Isagog

The word Khulf means to Deviation from a Promise or an announcement of Punishment or

violation of them. .
An act of Forgiving is an ACT/EVENT included in Acts/Events of Kindness and Generiosity (k-r-
m).
It is very obvious that an Act of Forgiving is NOT an Act of Punishment rather it is some thing
contrary to the act of Punishment.
As the act of Forgiving is Generiosity and kindness IT IS GOOD and certainly not bad.
BUT G-D has given Statements that the disbelievers Shall be punished.G-D HAS ANNOUNCED
PUNISHMENTS TO THOSE HOW COMMIT CERTAIN TRANSGRESSIONS AND SINS AGAINT
his Laws (SH-R-') even if they are Believers.
Ahlusunnah wal Jamaah believe that the Disbelievers shall never be Forgiven (by G-D) BUT
some of the believers (Not All) shall be forgiven of there Great Transgressions.
The following are the Fundamental believes.
a)Both of these types of Forgivings are Self Possible [Self Contigent/Possible In Itself].
b)Each Types of forgiving is in the Divine Omnipotence of the Omnipotent G-D.
c)Both types of forgivings are acts of Kindness and Generiosity.
d)The First type of Act of Forgiving Does Imply Falshood in the Divine Announcement of
Punishment (W-'-I-D)
Hence it is Absurd With Seperate [ ABSURD NOT IN ITSELF/EXTRINSICALLY ABSURD/
EXTERNALLY SURD et cetera].
e) The second type of Forgivings Does Not Imply Falsehood in Announcements of punishements
and are OCCURANCIALLY POSSIBLE AND SELF POSSIBLE.
The Dispute over Khulf VIOLATION /DEVIATION.
A number of Asharites termed both types of Forgivings as Kulf 'Al Wa'i:s [violation of
announcement ]
whether the act of forgiving DOES IMPLY the falsehood in the Announcement or DOES NOT
IMPLY falsehood in the Announcement of punishment.
B ut majority of Ahlussunnah Wal Jamaah id est Maturidies,Salafis,Hanabalah, and Researchers
in Asharites DID NOT use the term Violation of Announcement of Punishment for the second
case and restricted the this term for the first case of the Forgiving.
MUTAZILITE PROBLEM:
Mu'tazilah however considered each case as a subcase of Khulf 'al Wa'i:d,and considerd THAT
each case IMPLY
FALSEHOOD in ANNOUNCEMENT OF PUNISHMENT.
tHEY ARGUED THAT AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF PUNISHMENT IS A STATEMENT ,and the act
of Forgiving in each of the two cases implies Falsehood in Divine Statements ,SINCE An
Announcement of Punishment Is Nothing But A Statement
and a Divine Announcement is a Divine Statement.
tHEY DICLAIRED THAT Falsehood is a defect a and G-D never do an act of defect.
They concluded that G-D SHALL NEVER FORGIVE ANY BELIEVER TRANSGRESSES against
His Great Laws and G-D SHALL NEVER FORGIVE A DISBELIEVER.
SINCE; To Forgive Such A Person (WHETHER HE OR SHE BELONGS TO THE FIRST CASE
OR THE SECOND CASE)
imploies falsehoods in Divine Statements and Falsehood is a defect or a bad thing (Qbih
lidhatihi).
All the subsects orf Sinnis inspite of there internal differences rejected Mu'tazilite Argument.
The first Sunni group replied that Khulf AlWa'i:d is Not a defect but an act of K-R-M (act of
kindness/generiosity) which is obviosly GOOD.
How ever the answer was not complete and a number of doubts and objections could be raised
against this answer.
Although it does refute Mu'tazilah's argument,it is just a negative argument.A act of Kindness can
not cease to be good
just because it is Absurd with seperate [surd with seperate/ externally absurd/extrisically Absurd /
Absurd not in itself).
As Mutazilah attemted to prove the OCCURANCIAL ABSURDITY (AND SOME OF THEM EVEN
EXCLUDED IT FROM DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE) JUST BECAUSE IT IMPLIES DEFECTS IN
DIVINE STATEMENTS
(as according to them).
By rejecting their first primies i.e by the method of contradiction it was said.'''''' It is not a defect''''.
In the syllogism we see the problem which a Mu'tazili faced.
Forgiving is a defect
Defect is not done.
Forgiving is not done.
If some one reject the minor premise by saying Forgiving is not a defect the wholle argument falls
down..
Opposition of this view from Other Sunnite Circles.
A number of ASHARITES,all the Maturidites,and other sinni minorities opposed these Asharites
to some extent.
They boundd Khulf to the first case and rejected to call the second case as Khulf [violation]
According to them Khulf must imply falsehood other wise it is not a khulf.So according to them the
second case is not a subcase of KHULF 'AL WA'I:D.Imam Ra:zI: criticised those Aharites strongly
who included this case in Khulf.
But latter the Excogitaters AND RESEARCHERS PROVED THAT the dispute b/w this subsect of
Asharites and the rest of Ahlussunnah inccludung an number of Asharite scholers is Essentially a
VERBAL DISPUTE.At most few insignificant and minor differences may be pointed out but they
are infinitestimal.To discuss them is to estrope.
This is the background of the problem of khulf.
In brief it can be summed up as follow:
1]G-D has OMNIPOTENCE to forgive both a) a disbeliever b) acurrupt believer who commits
Grreat Transgressions.
2]Each one of the two types of forgiving is SELF POSSIBLE [SELF CONTIGENT].
3]Both of the types are included in Act of Kindness and Generiosity.
4]The first type does imply Falsehood in Divine statements there fore this type is ABSURD WITH
SEPERATE [MUHA:L BIL GHAIR} or extrinsically Absurd.
5]The second type does not imply Falsehood in Divine statements there fore this type is
OCCURANCIALLY POSSIBLE [MUMKIN 'ALW-QU:'].
RELATION OF THE FIRST CASE OF KHULF AND KIDHB.
A number of Denouncers of Self Possibility of Falsehood in Divine Statements opined that the
first case is Rationally Absurd Which they considerd as Self Absurd [MUHA:L BIDH DHA:T].
But an other number of them accepted that it is Muha:l Bil Ghair.
It CERTAIN THAT the first case Does Imply Falsehood in Divine Statements.
It was argued that:
G-D HAS OMNIPOTENCE TO FORGIVE A DISBELIEVER [say Mushrik] ,and to Punish Sinless
Believers {say infallables ,innocents,saints et cetera] ,And this Does Imply their Respective Self
Possibilities,and these Self Possible Events/acts
Do Imply Falsehood In Divine Statements.
If A implies B then B is Generally Self Possible if A is Self Possible.
In responce to the above Argument the second group of the denouncers of Self Possibility
claimed that this is NOT an Intrinsic Implication but an Extrisic Implication ,so the Argument of
Denouncers of Self Absurdity is Incorrect and Wrong.
The Believers in the Self Possibility of Falsehood in Divine Statement pointed out that it is
an INTRINSIC IMPLICATION
[SELF IMPLICATION].So the dispute was shifted to a more Fandamental dispute about the
nature of Implication in the First Cases of Forgiving.
It is beyond the scope of the present article to discuss the nature of Implication.
But the following points must be noted:-
1]Forgiving is a Good Act whether in does imply Falsehood in Divine Statements or It Does not
imply Falsehood in Divine Statements.
2]Forgiving is an act of Kindness and Generiosity whether it is ABSURD WITH SEPERATE IN
SOME CASES AND OCCURANCIALLY POSSIBLE IN SOME CASES.
3]KINDNESS UPON DISBELIEVES IS A KIND OF KINDNESS ,AND OBVIOUSLY NOT A CASE
OF PUNISHMENT,EVEN IF IT IS ABSURD WITH SEPERATE.
4]If an ACT of Kindness implies a Falsehood in Divine Statements, it Does not become Bad or
imperfect.It does continue to be what so ever it is,and does not Cease to be GOOD if it does
imply falshood in Divine Statements.
Alligation Of The Auther of Subha:n As Subbu:h:
The Author of BARA:HI: AL Q:TI''AH argued in favour of Self Possibility of Falsehood from a
quatation of Radd Al Mukhta:r.
H-LL YJ-Z FY 'LW''-D F-Z:H-R M- FY 'AL MWQF W-L M-Q-S-D 'N 'AL A-SH-'R-H Q-'L-L-WN
Y-J-A:Z-H- L--NH- L- Y--D- N-QS-A B-L JWD AW K-R-M-[AN].The Auther Argued tht the
dogma of Self Possibility is a Corrolory of the dogma of Khulf.
THIS shew that Asharites included Kulf in Act of Kindness and believed in its possibility.
The auther of the Subhaan Assubbu:h argued that this expression is about the second kind of
Khulf and not about the first kind of Khulf,and the possibility intended is NOT the SELF
POSSIBILITY but Riligious Possibility.
So this is incorrect to argue from this expression.
But instead of considering it as an Interpellation the auther of Subha
;n Assubbu:h crossed the limits and begain to allege that it is tentamount to allege that G-D
PRACTICE THE FIRST CASE.
a DETAILED TRANSLATION OF SUBHA:N Assubbu:h shall 'INSHA:': 'ALL-H BE GIVEN SOON,
AS AN EVEDENCE .
But right npow the following quotations from Subha:n'AS Subbu:h are given as follow:
1]''''They say violation is Permitable in a meaning, inwhichthey Not Only Believeit
Permitable [possible] but certaining Occuring(in future) ,So it is certainly implied in your
devilic Alligation that the leaders of religion believed in the Falsehood Of Divinity occuring
and existing with Actualization.''''
pg 260,10th proof,Subha:ASSUBBU:H Fatawa Radviah vol.6 {Amjadiah edition }.
2]Deviation /Violation in saying,And Falsehood/Falsification of Stratement of Statement
[kh-b-r]
upon the possibility of which,the possibility of Falsehood can be a Corrolorized was not
intended [by those learned leaders],pg 261
These two quotations are Sufficient above to shew thatto what extent a person can go.The
said auther could simply make a simple objection as follow:
''''''''It is incorrect to assume that this expression is about the Violation which implies
falsehood,but it is about theviolation that does not imply falsehood.So the argument is
incorrect.''''''
But the auther did not do that which might be a rational way to make an objection.
The auther went one step further when he alleged that Maulana: Rashi:d JunJuhi [R.H]
believed that G-D SPEAKS LIES.But at the time Subha:n ASibbu:h was writen The Auther had
not gone to this extent.
It was only latter when the auther who first alleged the invalid implication to lie
practically,upgraded his allegation of believing in it instead of an implication.Any how this is a
seperate issue.
Turning back to the point ismay be pointed out that the satement of Arrad AlMukhta:r has a
number of interpretations.
There are four different interpretations of th Sentence OF Arrad 'AlmM-kht--r.
a]This sentence is about the first case of the Khulf.
b]This sentence is about the second case of Khulf.
c]This sentence is a general case of Khulf,which may be called the third case for convinience.
d]The definitation of the case is UNCERTAIN,and no thing can be said with certainity and
certitude.
The author of AL BARAHI:N AL QA
;TI''AH is either considering it as the first case or the third case.
The author of Subha:n As Subbu:h: is considering it to be the second case.
Supposing that the Author of Subh:a:n 'AsSubbu:h: is correct in considering it in the second
case,thenit would have been logical to make the following objection.
'''''''' It is incorrect to assume that this sentence is about the first case of khulf,and an ABSURD
WITH SEPERATE CANNOT BE A CORROLORY of OCCURANCIAL POSSIBLE,hence the
argument is in coreect.
But instead of adopting the normal and valid procedure as an interpellation,the author of Subha:n
AsSubbu:h: attemted to allege otherwise as stated above.
It must be noted that some of the expressions in the works are about the first case,some of the
expressions are about the second case,some are suppoesd to be about the third case,and some
are disputed.Such a dispute over the interpretation is not new and is a part of studies,and the
students are aware of it.
How ever let it be supposed that the correct interpretation of this sentence is of the second case
of Khulf,then one can present some other sentence which is explicit about the first case of the
Khulf.The author of Subh:a:n 'Assubbu:h: has even tried to refute argument in Support for
theDogma of Possiblity,from the first case as well.
The said author must have known that this is a case of a dispute over the interpretation of the
quoted sentence,and could only point out ..
Anyhow he has also presented a number of arguments ,that this sentence of 'ARRAD
'ALMUKHTA:R is abot the second case of KH-LF.
A detail discussion of those argument is beyond the scope of the present article.They shall be
'INSHA
;' LL-H BE STUDIED CRITICALLY IN A SEPERATE ARTICLE.
How ever an internal argument is presented by some denouncers of Self Possibility in Divine
Statements and believers of Self Absurdity inDvine Statements,which is based upon the
Phrase''Includd/counted in J-W-D (generiosity)and K-R-M(Kindness).
The author of Subh:a:n 'ASSubbu:h:wrote:
Exempli Gratia {IF}Forgiveness(DARGUSAR) is occured due to the particularization of scribtural
sentences (Nusu:S) AND LIMITATIONS OF ANNOUNCEMENT of Punishment
(Wa'id/Verdict/Threat) then Fargiveness{''-FW} is Present (mauj:d) and Alternation is Absent:and
[IF] on a Transgression at the time of Exteme announcement of Punishment and Execution,any
relaxation[kami] is done then Forgiveness {''FW} is absent and Alternation is Present. page
257.Subh:a:n 'assubbu:h: Fa tawa Radviah vol-6.
It is incorrect toassume that an act of Kindness Ceases to be Kindness if;-
a}It is done on a disbeliever.
b}It does imply Falsehood in a Divine Sentence.
c)It is Absurd WithSeperate.
No one can say that the act of Forgiving A Disbeliever is the Act of Punishing THE Disbeliever.
An act of Forgiving is an act of forgiving whether it does imply Falsehood,alternation in a
sentence or it does not imply them.
He used two word one of Persian [Darguzar] and other of Arabic ['-FW] making an impression
that Darguzar is some thing different from '-FW.
But they have one and the same meaning To Forgive,to Pardon etc.
Urdu[Ri:khta,and old name] which has adopted both words from there respective Languages
uses them as synonyms.
The immidiate reason for the second case of Forgiveness,not to imply Falsehood in the Divine
Statements is the particularization,as confessed by The author of SUBBH:A:N 'ASSuBBu:H:,but
to declair that an Act of Kindness ceases tobe an act of Kindness and become some thing else if
it implyes a Falsehood is incorrect,and only shews what a person can say ,SAYS when he is
willing to defend a dogma [say the dogma of Self Absudity of Falsehood in the Divine
Sentenes/Statements],WITH OUT ANY reasonablity,rationality,and conceptuality.
There is no Principle stated that an act ceaces to be that act and become some thing else
when it implies Falsehood , in any theological work.Such a principle is invented and is
unauthorative.
This presumes that the very defination of the word Forgiveness ['-FW] includes that it must not
imply Falsehood in Statements of the Forgiver.There is no such condition included in the
definations and meaning of the word'INSHA
;'-LLAH, some more aspects shall be discussed soon''INSHA:' 'ALLAH.
MU'TAZILAH NIZAMIAH AND ITS INFLUENCE ON SOME SUBCONTINENTAL SECTS.
MU'TAZILAH NIZ:AA:AMIAH believed that it is Not in Divine Omnipotence of the Omnipotent G-D
toforgive a Disbeliever,and to Punish an Innocent or Infallable believer.
But the author of Subh:a:n'ASSbbu:h: ascribed both of these Niz:amiah believes to Maturidiah.
Infact Niz:a:miah believed in a more general case that IT IS NOT IN OMNIPOTENCE OF
OMNIPOTENT G-D TO DO AN ACT THAT HE KNOWTHAT HE SHALL NOT DO IT.The above is
a subcase of the super case mensioned above.
The above mensioned author wrote in Subh:a:n 'ASSubbu:h::-
''''''''I SAY irrespective of the Punishment Of Obidient Believers is RATIONALLY ABSURD
according to our Generous Leaders Maturidiah Excogitaters.
IN M-S-LM '-TH TH-B--T and in its Commentary SH-R-H F-W--T-H 'AL 'ARR-H-MWT [IT IS
WRITTEN THAT]:-
''Absurdity of Punishment of Obedient according to our religious Community of
Maturidiahis that it is a defect RATIONALLY ABSURD Upon G-D''
And Imam Nasfi and some learned scholors ['U-lma:'] has also declaired the forgiving of a
disbelieveras Rationally Not Possible.
Imam 'AL HAM-MA:M in M-S-A:-IR-H says:
''Sah:ib '-mdah choosed ,FORGIVING OF A DISBELIEVER is RATIONALLY ABSURD.''''''
[page 268,269/Subh:a:n 'ASSbbuh',Fatava Radviah vol -6 Amjadiah eddition.]
As the denouncers of Self Possibility of Falsehood in Divine Statements [of Kala:m 'Al
Lafz:i:]consider the terms Self Absurdity and Rational Absurdity,and the terms Self Possible and
Rationally Possible as respective alternative terms,
this clearly shew that they ascribe to these Noble leaders of Maturidiah,that they believed that
each of two mensioned acts id est FORGIVING A DISBELIEVER,AND PUNISHING AN
OBEDIENT BELIEVER, is OUT OF THE OMNOPOTENCE OF THE OMNIPOTENT G-
D[NA'U:DHU BILLAH]
The Author of Subh:an ,ASSubbuh: has closed all the ways of interpretations of these Maturidites
scholors.
It is very clear that the above mensioned author ascribed the Mu'tazilah Nizamiah believes to
these Maturidiah scholors.
No Maturidi can say such a thing and no Maturidi can hold such a belief.
How ever in may be seen that the said author accepted the term Forgivness for a disbeliever
inspite of the Alleged Rational Absurdity.
Why the author had closed all the portals of interpretatons is because there were a number of
heritics in Subcontinent Indiah who claimed to be Sunnis and were deeply inspired by Mu'tazilah
niz:a:miah and Mu'tazilah Hash-sha:miah.
The were denouncers of the Self Possibility of Falsehood in Divine Statemnts.
The said author wanted to make rooms for them in the folds of Ahlussunnah wal Jamaah.
But there was no room for them in 'AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMA'AH.
So the author claimed that a number of Matiridites also held this view.
He closed all the ways to interperate the terms RATIONALLY ABSURD,RATIONALLY
POSSIBLE other wise.
Any how it is shewn with evidences that a number of denouncers of Self Posibility of Falsehood in
Statements [Of Kala:m 'AlLafz:i:] Of G-D ALSO DENIED THE SELF POSSIBILITY OF a]Violation
of A PROMISE,b]Violation of aN aNNOUNCEMT WHEN IT IMPLIES A FALSE HOOD IN A
STATEMENT OF G-D.
The Mutazilite fallacy may be given as follow so that it can be studied by thoes who have been
inspired by such type of Arguments that Ultimately it leads to the believe that IT IS NOT IN
DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE TO DO AN ACT ABOUT WHICH G-D ETERNALLY KNOWS THAT HE
SHALL NOT DO IT.
"""""""""""""""""""" THE FALLACY'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
a]IF G-D HAS POWER TO DO ANY THING /ACT /EVENT THAT HE KNOWS THAT HE SHALL
NOT DO IT THEN IT MEANS THAT G-D HAS POWER TO TO MAKE A FLAW IN HIS DIVINE
OMNISCIENCE.THIS IS TYHE DOGMA OF SELF POSSIBILITY OF DIVINE IGNORENCE.It is
agreed upon that Divine Ignorence is Self Absurd.
b]To do an act [sat to send a Disbeliever to heavenly Paradise is to do an ac some thing
that is NOT IN ACCORDENCE TO THE DIVINE OMNISCIENCE [KNOWLIDGE]
Since G-D KNOWS HE SHALL NOT DO IT.
His Divine Omniscience Pertains to His Acts.
To say that G-D HAS OMNIPOTENCE TO DO A THING WHICH HE ETERNALLY KNOWS
THAT HE SHALL NEVER DO IT
,IS TO SAY THAT G-D HAS OMNIPOTENCE TO MAKE ERRORS/ FLAW IN HIS
OMNISCIENCE.
mAULVI Ghula:m Dastagi:r used a form of this argument to disprove the Self possibility of
Falsehood {in Divine Statements}.Even to day This argument which was invented by
Maulvi GHU-LA:M DASTAGI:R is used by different
denouncers of THE SELF POSSIBILITY OF FALSEHOOD [IN DIVINE STATEMENTS].
A DETAIL REFUTATION SHALL 'INSHA:'ALLAH BE GIVEN SOON.
But ist has been shewn that Mu'tazilah did inspire Indian Subcontinental sects.
T o declair A self Possibility as Self Absurdity, when it is not so is due totheir influence.
How even an other reaction begain to declair a Self Absurdity as A Self Possibility when it
is Not So.
But it did not gaied any popularity in the learned circles.