100 Not to do E1 by Divine Intention (Will).
101Now if Deity has no alternative to choose , and the Deity cannot NOT DO an act
102then there is no Divine Intention and no Divine Will.(Deity CEASETH to be a Free
103Agent, which implieth that Deity Ceaseth to be the Absolute Free Agent with an
104Absolute Free Intention /Will. Also Deity Ceaseth to be an Omnipotent Agent.) The act of doing E1 is
105therefore certainly not a Voluntary act of Deity. If not a voluntary act then an
106unvoluntary act. If an unvaluntary act then an Immanent Unvoluntary act.
107If so then this argument of Ibn Ar Rushd fails to hold.
8Page | 4
9

5
10
108 This shews that this attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd is not only inconsistent in his Philosophical system
109but it is incorrect since Ibn Ar Rushd is unable to explain or to define the meaning of Divine
110Intention/Will. What sort of will/intention is in the mind of Ibn Ar Rushd if the Per se Subsistent
111Suppositum to which the Intention/Will is ascribed has no alternative to choose , not even the Suppositum
112is sufficiently free for not to do . This Implies that Deity is an Intention-less[Will-less] Existing
113Suppositum, and the event E1 is occurred with out being intended and with out being willed.This implies
114That it is an unintentional and unvoluntary act.
115It is invalid to attempt to prove a Rational Intending Per se Subsistent Suppositum as an agent of an Act
116which is Involuntary and Unintentional.
117It does appear that Ibn Ar Rush is not ignorant of these flaws in his system and in his this particular
118argument , yet he conceals them supposing that these flaw shall never be detected by any one.
119In his zeal to refute Imam Al

~
H aramain , Ibn Ar Rushd made such arguments which could even

120destroy his own arguments. Analyzation and refutation of Arguments coined by Ibn Ar Rushd against the

~
H aramain is beyond the scope of present discussion.It may amuse a number of
~
~
122Atheists that alleged arguments made by Ibn Ar Rushd against Imam Al H aramain R. H can
121proofs of Imam Al

123be used against Ibn Ar Rushd him self. So Ibn Ar Rushds own objections are valid on this first proof.
124Ibn Ar Rushd s first argument is invalid. Q.E.D.
125 (Some more refutations are in second discussion about Rushds first proof/argument what so ever it may
126be).
127A,2) SECOND DISCUSSION ON FIRST ARGUMENT.
128If the Act(ion) of Induciveness is ascribed to the very Ousia (Substance/Essence) of
129the Per se Subsistent Suppositum THEN this Conduciveness cannot be a Voluntary
130Act/Action Of the Stated above Suppositum irrespective of the cases whether the
131Suppositum possesses the Attribute of Intention or Not, Since the Ousia is
132unvoluntarily Necessary.This does reduce the whole problem to Aristotelian Cause
133and Effect Problem ,where the cause is with out any Will or Intention. In this case
134Independent of the Intention (Will) of the Supposition , if The Suppositum Doeth
135Have Any.In this case the Rushdian Argument is unsound and invalid in his own
136system of philosophy. It fails to prove an Per se Subsistent Agent with An Intention.
137Possibility of ascription of an act (in this case Inductiveness)
138 to the Ousia Of The Per se Subsistent Agent instead of the Intention Of Per se
139Subsistent Agent MAKES the Rushdian Argument Invalid in his own system of
140Philosophy. There is no Impossibility of this , and thus no intending Per se
141Subsistent Agent is can be proved.
11Page | 5
12

6
13
142Summary:- Either the Per se Subsistent Agent is with out any Intention. In this case
143the argument fails, OR it is with an Attribute of Intention. In the latter case there are
144two possible cases. Either the Act(ion) of Conduciveness is Independent of the
145stated above Attribute (Quality) or Not . If it is then the argument fails, and if not
146then it is discussed in:- A,3)
147A,3) Third discussion On Second FIRST Argument.
148For sake of simplicity the term Per se subsistent Agent is reduced to Agent, also that the
149discussion may become more general and if there is some once who can conceive the
150idea of a non per se subsistent agent can also be refuted.
151
152 If this action (of conduciveness ) is ascribed to the Intention of this Agent, and this
153Intention of Agent Is An Attribute Of This Agent , THEN This Conduciveness is an
154Action Of the Attribute Of the Agent. There are two logically possible cases:155A,3,1) This Intention (Will) is Not Eternal.
156A,3,2) This Intention (Will) is Eternal.
157If this Intention Is Not Eternal then there are two possible cases.
158A,3,1,1) The Agent is Not- Eternal.
159(Agent and Intention Both are Non Eternal)
160A,3,1,2)The Agent is Eternal.
161(Agent is Eternal and Intention is Not)
162If the Agent and the Intention each one of the two, is Not Eternal ,then Ibn Ar Rushd is
163entangled in further problems and difficulties. )The Agent cannot be the Deity
164since Even Rushd believed Deity to be Eternal . If this Agent is not Deity then the
165proof becomes invalid.Since Ibn Ar Rushd did want to prove the Deity, not a Not166Deity Agent. Deity Must Necessary be Eternal.
167) Either this Agent is brought in Existence from Nothingness by Itself or It is
168brought in Existence by another Agent truly distinct from it. If it is the former case
169the argument /proof becomes in-valid ,since if it is accepted that it is Possible for a
170thing to come in Existence from nothingness , it is self brought in existence from
171non existence , and is Not Eternal, then there is no need of a Deity, who is supposed
172to bring things into existence from nothingness. If it is the latter case then a series
173of Agents each one distinct from the other is implied in the backward direction. This
14Page | 6
15

7
16
174is an infinite series ,which continues infinitely and is ad infinitum. So Ibn Ar Rushd
175cannot maintain that the Agent of Conduciveness is Not Eternal. So Ibn Ar Rushd
176cannot maintain each one of the two.
177Hence
178Thus this case cannot prove Deity. Hence the case Agent and Intention Both are
179Non Eternal cannot be accepted.
180
181Problem

Of Non Eternal Intention and Eternal Agent.

182If the Agent is Eternal and the Intention is Temporal then this is IMPOSSIBLE in Rushdian
183System.
184FOR DETAILS SEE:185
186Problem

Of Eternal Intention and Eternal Agent.

187If the Agent and its Intention both are Eternal then the Thing Intended is Also Eternal as
188according to Rushdian system, But The Intended One id est Conduciveness cannot be
189Eternal.
190FOR DETAILS SEE:191If Ibn Ar Rushd maintains that each one of the two i.e Agent of this Conduciveness
192and the Intention of the Agent is Eternal then this implies according to his own
193system of philosophy that The Intention of the Agent and the Intended One i.e this
194Conduciveness is Eternal ,since in this case it is an Act(ion) of the Agent , and in his
195system if an Agent is Eternal then its Act or Action is also ETERNAL.This implies that
196the OBJECT Of the Action is Also Eternal. It must be noted that AN ACTION IS A
197CORRLATION BETWEEN THE AGENT OR ATTRIBUTE OF AGENT AND THE OBJECT OF
198THE ACTION. But this is incorrect. Since CONDUCTIVENESS Of All Things To Human
199Beings Cannot Be Eternal . It shall be shewn latter that why it cannot be so.
200---------{1}
201(See

{2})

202A,3,1,2,1)
203How ever if it is accepted that ,< stated above Conduciveness is Eternal >
204,then it may be the case that it is with out a cause or in is an Effect independent of the will
205of its Cause. In any case this proof / argument of Ibn Ar Rushd is not proveable in his
17Page | 7
18

8
19
206system.Ibn Ar Rushd attempts to prove an Agent with the Attribute Of Intention, but if it is
207accepted then he cannot prove an Agent with the Attribute of Intention. This implies a flaw
208in his system or in his proof or in his argument. His claim cannot be proved at least in tis
209case , the case under discussion.
210In Essence he had to prove the Impossibility of each one of the following before arguing in
211support of a Per se subsistent agent Attributed with the Attribute of Intention/Will.

a) An
213Intentionless Eternal Cause of Conduciveness
214is Impossible.
212Ibn

Ar Rushd had to prove Each one of the following :-

b) If a cause is Attributed by the Attribute of

216intention then it is Impossible that any thing is
217an Effect of It Independent of This Eternal
218Intention .
215

C)It is Impossible that this Conduciveness is

220Eternal Without a cause.
219

If any one of the above is not proved in his

222system the case
221

223 Agent and Intention Both are Non Eternal

does beome invalid.

224A,3,1,2,2) REASON WHY CONDUCIVENESS CANNOT BE ETERNAL.

225 First:-CONDUCIVENESS is a correlation between All Things and Human Beings.
226According to the System Of Ibn Ar Rushd If one of the correlate (Correlatant) is Not
227Eternal then neither the Correlation is Eternal Nor The Other Correlate is Eternal.
228Since No Human Being is ETERNAL then the Correlation and the other Coorelatant /
229Correlate (All Things) is( are )Not Eternal. But this Non Eternal Correlation is the
230Act(ion) Of An Agent. There fore The AGENT Cannot be Eternal. But Ibn Ar Rushd
231Cannot maintain that this Agent is Non Eternal. Since in this case the Agent must
232require an other Agent and this is Ad Infinitum.

20Page | 8
21

9
22
233Second:-An Other Problem is that This Conduciveness Which is a Correlation
234between All THINGS AND Human Beings is an Action/Act of an Agent WHICH
235CANNOT BE AN ETERNAL agent OF THIS ACT(ION) WHICH IS NOT ETERNAL ,as
236according to his system.
237Third:- Is not possible for a relation (Correlation) to be one and same between
238and AND .
239..{2}
240(Referred to {1})
241A logical possibility is that the Intention is Eternal but the Agent of Intention is Not Eternal.
242But this is impossible Since this implies an Attribute With Out Any Per Se Subsistent Essence
243to which it is ascribed. This Implies that an Attribute is no more an Attribute but An Essence
244Or In more scrit wording a Per Se Subsistent Essence.
245CONCLUSION
246There

are logilally possible cases

2471]The

A ction Of Conduciveness is with out an

248Intention and the Agent of the action is
249Intentionless.
2502]

The A ction Of Conduciveness is independent of

251the Intention of the Agent and the Agent is with
252Intention.
2533]

The Action is Under Intention of the Agent , but

254both the Agent and Intention are Not Eternal.
2554]

The Action is Under Intention of the Agent , but

256both the Agent and Intention are Eternal.
5] The Action is Under Intention of the Agent , but
258the Agent is Eternal and the intention of the Agent
259Intention is not Eternal.
257

23Page | 9
24

10
25
2606]

The Action is Under Intention of the Agent , but

261the Agent is Not Eternal and the intention of the
262Agent Intention is Eternal.
263Ibn

Ar Rushd cannot hold /maintain any One Of

264them thus his argument is invalid.
265A,3,1,2,3) A POSSIBLE ANSWER AND ITS REFUTATION
266It may be said that the relation or the correlation is not between all things and
267human beings but either between all things and materials of human being or
268materials of all things and materials of human beings. In either case the material
269are eternal but the thing and beings constituted from them are not. So the
270correlation may be Eternal even Human beings are not . Similarly all things which
271do exist may not be eternal yet their materials are eternal. In general the entire
272Cosmos is not Eternal yet the Matterials from which the Cosmos is constituted is
273Eternal.
274Refutation:275The basic problem is that the correlation is neither between All things and the Matter form
276which Human Beings are Constituted, nor between the Matter form which All things are
277constituted and the Matter from which Human Beings are constituted. The Correlation is
278between ALL THINGS and Human Beings. If atleast One of the two Correlates /Correlatants is
279Non Eternal, the Correlation is Not Eternal, and the other one of the two is also Non Eternal.
280But there are further problems to this answer. The Question is how it the Non Eternal Beings
281were made or created from Eternal Beings (Eternal Matters).
282Since this means that the Eternal Beings Must Necessarily have remained as the
283were in Eternity for an infinite period of time , whether these beings (Eternal
284Matters) were Eternally Existing Contingents (and owe their existence to the
285Necessary Being)or Necessary Beings (themselves) like Deity in Rushdian system
286what so ever.
287If the Agent of Act(ion) Of Constitution is Eternal then this IMPLICATES and Implies
288that the constitution itself is Eternal , AND THIS IS INCORRECT SINCE NO HUMAN
289BEING IS ETERNAL.
290Limitations Of Ibn Ar Rushd may be seen below:291A)If the Action is Not Eternal then the Agent is Not Eternal and this implies that the
292Rusdhian Deity is Not Eternal.
293B)Ibn Ar Rushd Cannot use the concept of Divine Intention (Will) since according to
294his SCHEMA or System Divine Intention (Will) is Not An Essential Attribute Of the
295Essence (Ousia/Per se Subsistent One) Of Deity (As Power, Knowledge,Life Speech
26Page | 10
27

11
28
296are Essential Attributes), but a Correlation which ceases to be if one of the
297correlates ceases to be.
298C) An Infinite Time which has neither Beginning nor End , Existing since Eternity,
299Cannot and Does not cease. So the Divine Intention cannot choose the act of
300Constitution after an infinite period since Eternity. Thus Divine Intention Cannot be
301responsible for the constitution of the Not Eternal Beings from the Eternal Beings
302using these Eternal Beings as Materials of latter Beings.
303According to the System Of Ibn Ar Rushd An Eternal Per Se Subsistent Cannot be an
304Agent Of a Non Eternal Unless and Other Wise there is Some Mutation or Change in
305the Eternal Per Se Subsistent.
306A dogma which Asharites and Maturidites Reject. Not only Orthodox Sunni Sects
307regects but unorthodox sects like Mut-z-las also it reject equally. Only Caramites
308(modified Hashvites) and Extreme Hasvites hold this strange view. But Ibn Ar Rushd
309if agrees with Orthodox sects faces a problem , since he attempts to criticize them
310since they reject this dogma, if agrees with Caramites faces an other problem. Since
311Philosophers hold that Deity or cause of all causes is Immutable and Unchangeable .
312Also in this case Ibn Ar Rushd must have to face the Absurdity /Impossibility Of Ad
313Infinitum. Since the question is what is the cause of this alleged Mutation in the Per
314Se Subsistent Deity, and what is the agent of this so called change in the Deity.
3152)SECOND Argument Of Ibn Ar Rushd about The Existence Of Deity [Divine
316Existence=DE]
317This argument may be renamed as Argument Of Abiogenesis
318It is based on the alleged observation of life issuing from Non Living Matterials ,
319leading us to Know for certain that there is a producer and a provider of Life.
320This argument of Ibn Ar Rushd is a subject of many objections in the Philosophical
321System Of Ibn Ar Rushd himself.
322Ibn Ar Rushd maintains that life ( on earth) is produced and provided , and that it
323Must Necessary Have A Producer and A Provider.
3242,a) First objection on second attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd.
325Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that this Producer or Provider ( or Both) is Himself (Itself)
326Produces or Provided or Both.
327Since this would imply that this Producer or Provider or Both does require another
328Producer or Provider or Both. This would necessarily continue , and does Imply Ad
329Infinitum.

29Page | 11
30

12
31
3302,a,a) Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that this Producer or Provider or One That is
331Both, is Eternal since If the Producer or Provider or One That Is Both (A PRODUCER
332AND A PROVIDER) is Eternal then the actions / acts of this Eternal Producer or
333Provider (or Both) Must be Eternal as according to his own system.
334
Consequently the Life which is either produced (from Non Living Things) or is
335provided (to Non Living Things) must be Eternal.
336This is impossible since the appearance or production or providence or provision of
337life, all of them are Non Eternal.
338Thus his own argument fails in his own system.
3392,a,b) Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that <<Neither this Producer or Provider (or
340Both) is Himself (Itself) Produces or Provided (or Both) Nor Ibn Ar Rushd this Producer
341or Provider or One That is Both, is Eternal>>.
342Since one that is neither produced nor provided is either Eternal or nor Eternal. If
343Eternal thin this contradicts this case. Hence is incorrect. If Non eternal and neither
344produced nor provided, then it means either it comes in existence with out a
345producer and with out a provider. This implies that Existence of Deity is not only Not
346Eternal but also a co-incidence. But Co-incidence in his system is absolutely
347impossible. Had it been relatively impossible in his system there would have been a
348possibility of validity of this argument/proof in his system.
349The question is did he knew that an Eternal Deity is Impossible in his system?
350
3512,b)Second objection on second attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd .
352Ibn Ar Rushd cannot hold the position by inserting the concept of Divine Intention
353(Will).
354Unlike

Ash arites and Maturidites who believe that Divine Intention is an Essential

355Immanent Divine Attribute (Like Divine Life, Divine Omniscience,Divine

356Omnipotence), Ibn Ar Rushd thinks that Divine Intention is a Correlation.
357If it is a Correlation then :358 The intention is Eternal and Actual IF AND ONLY IF the thing which is intended is
359also Eternal and Actual.
360But the emerged life whether it is provided or produced or both is Certainly Not
361Eternal.

32Page | 12
33

13
34
362 Objections to a possible defense against the stated above objection on second
363attempted proof.
3642,b,a):-An Argument against this argument of Ibn Ar Rushd against in his own
365system is as follow:366The life which is provided or produced or both MUST HAVE BEEN Not- Produced, Not367Provided, and Not Emerged during an INFINITE period of time from Eternity to the
368time of its production,provision or emergence or all.In Rushdian system this is
369Impossible and Absurd . Since in his system the Divine Intention cannot be related
370to one that is intended (i.e life mensioned above) in whih it necessitate its
371outcomming /production/provision etc. after an Infinite endless time, and what has
372no end neither can cease nor does cease.Therefore if life is Intended ,it must not
373become actual from possible or potential unless an infinite endless time has elapsed
374, which is impossible and absurd.
3752,b,b);376Divine Intention issues not only the intended production of life and intended life, but
377also the inclination of the Divine Intention (to each one of them) itself. When this
378Inclination (which is an Act(ion) of Intention/Will) occurs, this requires a mutation or
379a change in the Said Intention. According to the Rushdian system if the Divine
380Intention (Will) is not inclined to anything and then it does inclines to
381Something then there must be some change or mutation in the said Intention. If
382there is neither any change nor any mutation in the Divine Intention/Will then it
383does continue to be not-inclined .Since
384An Intention inclines from not-inclined state IF AND ONLY IF there is some Change or
385Mutation IN THE Intention.
386But if the said Intention is Eternal then their canbe no change in Eternal
387Intention unless and otherwise there is either a change or a mutation in
388the Ousia Of the Suppositum of Deity.
389A change or a mutation ( OR BOTH) occurs in the Ousia Of Deity if an only if
390a change or a mutation (OR BOTH) is (are) POSSIBLE in the Divine Ousia
391(Ousia Of Deity) . But it is Impossible to be Possible. (Since if a thing is Impossible
392then the possibility of the thing is also impossible).
393If it is supposed that MUTATION OR CHANGE
394Of) Deity THEN

35Page | 13
36

(OR BOTH)

is

(ARE)

Possible in the ( Ousia

14
37
395This implies THAT a change or a mutation (or both) is(are) also possible in the
396( Ousia Of) Deity since any change in this Intention is an effect of a change in the
397Ousia [Essence/Substance/Subsistence] of the very Deity . (It must be noted that Ouisa Of
398Deity /Divine Ouisa is Nothing but the very Deity Himself) This is Impossible. Even
399Caramites(Modified Hash-vides) do not say such a thing.
400If it is not Eternal then it must have an agent.Since change in Divine Intention is an
401act and an act requires an agent. Once again an infinite number of agents each one
402prior to the next one in backword direction,This is Ad Infinitum.Ad Infinitum is
403Impossible and Absurd.
404If no change or no mutation (or none of them) is occurred in the Divine Intention
405and it is as it was since eternity then according to Rushdian system it cannot incline
406to any thing as it was un-inclined in Eternity, unless and otherwise there is a change
407or a mutation (or both) in the said Intention. The consequence is the non production
408,non emergence etc. of said life unless and otherwise there is a change or a
409mutation ( or both).
410It is clear that Ibn Ar Rushds system of Philosophy is purely Atheistic and no
411argument in support of Deity is Valid in his system, even his own arguments are
412invalid in his system. It is a very strong probability that he did knew it, and this does
413makes suspicions whether he really believed in Divine Deity /Divine Being or not.
4143) Third Objection on the second attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd.
415This attempted proof depends upon the Abiogenesis theory of life.
416Although it is evident that in the beginning of the planet earth , there was no life on
417it, and Life on this planet began by an Abiogenesis process what so ever, this
418process is not seen by any human being who so ever he may be. Since life appeared
419prior to human life on earth. So the knowledge of Abiogenesis is different from the
420knowledge of Biogenesis and Reproduction of life from human beings. Yet he
421considers knowledge of both of them equal and similar, where as they are neither of
422the two. As the appearance of life from Non Living thing is never observed , he is
423certainly in error when he claims that life or living things or both appears from non
424living things or dead things or both. So his argument is based on incorrect
425observation. In strict sense on NON OBSERVATION.
4264) Fourth Objection on the second attempted proof of Ibn Ar Rushd.
427 If animal life or plant life or any other life of being which is neither animal or plant
428what so ever , is eternal then this argument /proof of Ibn Ar Rushd what so ever ,
429becomes invalid and incorrect.
430So there is no explanation of life in his system, how did life appeared on planet
431earth.
38Page | 14
39

15
40
432(It may be noted that Ibn Ar Rushd did not considered earth as a planet. So one may
433drop the word planet with out disturbing the validity of above arguments.) .
434

PRIME MOVER OF ARISTITELIAN SYSTEM AND

ITS

435IMPOSSIBILITY IN RUSHDIAN SYSTEM.

436Ibn Ar Rushd advocates Aristotelian system in general. The founder of the
437system the great Aritotle (Arastu/Artatalis) PROPOSED that there is a Eternal
438Being which is the prime unmoved mover.
439He tried to prove the Deity from from the motion of objects instead of
440creation of things.
441But Rushds system is so Atheistic that even this Unmoved Eternal Mover is
442Impossible in the Rushdian System.
443A,a) If a thing is static or stationary in Eternity, that is its motion is Not In
444Actuality in Eternity, but in Potentiality in Eternity, and its motion did come in
445actuality from the potentiality , at any given Non Eternal time , that is it did
446begin to move from Eternal Rest at Not Eternal Time

then the

447Agent that did move the thing i.e the Agent of the Act of Motion of the thing
448stated above Cannot be Eternal in Rushdian System. Since according to his
449system if the Agent of an Act(ion) is Eternal then the Action of the Agent is
450also Eternal; and If the Action of an Agent is Not Eternal then the Agent is
451Not Eternal in his System.
452A,a,1) From the above it is implied that if the Agent is Eternal then it implies
453that the act of moving the thing from Eternal rest is also Eternal, and this
454contradicts the supposition of the case that it was Eternally Not Moving.
455,a,2) If there is an Eternal Attribute Of Intention Of the Agent Between the
456Eternal Agent and the Non Eternal Action of the Agent then it requires a non
457ending infinite time from Eternity to the given Non Eternal Time

to

458Lapse .This is not possible in Rushdian system.

459A,b) If it is supposed that there was neither Potentiality of motion in Eternity
460no Actuality Of Motion in Eternity in the Eternally Static Existing Thing, then
461this implies that there was Eternal Impotentiality In Eternity of the Motion of
462the Thing in Eternity. Now this makes a further problem In the system of Ibn
463Ar Rushd. This means that after the lapse of Infinite endless time from the
464Eternity, first the Impotentiality of motion was changed some how into
465Potentiality of Motion and then the Potentiality of motion was changed into
41Page | 15
42

16
43
466actuality of motion. Also the question is if their was no potentiality of motion
467in Eternity , was there Potentiality of Potentiality in Eternity. This is an Ad
468Infinitum.
469
470,1) If the prime Mover moves the Eternal Object(s) directly at each distinct
471time since Eternity, such that No Motion at any distinct time is a
472consequence or an implication (or both) of any distinct motion prior to it,
473then each distinct motion of the object stated above, at each distinct NON
474ETERNAL TIME

475Non Eternal Time

is Not Eternal. Now any Non Eternal Motion

at any

there is an infinite endless time since Eternity

476is lapsed. A lapse of infinite Eternal time is impossible and

477Absurd.
478,2)It does requires a Non Eternal Intention of the Eternal Agent at each
479time, and this makes things worse in Rushdian system , where a single Not
480Eternal Intention of an Eternal Agent is an unsolvable problem, An Infinite
481series of distinct Non Eternal Intentions of the Eternal Agent is an infinitely
482greater unsolvable problem of Impossibility.
483Ibn Ar Rushds Fallacy.
484Although Ibn Ar Rushd admitted that his given proofs are neither Logically
485Certain Nor Logically Necessary, Yet he claimed that they are based
486upon{like }:487B,2,1) The knowledge of human beings {about them selves}as rational
488beings.
489But he made a fallacy by ignoring the differences between Natural Cases
490and Divine Case . Since the Divine Case does Implicate problems in his
491philosophical system but the former do not. Ibn Ar Rushd did admit that the
492Existence Of Deity is neither provable as a necessity of Deductive Logic nor
493as a certainty of the Deductive Logic.
494But the proofs/arguments in support of Deity are Not like The knowledge of human
495beings {about them selves}as rational beings.
496

44Page | 16
45

17
46
497B,2,2)The Principle Of Induction is also not applicable in the Divine Case,
498since in Natural case this principle does not imply problems in his system.
499But the proofs/arguments in support of Deity are Not like the Induction of natural cases.
500It may be once more stated as follow:-

Natural casesare not like Divine

502Case Since they DO NOT MAKE SUCH PROBLEMS IN HIS SYSTEM BUT THE
501

503ARGUMENTS/PROOFS OF DEITY do make such problems in his system. Thus if he says so this
504means that the invalidity of his system is directly implied by the very claims like the
505proofs/arguments are based on the Knowledge of human beings as rational beings or on the
506principle of induction etc.
507
508
509BOOKS OF DEVIANT IBN AR RUSHD
5101] Tahafa tut tahafah.
5112] Al Minhaj Al Adilah fi Aqaid al Millah.
512Work of supporter of the Devient.
513Ibn Rushds criticism of theological arguments for Exitence of GOD.
514By Dr. Ibrahim Y Najjar.
515
516BOOKS OF AHLUSSUNNAH
517SHARRAH AQAAID BY IMAM SAD UDDIN TAFTAZANI RAHMATULLAH
518ALAIH.
519NABRAS BY ALLAMAH ABDUL AZIZ PERHARVI AND NOTES BY ALLAMAH
520BARKHURDAR RAHMATULLAH ALAIHUMA
521SHARAH MUVAQQIF

47Page | 17
48

18
49
522FIQH AKBAR [ ASCRIBED TO IMAM ABU HANIFAH RAHMATULLAH ALAIH
523YET THIS ASCRIPTION IS DOUBT FUL YET THE ASCRIBED ARTICLES OF
524FAITH ARE CORRECT EVEN IF THE ASCRIPTION IS DOUBTFUL]
525SHARAH FIQH AL AKBAR[ ACBAR] BY MULLA ALI QARI RAHMATULLAH
526ALAIH
527AQAID TAH:AVI-YAH IMAM TAHAVI RAHMATULLAH ALAIH
528AQIDAH OF IMAM IBN ATTAIMIAH RAHMATULLAH ALAIH
529TAFSIR AL CABIR BY IMAM RAZI RH: AND HIS STUDENT SHAHABUDDIN
530AHMAD BIN KHALIL. RH:
531
532AL KHIALI ,ISAGHOJI ,SHARAH TAHZIB,QUTBI, MULLA JALAL, Sallam al
533Ulu:m etc.
534Note :1]The word DEITY is Used instead of the word GOD since this
535latter word is often misused by atheist and makes disgracing
536statements.2]
537DIVINE ESSENCE Is Identical to Deity NOT ONLY IN MAS:DA:Q BUT
538ALSO
539IN MAFHU:M. THUS ESSENCE OF DEITY IS THE SELF OF DEITY, THAT IS
540DEITY IS THE DIVINE ESSENCE [DIVINITY] AND DIVINE ESSENCE
541[DIVINITY] IS THE DEITY AND THAT IS THE INTRINSIC NECESSARY
542EXISTENT.
543
544A NUMBER OF ERRORS IN SPELLING MAY BE FOUND DUE TO TYPING
545PROBLEM. AS THIS IS A PROTO TYPE DOCUMENT. ALTHOUGH SLIGHTLY
546IMPROVED FROM THE FIRST PROTOTYPE ARTICLES IT IS STILL A
547PROTOPTYPE ARTICLE. YET IT IS SLIGHTLY IMPROVED WE DO
548APOLOGY FOR GRAMMATICAL[AS:S:ARF VAN NAH:V] AND SPELLING
549ERRORS. WE MAY GET RID OF THEM IN SOME ADVANCE VERSION OF
550THIS ARTICLE.

50Page | 18
51

19
52
551SUB HANALLAH VA BI HAMDIHI
552SUB HANALLAHIL AZIM
553TRANSLATION

SCHEME

554LONG A ----- AA OR A: [ as A in CAR]

555LONG I.... II OR I:

[as I in POLICE]

556LONG U....UU OR U: [AS U in RUDE]

557SHORT A.....A [as a in SUGAR or in GERMAN]
558SHORT I.....I [as I in THIS,SIT]
559SHORT U....U [as U in PUT].
560NO SIGN IS USED FOR J-ZM , AND TASH-DI:D. FOR TASH-DI:D
561CONSONENTS ARE WRITTEN TWICE EXAMPLE SATTAR AND ARE READ
562SEPERATELEY. EG SAT-TAR.SOME TIME MAY CONSIDE WITH J-ZM.
563
564NOTES:5651] THE EXAMPLES ARE THE BEST POSSIBLE APPROXIMATTIONS
5662]C IS

USED IN THE SOUND OF K. EG KALA:M OR CALA:M. BOTH ARE

567USED AS EXACT ALTERNATIVES.

568V IS USED IN SOUND OF W WHEN W IS A CONSONENT . EG WAU OR VAU
569.
570BOTH ARE USED AS EXACT ALTERNATIVES.
571
572DEFTHONGS
573AI, AU [Alternative forms AY,AW,AV]

53Page | 19
54

20
55
574If a sound begins with a vowel the sign or is used [H-MZAH]. IF IT IS
575MISSED THEN IT MAY BE SUPPOSED TO BE UNDERSTOOD.
576FOR guttural AIN OR IS USED BEFORE A VOWEL.
577Some times a short vowel is omitted and is replaced by << - >>SOME
578time this represent a syllable. Some time it is omitted in case of
579syllables.No unique method is used.
580CONSONENTS:
581B,T,
582S/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,
583Y/I
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592.
593
594
595
596
597conclusion
598 Ibn Ar Rushds system maketh it impossible and absurd that Any Non Eternal Thing is an
599Effect or an Action/Act OF Any Eternal (whether the eternal is Per Se subsistent or not), and
56Page | 20
57

21
58
600Any Eternal is a Cause or Agent of any Non Eternal, (whether the Eternal is Perse susbsistent
601or not).
602In delatil whether the Eternal is an
603Act(action/work),Attribute(Quality),Ousia(Essence/Substance/Persesubsistent
604one),Suppositum, Nature etc.
605Thus An Eternal cannot(what so ever) be cause of any Non Eternal (what so ever).
606Thus the system is Atheistic in its nature, and one who does accept this system
607Soon concludes that Atheism is the only conclusion of this system.
608How ever it is shewn in this work that his own arguments cannot by correct if his
609system is correct. And if his system his incorrect the then a number of arguments
610/proofs of Divine Existence may be correct, which Ibn Ar Rushd tried to refute in his
611Philosophical system.
612
613
614
615
616.
617
618

59Page | 21
60