1

2
3
4

[Year]
[Type the company
name]

AHLUSSUNNAH WAL
JUAMAAH

[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.

Page | 2

2
A CRITIQUE OF PROOFS OF DIVINITY IN THE SYSTEM OF IBN AR RUSHD 5
UND-LUSI: 6
Ibn Ar Rushd{Averroaes} has made several arguments to shew that the PROOFS for the 7
Divine Existence presented by a number of Orthodox and Unorthodox sects in Islam are incorrect 8
and wrong. 9
How ever in this article , the arguments or proofs presented by Ibn Ar Rushd himself are examined 10
a, analysed, refuted as according to the INCONSISTENT philosophical system of the so called 11
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 a 13
believer in Deity. Either he is ignorant of the consequences of his system and arguments or he 14
deliberately do not mention them, but deliberately conceal them so that those who agree with him 15
in these may reach to the result i.e denial of the Existence Of Deity. In this work it is not tried to 16
refute Ibn Ar Rushds argument against proofs Asharites and Maturidites in Supprt of Divine 17
Existence. But it is attempted to prove that Arguments for Divine Existence presented by Ibn Ar 18
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 analyzed 20
his own arguments/proofs critically. This provided a chance to others to analyze his provided 21
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 to 24
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 A 26
DESIGN implieth a Designer , by using Ibn Ar Rushs argument of Induciveness. Designist like Ibn Ar 27
Rushd do not believe in the possibility of Co-incidence .On the other hand Evolutionists believe in 28
some what controlled Co-incidence. Whether this Theory of Rational Design or Intelligent Design is 29
correct or not , and whether it can give tough time to the theories of Evolutions or not, is not the 30
issue. The issue is that whether a Design whether Rational (Intelligent) or Not implies a Designer or 31
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 that 34
Conduciveness implies an Intending Agent, which is the Deity. But the system which he is using 35
does not and cannot accept this Implication. 36
The Argument 37
All Existing Things Exist for a Purpose. 38
All Existing Things are conducive to human beings. 39

Page | 3

3
This CONDUCIVENESS is related to a Rational Intending Existing Suppositum which is the Agent 40
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 is 46
made in this form by some one who is an intelligent / rational Intending Agent. But if the person 47
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 the 51
Attribute of the first . 52
In other words A THING IS CONDUCIVE TO ANOTHER THING IF AND ONLY IF 53
CONDUCIVENESS TO THE LATTER THING IS THE ATTRIBUTE OF THE 54
FIRST THING . 55
This proves that if any one of the two cease to exist this conduciveness stated above also ceases 56
exist. 57
Ibn Ar Rushd thinks that a minimum change in the prime Conduciveness implies the perfect 58
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 and 61
Unorthodox systems of Islam. 62
If he had done so he would have found that his own system of arguments makes this argument 63
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 in 66
them. 67
COMMENT: 68

Page | 4

4
In this article it is attempted to prove that this ALLEGED and SO CALLED proof is inconsistent to his 69
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 if 73
a Body B is moving from point A to point C in nature SAY EVENT E1 then it is Immpossible in 74
Rushdian system that it moves from C to A say event E. The reason for the 75
ABSURDITY/IMPOSSIBILITY of the event is as follow:- 76
If Event E2 occurs then it implies the Annihilation of Divine Wisdom. Annihilation Of Divine 77
Wisdom is Impossible. One that implies an Impossible is itself Impossible. Therefore event E2 is 78
Impossible. 79
Now if event two is Impossible it is impossible to be in Divine Power since Divine Power is Over 80
Possibilities ONLY 81
IF a thing is Not in Divine Power and is IMPOSSIBLE to be In Divine Power then It is also 82
Impossible to be Intended[Willed]by Divine Intention[Will]. On similar reasoning it can be proved 83
that in the Rushdian system the Non Occurance of Event E1 is also imposible. Suppose that the 84
Event E1 did occur at time .At time its Non Occurrence was Impossible There fore it was 85
Impossible to be in Divine Power and Impossible to be Intended by Deity at time . . 86
SINCE the Non Occurance of Event E1 implies the Annihilation of the Divine Wisdom 87
, 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 to 89
Not to do E1 by Divine Intention (Will). 90
Now if Deity has no alternative to choose , and the Deity cannot NOT DO an act 91
then there is no Divine Intention and no Divine Will.(Deity CEASETH to be a Free 92
Agent, which implieth that Deity Ceaseth to be the Absolute Free Agent with an 93
Absolute Free Intention /Will. Also Deity Ceaseth to be an Omnipotent Agent.) The act of doing E1 is 94
therefore certainly not a Voluntary act of Deity. If not a voluntary act then an 95
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 system 98
but it is incorrect since Ibn Ar Rushd is unable to explain or to define the meaning of Divine 99
Intention/Will. What sort of will/intention is in the mind of Ibn Ar Rushd if the Per se Subsistent 100
Suppositum to which the Intention/Will is ascribed has no alternative to choose , not even the Suppositum 101
is sufficiently free for not to do . This Implies that Deity is an Intention-less[Will-less] Existing 102
Suppositum, and the event E1 is occurred with out being intended and with out being willed.This implies 103

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 Act 105
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 particular 107
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 destroy 109
his own arguments. Analyzation and refutation of Arguments coined by Ibn Ar Rushd against the proofs 110
of Imam Al

is beyond the scope of present discussion.It may amuse a number of Atheists that 111
alleged arguments made by Ibn Ar Rushd against Imam Al

R.

can be used against Ibn Ar 112

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 may 115
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 se 118
Subsistent Suppositum THEN this Conduciveness cannot be a Voluntary Act/Action Of the Stated 119
above Suppositum irrespective of the cases whether the Suppositum possesses the Attribute of 120
Intention or Not, Since the Ousia is unvoluntarily Necessary.This does reduce the whole problem to 121
Aristotelian Cause and Effect Problem ,where the cause is with out any Will or Intention. In this 122
case Independent of the Intention (Will) of the Supposition , if The Suppositum Doeth Have Any.In 123
this case the Rushdian Argument is unsound and invalid in his own system of philosophy. It fails to 124
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 Agent 127
MAKES the Rushdian Argument Invalid in his own system of Philosophy. There is no Impossibility 128
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 argument 130
fails, OR it is with an Attribute of Intention. In the latter case there are two possible cases. Either the 131
Act(ion) of Conduciveness is Independent of the stated above Attribute (Quality) or Not . If it is then 132
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 is 135
some once who can conceive the idea of a non per se subsistent agent can also be refuted. 136
137

Page | 6

6
If this action (of conduciveness ) is ascribed to the Intention of this Agent, and this Intention of 138
Agent Is An Attribute Of This Agent , THEN This Conduciveness is an Action Of the Attribute Of the 139
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 Agent and the Intention each one of the two, is Not Eternal ,then Ibn Ar Rushd is entangled in 148
further problems and difficulties. )The Agent cannot be the Deity since Even Rushd believed 149
Deity to be Eternal . If this Agent is not Deity then the proof becomes invalid.Since Ibn Ar Rushd did 150
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 Existence 152
by another Agent truly distinct from it. If it is the former case the argument /proof becomes in-valid 153
,since if it is accepted that it is Possible for a thing to come in Existence from nothingness , it is self 154
brought in existence from non existence , and is Not Eternal, then there is no need of a Deity, who is 155
supposed to bring things into existence from nothingness. If it is the latter case then a series of 156
Agents each one distinct from the other is implied in the backward direction. This is an infinite 157
series ,which continues infinitely and is ad infinitum. So Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that the 158
Agent of Conduciveness is Not Eternal. So Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain each one of the two. 159
Hence 160
Thus this case cannot prove Deity. Hence the case Agent and Intention Both are Non Eternal 161
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

Page | 7

7
If the Agent and its Intention both are Eternal then the Thing Intended is Also Eternal as according to Rushdian 169
system, But The Intended One id est Conduciveness cannot be Eternal. 170
FOR DETAILS SEE:- 171
If Ibn Ar Rushd maintains that each one of the two i.e Agent of this Conduciveness and the Intention 172
of the Agent is Eternal then this implies according to his own system of philosophy that The 173
Intention of the Agent and the Intended One i.e this Conduciveness is Eternal ,since in this case it is 174
an Act(ion) of the Agent , and in his system if an Agent is Eternal then its Act or Action is also 175
ETERNAL.This implies that the OBJECT Of the Action is Also Eternal. It must be noted that AN 176
ACTION IS A CORRLATION BETWEEN THE AGENT OR ATTRIBUTE OF AGENT AND THE 177
OBJECT OF THE ACTION. But this is incorrect. Since CONDUCTIVENESS Of All Things To 178
Human Beings Cannot Be Eternal . It shall be shewn latter that why it cannot 179
be so. 180
---------{1} 181
(See {2}) 182
A,3,1,2,1) 183
How ever if it is accepted that ,< stated above Conduciveness is Eternal > ,then it may be the case that 184
it is with out a cause or in is an Effect independent of the will of its Cause. In any case this proof / argument of Ibn 185
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 or 187
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 Impossibility of each one of the following before arguing in support of a Per se 189
subsistent agent Attributed with the Attribute of Intention/Will. 190
Ibn Ar Rushd had to prove Each one of the following:- a) An 191
Intentionless Eternal Cause of Conduciveness is 192
Impossible. 193
b) If a cause is Attributed by the Attribute of intention then 194
it is Impossible that any thing is an Effect of It 195
Independent of This Eternal Intention . 196

Page | 8

8
C)It is Impossible that this Conduciveness is Eternal 197
Without a cause. 198
If any one of the above is not proved in his system the case 199
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 Not 203
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 the 206
Act(ion) Of An Agent. There fore The AGENT Cannot be Eternal. But Ibn Ar Rushd 207
Cannot maintain that this Agent is Non Eternal. Since in this case the Agent must 208
require an other Agent and this is Ad Infinitum. 209
Second:-An Other Problem is that This Conduciveness Which is a Correlation 210
between All THINGS AND Human Beings is an Action/Act of an Agent WHICH 211
CANNOT BE AN ETERNAL agent OF THIS ACT(ION) WHICH IS NOT ETERNAL ,as 212
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 impossible 218
Since this implies an Attribute With Out Any Per Se Subsistent Essence to which it is ascribed. This Implies that 219
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

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 correlation is not between all things and 238
human beings but either between all things and materials of human being or 239
materials of all things and materials of human beings. In either case the material are 240
eternal but the thing and beings constituted from them are not. So the correlation 241
may be Eternal even Human beings are not . Similarly all things which do exist may 242
not be eternal yet their materials are eternal. In general the entire Cosmos is not 243
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 the 246
Matter form which Human Beings are Constituted, nor between the Matter form 247
which All things are constituted and the Matter from which Human Beings are 248
constituted. The Correlation is between ALL THINGS and Human Beings. If atleast One 249
of the two Correlates /Correlatants is Non Eternal, the Correlation is Not Eternal, and 250
the other one of the two is also Non Eternal. But there are further problems to this 251
answer. The Question is how it the Non Eternal Beings were made or created from 252
Eternal Beings (Eternal Matters). 253

Page | 10

10
Since this means that the Eternal Beings Must Necessarily have remained as the were in Eternity for 254
an infinite period of time , whether these beings (Eternal Matters) were Eternally Existing 255
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 the 258
constitution 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 Deity 261
is Not Eternal. 262
B)Ibn Ar Rushd Cannot use the concept of Divine Intention (Will) since according to his SCHEMA or 263
System Divine Intention (Will) is Not An Essential Attribute Of the Essence (Ousia/Per se Subsistent 264
One) Of Deity (As Power, Knowledge,Life Speech are Essential Attributes), but a Correlation which 265
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 Does 267
not cease. So the Divine Intention cannot choose the act of Constitution after an infinite period since 268
Eternity. Thus Divine Intention Cannot be responsible for the constitution of the Not Eternal Beings 269
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 Non 271
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 but 273
unorthodox sects like Mut-z-las also it reject equally. Only Caramites (modified Hashvites) and 274
Extreme Hasvites hold this strange view. But Ibn Ar Rushd if agrees with Orthodox sects faces a 275
problem , since he attempts to criticize them since they reject this dogma, if agrees with Caramites 276
faces an other problem. Since Philosophers hold that Deity or cause of all causes is Immutable and 277
Unchangeable . Also in this case Ibn Ar Rushd must have to face the Absurdity /Impossibility Of Ad 278
Infinitum. Since the question is what is the cause of this alleged Mutation in the Per Se Subsistent 279
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 Abiogenesis 282
It is based on the alleged observation of life issuing from Non Living Matterials , leading us to Know for 283
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 Ar 285
Rushd himself. 286
Ibn Ar Rushd maintains that life ( on earth) is produced and provided , and that it Must Necessary 287
Have A Producer and A Provider. 288

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 or 290
Provided or Both. 291
Since this would imply that this Producer or Provider or Both does require another Producer or 292
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 since 294
If the Producer or Provider or One That Is Both (A PRODUCER AND A PROVIDER) is Eternal then the 295
actions / acts of this Eternal Producer or Provider (or Both) Must be Eternal as according to his own 296
system. Consequently the Life which is either produced (from Non Living Things) or is provided (to Non 297
Living Things) must be Eternal. 298
This is impossible since the appearance or production or providence or provision of life, all of them are 299
Non Eternal. 300
Thus his own argument fails in his own system. 301
2,a,b) Ibn Ar Rushd cannot maintain that <<Neither this Producer or Provider (or Both) is Himself (Itself) 302
Produces or Provided (or Both) Nor Ibn Ar Rushd this Producer or Provider or One That is Both, is 303
Eternal>>. 304
Since one that is neither produced nor provided is either Eternal or nor Eternal. If Eternal thin this 305
contradicts this case. Hence is incorrect. If Non eternal and neither produced nor provided, then it 306
means either it comes in existence with out a producer and with out a provider. This implies that 307
Existence of Deity is not only Not Eternal but also a co-incidence. But Co-incidence in his system is 308
absolutely impossible. Had it been relatively impossible in his system there would have been a 309
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 Divine 315
Attribute (Like Divine Life, Divine Omniscience,Divine Omnipotence), Ibn Ar Rushd thinks that Divine 316
Intention is a Correlation. 317
If it is a Correlation then :- 318
The intention is Eternal and Actual IF AND ONLY IF the thing which is intended is also Eternal and 319
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

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, and 324
Not Emerged during an INFINITE period of time from Eternity to the time of its production,provision 325
or emergence or all.In Rushdian system this is Impossible and Absurd . Since in his system the Divine 326
Intention cannot be related to one that is intended (i.e life mensioned above) in whih it necessitate its 327
outcomming /production/provision etc. after an Infinite endless time, and what has no end neither can 328
cease nor does cease.Therefore if life is Intended ,it must not become actual from possible or potential 329
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 inclination 332
of the Divine Intention (to each one of them) itself. When this Inclination (which is an Act(ion) of 333
Intention/Will) occurs, this requires a mutation or a change in the Said Intention. According to the 334
Rushdian system if the Divine Intention (Will) is not inclined to anything and then it does inclines to 335
Something then there must be some change or mutation in the said Intention. If there is neither any 336
change nor any mutation in the Divine Intention/Will then it does continue to be not-inclined .Since 337
An Intention inclines from not-inclined state IF AND ONLY IF there is some Change or Mutation IN THE 338
Intention. 339
But if the said Intention is Eternal then their canbe no change in Eternal Intention unless 340
and otherwise there is either a change or a mutation in the Ousia Of the Suppositum of 341
Deity. 342
A change or a mutation ( OR BOTH) occurs in the Ousia Of Deity if an only if a change or a 343
mutation (OR BOTH) is (are) POSSIBLE in the Divine Ousia (Ousia Of Deity) . But it is Impossible to 344
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 THEN 346
This implies THAT a change or a mutation (or both) is(are) also possible in the ( Ousia Of) Deity since 347
any change in this Intention is an effect of a change in the Ousia [Essence/Substance/Subsistence] of the 348
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 act 351
requires an agent. Once again an infinite number of agents each one prior to the next one in 352
backword 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 was 354
since eternity then according to Rushdian system it cannot incline to any thing as it was un-inclined in 355
Eternity, unless and otherwise there is a change or a mutation (or both) in the said Intention. The 356
consequence is the non production ,non emergence etc. of said life unless and otherwise there is a 357
change or a mutation ( or both). 358

Page | 13

13
It is clear that Ibn Ar Rushds system of Philosophy is purely Atheistic and no argument in support of 359
Deity is Valid in his system, even his own arguments are invalid in his system. It is a very strong 360
probability that he did knew it, and this does makes suspicions whether he really believed in Divine 361
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 this 365
planet began by an Abiogenesis process what so ever, this process is not seen by any human being who 366
so ever he may be. Since life appeared prior to human life on earth. So the knowledge of Abiogenesis is 367
different from the knowledge of Biogenesis and Reproduction of life from human beings. Yet he 368
considers knowledge of both of them equal and similar, where as they are neither of the two. As the 369
appearance of life from Non Living thing is never observed , he is certainly in error when he claims that 370
life or living things or both appears from non living things or dead things or both. So his argument is 371
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 , is 374
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 word 377
planet with out disturbing the validity of above arguments.) . 378
PRIME MOVER OF ARISTITELIAN SYSTEM AND 379
ITS IMPOSSIBILITY IN RUSHDIAN SYSTEM. 380
Ibn Ar Rushd advocates Aristotelian system in general. The founder of the 381
system the great Aritotle (Arastu/Artatalis) PROPOSED that there is a 382
Eternal Being which is the prime unmoved mover. 383
He tried to prove the Deity from from the motion of objects instead of 384
creation of things. 385
But Rushds system is so Atheistic that even this Unmoved Eternal Mover is 386
Impossible in the Rushdian System. 387
A,a) If a thing is static or stationary in Eternity, that is its motion is Not In 388
Actuality in Eternity, but in Potentiality in Eternity, and its motion did 389
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 the 391

Page | 14

14
Agent that did move the thing i.e the Agent of the Act of Motion of the thing 392
stated above Cannot be Eternal in Rushdian System. Since according to his system if 393
the Agent of an Act(ion) is Eternal then the Action of the Agent is also Eternal; and If 394
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 the 396
act of moving the thing from Eternal rest is also Eternal, and this contradicts the 397
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 the 399
Eternal Agent and the Non Eternal Action of the Agent then it requires a 400
non ending infinite time from Eternity to the given Non Eternal Time to 401
Lapse .This is not possible in Rushdian system. 402
A,b) If it is supposed that there was neither Potentiality of motion in 403
Eternity no Actuality Of Motion in Eternity in the Eternally Static Existing 404
Thing, then this implies that there was Eternal Impotentiality In Eternity of 405
the Motion of the Thing in Eternity. Now this makes a further problem In 406
the system of Ibn Ar Rushd. This means that after the lapse of Infinite 407
endless time from the Eternity, first the Impotentiality of motion was 408
changed some how into Potentiality of Motion and then the Potentiality of 409
motion was changed into actuality of motion. Also the question is if their 410
was no potentiality of motion in Eternity , was there Potentiality of 411
Potentiality in Eternity. This is an Ad Infinitum. 412
413
,1) If the prime Mover moves the Eternal Object(s) directly at each distinct 414
time since Eternity, such that No Motion at any distinct time is a 415
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 NON 417
ETERNAL TIME is Not Eternal. Now any Non Eternal Motion

at any 418
Non Eternal Time , there is an infinite endless time since Eternity is 419
lapsed. A lapse of infinite Eternal time is impossible and Absurd. 420
,2)It does requires a Non Eternal Intention of the Eternal Agent at each 421
time, and this makes things worse in Rushdian system , where a single Not 422
Eternal Intention of an Eternal Agent is an unsolvable problem, An Infinite 423
series of distinct Non Eternal Intentions of the Eternal Agent is an infinitely 424
greater unsolvable problem of Impossibility. 425
Ibn Ar Rushds Fallacy. 426

Page | 15

15
Although Ibn Ar Rushd admitted that his given proofs are neither Logically 427
Certain Nor Logically Necessary, Yet he claimed that they are based 428
upon{like }:- 429
B,2,1) The knowledge of human beings {about them selves}as rational 430
beings. 431
But he made a fallacy by ignoring the differences between Natural Cases and 432
Divine Case . Since the Divine Case does Implicate problems in his 433
philosophical system but the former do not. Ibn Ar Rushd did admit that the 434
Existence Of Deity is neither provable as a necessity of Deductive Logic nor 435
as a certainty of the Deductive Logic. 436
But the proofs/arguments in support of Deity are Not like The knowledge of human 437
beings {about them selves}as rational beings. 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 Divine Case 444
Since they DO NOT MAKE SUCH PROBLEMS IN HIS SYSTEM BUT THE 445
ARGUMENTS/PROOFS OF DEITY do make such problems in his system. Thus if he says so 446
this means that the invalidity of his system is directly implied by the very claims like the 447
proofs/arguments are based on the Knowledge of human beings as rational beings or on the 448
principle of induction etc. 449
450
451
BOOKS OF DEVIANT IBN AR RUSHD 452
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

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 ALLAMAH 461
BARKHURDAR RAHMATULLAH ALAIHUMA 462
SHARAH MUVAQQIF 463
FIQH AKBAR [ ASCRIBED TO IMAM ABU HANIFAH RAHMATULLAH ALAIH YET 464
THIS ASCRIPTION IS DOUBT FUL YET THE ASCRIBED ARTICLES OF FAITH 465
ARE CORRECT EVEN IF THE ASCRIPTION IS DOUBTFUL] 466
SHARAH FIQH AL AKBAR[ ACBAR] BY MULLA ALI QARI RAHMATULLAH 467
ALAIH 468
AQAID TAH:AVI-YAH IMAM TAHAVI RAHMATULLAH ALAIH 469
AQIDAH OF IMAM IBN ATTAIMIAH RAHMATULLAH ALAIH 470
TAFSIR AL CABIR BY IMAM RAZI RH: AND HIS STUDENT SHAHABUDDIN 471
AHMAD BIN KHALIL. RH: 472
473
AL KHIALI ,ISAGHOJI ,SHARAH TAHZIB,QUTBI, MULLA JALAL, Sallam al Ulu:m 474
etc. 475
Note :1]The word DEITY is Used instead of the word GOD since this latter 476
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 ALSO 478
IN MAFHU:M. THUS ESSENCE OF DEITY IS THE SELF OF DEITY, THAT IS 479
DEITY IS THE DIVINE ESSENCE [DIVINITY] AND DIVINE ESSENCE [DIVINITY] 480
IS THE DEITY AND THAT IS THE INTRINSIC NECESSARY EXISTENT. 481
482

Page | 17

17
A NUMBER OF ERRORS IN SPELLING MAY BE FOUND DUE TO TYPING 483
PROBLEM. AS THIS IS A PROTO TYPE DOCUMENT. ALTHOUGH SLIGHTLY 484
IMPROVED FROM THE FIRST PROTOTYPE ARTICLES IT IS STILL A 485
PROTOPTYPE ARTICLE. YET IT IS SLIGHTLY IMPROVED WE DO APOLOGY 486
FOR GRAMMATICAL[AS:S:ARF VAN NAH:V] AND SPELLING ERRORS. WE 487
MAY GET RID OF THEM IN SOME ADVANCE VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE. 488
SUB HANALLAH VA BI HAMDIHI 489
SUB HANALLAHIL AZIM 490
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 CONSONENTS 498
ARE WRITTEN TWICE EXAMPLE SATTAR AND ARE READ SEPERATELEY. EG 499
SAT-TAR.SOME TIME MAY CONSIDE WITH J-ZM. 500
501
NOTES:- 502
1] THE EXAMPLES ARE THE BEST POSSIBLE APPROXIMATTIONS 503
2]C IS USED IN THE SOUND OF K. EG KALA:M OR CALA:M. BOTH ARE USED AS EXACT 504
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

Page | 18

18
DEFTHONGS 509
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 IT 511
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 time 514
this represent a syllable. Some time it is omitted in case of syllables.No 515
unique method is used. 516
CONSONENTS: 517
B,T, 518
S/TH,J,H:,KH,D,DH/Z,R,Z,S,SH,S:,D:/Z:,T:,Z:,,GH,F,Q,C/K,L,M,N,H,V/W/U,Y/I 519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
. 528
529
530
531
532
conclusion 533

Page | 19

19
Ibn Ar Rushds system maketh it impossible and absurd that Any Non Eternal Thing is an Effect or an 534
Action/Act OF Any Eternal (whether the eternal is Per Se subsistent or not), and Any Eternal is a Cause or 535
Agent of any Non Eternal, (whether the Eternal is Perse susbsistent or not). 536
In delatil whether the Eternal is an 537
Act(action/work),Attribute(Quality),Ousia(Essence/Substance/Persesubsistent one),Suppositum, Nature 538
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 system 541
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 be 544
correct, which Ibn Ar Rushd tried to refute in his Philosophical system. 545
546
547
548
549
. 550
551
552