IBN ARRUSHD REFUTED

8/11/2019 IBN ARRUSHD REFUTED

1/6

The Asharites maintain that the world is created and that it must "necessarily have a Maker who

created it."[13] Ibn Rushd objects to them, because they cannot answer the mode of the existence

of the Maker of the world whether He is eternal or created, yet they want to show that the worldis created in time, whereas God is eternal.[14] They cannot maintain that God is created, because

this would mean that He is in need of a creator, and this creator of another one, and the matter

would continue ad infinitum.

ASHARITES BELIEVE THAT EVERY CONTINGENT DEPENDS ON A

NECESSARY. AS THE UNIVERSE IS NOT A NECESSARY EXISTENT IT IS

NECESSARILY CONTINGENT AND IT NECESSACIRY DEPENDS ON A

NECESSARY EXISTENT. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROOFS

PRESENTED BY ASHARITES ANS MATURIDITES OF WHICH IBN

ARRUSHD PRESENTS ONLY ONE AS HE IS IGNORENT OF THE

OTHERS. THIS IS A FALLACY.

Nor can they maintain that God is eternal, because this would lead to an outcome opposite to theone advocated by the Asharites. If the Maker is eternal, then His actionsmust be eternal.

Consequently, the world that is produced by an act of God must be eternal.

IBN RUSHD HIMSELF IS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN WHETHER EACH AND

EVERY ACT OF THE DIVINE ETERNAL ESSENCE IS ETERNAL OR SOME

OF THEM ARE NOT ETERNAL. THERE IS NO IMPLICATION BETWEEN

THE ETERNITY OF DIVINE ETERNAL ESSENCE AND IN THE ALLEGED

ETERNITY OF DIVINE ACTS.

SO THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON IBN ARRUSHD AND NOT UPON

ASHARITES AND MATURIDITED.

ALSO IBN ARRUSHD DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE ETERNITY AND

DISTINCTION OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. IF HE CAN NOT BELIEVE IN

THE ETERNITY AND DISTINCTION OF ESSENTIAL DIVINE ATTIBUTES

HOW CAN HE BELIEVE IN THE ETERNITY OF DIVINE ACTS. THIS ONLY

MEANS THAT HE BELIEVED THAT EACH DIVINE ACT IS NOTHING BUT

A DIVINE ESSENCE .

HIS ARGUMENT IS AS INCORRECT AS TO CLAIM THAT IF THE

ETERNAL ESSENCE OF DEITY IS NECESSARY IN EXISTENCE THEN

EACH ACT OF THE ETERNAL ESSENCE IS ALSO NECESSARY IN

EXISTENCE.


2/6

The Asharites, argues Ibn Rushd, would reject this outcome by trying to refine their position,

claiming that God is eternal, but his actionsare created by an eternal will. However, this

maneuver would not help them, but rather entangles them in further difficulties from which theycannot extricate themselves.

THERE IS NO DIFFICULTY ACTUALLY THE DIFFCULTY IS IN THESYSTEM OF IBN ARUSHD HIMSELF.

The Asharites view that Gods created actions result from an eternal will is untenable, becausethe relationship between the will and the actions is a conditional one. "The will is the pre-

condition of the action, rather than the action itself."[15] Ibn Rushd argues that the will, which is

actual, exists alongside the act that produces the object. The action and the will are two

correlates. If "one of the two correlates existed in actuality, the other would have to exist inactuality as well, like father and son,

There is no such implication . This is an incorrect analogy. Even this

correlation is contingent and not necessary. Thus the non existence of

ncorrelation is possible.Yet as it is stated that eternity of Possible is

impossible the entire argument fails.

but if one of them existed potentially, the other would also

Once again ibn Arrushd did not provided a proof for thisso that it may

be commented. A proper response is that it is a proof less claim of IBN

ARRUSHD.

. Should the will that is actual be created, then the willed action must necessarily be created [inactuality].

It is as incorrect as to claim that if IF THERE IS JUST ONE ETERNAL

THEN THERE IS TOTAL IMPPOSSIBILITY OF NON ETERNALS , AND

THERE IS NO NT ETERNAL.

Furthermore, should the will, which is actual, be eternal, then what is willed, which is equally

actual, will be eternal."[16] The relation between the will and action is symmetrical and the

attribute that describes one must describe the other.

SUCH AN IMPLICATION DOES NOT EXIST BETWEEN ETERNAL

INTENTION AND WHAT IS INTENDED

If the action is created, the will that produced it must be created and vice versa.


3/6

Neither the claim If an ACTION is created THEN the INTENTION

which Produceth It Created has a proof Nor the Converse Can be

proved.This meaneth THAT Eternal Essence is NOT a Cause of any

Non Eternal. Deity is NOT a Creator of ANY thing.

THIS IS ASHARITES BELIEVE THAT EVERY CONTINGENT DEPENDS ON

A NECESSARY. AS THE UNIVERSE IS NOT A NECESSARY EXISTENT IT

IS NECESSARILY CONTINGENT AND IT NECESSACIRY DEPENDS ON A

NECESSARY EXISTENT. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROOFS

PRESENTED BY ASHARITES ANS MATURIDITES OF WHICH IBN

ARRUSHD PRESENTS ONLY ONE AS HE IS IGNORENT OF THE

OTHERS. THIS IS A FALLACY.

NOTHING BUT ATHEISM.

CONCEPT OF INTENTION IS MISUNDERSTOOD BY IBN AR RUSHD .IF THE ETERNAL

DIVINE INTENTION IS TO CREATE THE INIVERSE NOT ETERNALLY THEN THE

UNIVERSE IN NECESSARILY NOT ETERNAL. FURTHER THE ETERNITY OFPOSSIBLES IS IMPOSSIBLE. SO THERE IS NO LOGICAL PROBLEM. IF THE

POSSIBILITY OF A NON ETERNAL IS ETERNAL THEN IT ONLY MEANS THAT IT IS

ETERNALLY POSSIBLE TO MAKE A NON ETERNAL.SO SUCH A CONDITION IS

MISUNDERSTOOD. FIRST THAT ETERNITY OF A NON ETERNAL IS IMPOSSIBLEAND POSSIBILITY OF NON ETERNAL IS ETERNAL. THESE IN NO WAY IMPLY THAT

POSSIBILITY OF ETERNITY OF POSSIBLE IS ETERNAL.

SECOND CONDITION IS FOR POSSIBLES AND NOT FOR IMPOSSIBLE.

ALSO THERE IS NO MUTUAL CONTRADICTION BETWEEN ANY TWO OF THESTATED ABOVE. SO IBN ARRUSHD IS IN CORRECT ONCE AGAIN,

By supposing the existence of an eternal will, the Ash'arites still would be unable to explain how

the action can be created from an eternal pre-condition.

IBN ARRUSHD FAILS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A CONDITION AND

A CAUSE.

ETERNAL CONDITION IS NOT A CAUSE.Inability to explain a

Phenomenon or an Occurrance doeth not prove its Impossibility.


4/6

Furthermore, this supposition adds difficulties of its own.

ADDITION OR SUBSTRACTION OF DIFFICULTIES DOETH NOT PROVE

IMPOSSIBILITY OF A PROBLEM.

The eternal will must be related to what is created before and after its creation, that is, during the

endless time when the product did not exist yet.

Eternal Intention is related to what so ever is Intended but the Relation

is also NOT ETERNAL.

Time can not be Eternal since no part of Time is in ETERNITY. IF SOME

PART OF TIME IS IN ETERNITY THEN THERE IS NO TIME WHICH

CONNECTETH THE NON ETERNAL TIME AND THE ETERNAL TIME.

THUS AN INFINITE BARRIER BETWEEN ETERNAL TIMES AND NON

ETERNAL TIMES.SO THE ENTIRE IBN ARRUSHD ARGUMENT IS

ABOLUTELY WRONG AND INFINITELYFALLACIOUS.FURTHER IBN

ARRUSHD DID NOT DEFINE THE THERM TIME WHILE WRITING THIS

ARGUMENT. SO UNLESS AND OTHER WISE THE WORD TIME IS

DEFINED IN THE ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT IS USING A MEANING

LESS TERM. THIS IS A FALLACY.

From an Aristotelian perspective, when an object does not exist in actuality, it must exist inpotentiality.

IBN ARRUSHD DID NOT DEFINE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A

POTENTIALITY AND A POSSIBILITY. ACTUALLY A POTENTIALITY IS A

POSSIBILITY. IF A THING DOETH NOT EXIST IT IS EITHER POSSIBLE

OR IMPOSSIBLE. BUT IF A THING IS POSSIBLE IT IS NOT NECESSAY

THAT IT EXIST SINCE POSSIBILITY OF A POSSIBLE DOETH NOT

IMPLICATE THE EXISTENCE OF THAT POSSIBLE.

Accordingly, what is created must have been non-existent during an infinite period of timebefore coming into existence.

THIS IS ONLY CORRECT IF AN INFINITE TIME EXIST AND IS

NECESSARY IN EXISTENCE. BUT IF TIME DOETH NOT EXIST ALL THE

ARGUMENT BASED ON THE SUPPOSITION OF INFINE TIME BECOMES

INCORRECT AND WRONG.


5/6

From this Ibn Rushd concludes that the will "cannot be related to what is willed at the time in

which it necessitated its coming-to-be, except after a lapse of an endless time, and what has no

end, does not cease. Thus, what is willed must not become actual, unless an endless time haselapsed, which is an evident absurdity.BUT THERE IS NO INFINITE TIME. SO ALL THE

ARGUMENT IS INCORRECT.

"[17] The will precedes both the action and the willed object produced by it. However, when the

action takes place, a specific active element is required to account for it. This active element, Ibn

Rushd maintains, is an effort, azm,that occurs in the will in order to produce the action. For, ifsuch an extra state does not affect the willing agent at the time of action, the occurrence of the

action at that time will remain inexplicable.[18] The Asharites, however, would not accept this

implication, because it would introduce change to God and compromise His eternality.

THE EXISTENCE OF ETERNAL DIVINE INTENTION IS JUST A

NECESSARY CONDITION FOR THE OCCURRENCE OF A NON ETERNAL

POSSIBLE. BUT THERE IS ANOTHER CONDITION THAT IS A

SUFFICIENT CONDITION THAT THE ETERNAL ATTRIBUTE OF

INTENTION ETERNALLY AND INTRINSICALLY CHOOSETH THE NON

ETERNAL AT A GIVEN TIME . THERE IS NO ABSUDITY ,NO

IMPOSSIBILITY AND NO SURDITY AND NO SELF CONTRDICTION IN

THESE SUPPOSITIONS.

The outcome of Ibn Rushds criticisms of the Asharites supposition that what is created

necessarily requires an Agent is that it involves logical difficulties that not only the Asharite

theologians cannot answer, but the craft of dialectics itself cannot resolve adequately. Having

shown that the supposition that the world is necessarily created by God is untenable on theAsh'arites' premises, he argues that the ordinary people are not equipped to understand their

reasoning, which is also furthest from the methods used by the Scripture. When, for example theQuranrefers to God creating the world, it does not state whether He creates it with an eternalwill or a created one. DIFFICULTIES DOES NOT IMPLY UNSOLVABLITY. IT IS SHEWN

THAT IBN ARRUSHD IS INCORRECT. THEREARE CERTAIN THINGS WHICH ARE

FROM IJMA AND IBN ARRUSHD DOES NOT BELIEVE IN IT.

The Almighty says: Indeed, when We want a thing to be, We just say to it: "Be", and it comes to

be."[19] Religion approaches the understanding of the common people in a simple andstraightforward way. THAT IS WHAT ASHARITES AND MATURIDITES DO, THEY

UNDERSTAND QURAN AND HADIS AS THEY ARE.

It does not resort to complicated and abstruse arguments that they cannot understand.[20] Both

the ordinary people in the Muslim community and the philosophers are justified in rejecting the

Ash'arites' abstruse arguments for the existence of God.

THIS IS A FALSE COMPLEX STATEMENT .COMMON MEN ACCEPT ASHARITE

DOGMAS . ONLY STUNCH AND BLIND FOLLOWERS OF ARISTOTLE REJECTS THEMBY FALLACIES LIKE THAT OF IBN ARRUSHD


6/6

Documents

IBN ARRUSHD REFUTED