This document discusses arguments made against the possibility of falsehood in divine statements. It notes that many websites argue against this position, while few scholars defend it. The document analyzes one popular argument based on a distinction between inherent and attributed divine attributes. It provides responses from different theological perspectives, arguing the dispute is largely semantic. It also addresses objections that divine speech must be eternally true or false, responding that eternal speech is neither a statement nor non-statement. The document aims to refute arguments against the possibility of falsehood in divine statements without going into all details due to length constraints.

1. BIS MIL LA HIR RAH: MA NIR RA H:I:M
A LOT OF SITES IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES ARE WORKING AGAINST THE TRUTH OF SELF POSSIBILITY OF
FALSEHOODFALSITY IN THE STATEMENTS OF KALAM AL LAFZ:IY:> If one search in any reliable search engine he | she is
surprised to see the number of sites< webpages ETC AGAINST THE TRUTH OF SELF POSSIBILITY OF KALAM AL LAFZ:IY.
ON THE CONTRARY GREAT SCHOLORS OF SUNNI CREED ARE NOT ON THE INTERNET TO REFUTE THE DOGMA OF
SELF ABSURDITY [ISTIHALAH ADH DHA:TI:] OF FALSITYFALSEHOOD. IN SUCH A SITUATION IT IS VERY
DIFFICULT TO REFUTE EACH AND EVERY ARTICLE WRITTEN AGAINST THE DOGMA OF SELF POSSIBILITY
STATED ABOVE.THAT IS THE REASON A NUMBER OF SCHOLORS THROUGH OUT THE WORLD HAS BEEN
MISGUIDED. EVEN THE UNIVERSITY OF DEOBAND IS NOT TAKING THE MATTER SERIOUSLY ,HENCE THE
NUMARICAL NUMBER OF RESPONCES IS MUCH LESS THAN THE NUMARICAL NUMBER OF SUCH ATTACTS.
IT IS NECESSARY TO RESPONSE IN EQUAL NUMBER AND IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES PARTICULARLY IN
TURKISH, AND SOME OTHER LANGUAGES.
NOT JUST IN ENGLISH OR FRENCH.
I BELIEVE THAT ALLAH MAY MAKE WAYS TO REFUTE THE DENOUNCERS OF HIS OMNIPOTENCE AND I PRAY O
ALLAH NULLIFY AND NUTRALIZE ALL OF THERE ATTEMTS WHO TRY TO LIMIT THY OMNIPOTENCE BY
INCORRECT ARGUMENTS. FOR THE REST OF TRUEU AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMAAH I REQUEST THAT THEY MUST
PREPAIR THEM SELVES TO STUDY THE BASIC WORKSBOOKS WRITTEN BY THESE DENOUNCERS SO THAT THEY
CAN REFUTE THEIR OBJECTIONS AND FALLECIES. ANY HOW WE ARE TRYING TO REFUTE ALL THE PRESENTED
ARGUMENTS IN OUR FIRST STAGE OF REFUTATION. IN THE SECOND STAGE WE SHALL RESPONSE TO THEIR
ARESPONCES IF ANY INSHA ALLAH.
IN GENERAL A BAG FULL OF [ INCORRECT] ARGUMRNTS ARE FOUND IN THESE ARTICLES WRITTEN BY
DENOUNCERS. SO THE BST WAY IS TO DISCUSS IN DETAIL EACH AND EVERY ARGUMENT INDEPENDENTLY.
One of the favourite arguments of the DENOUNCERS OF SELF POSSIBILITY OF FALSEHOODFALSITY IN DIVINE
STATMENTS over many years had been that IT IS A DISGRACE FOR THE NECESSARY EXISTENT NOUNLY ALL-H. The
seeds of this argument were sown by the work of THE AUTHOR OF SUBHAAN ASSUBBUH, who divided the THE DIVINE
LAZIM INTO TWO GROUPS NAMELY LAZIM OF DHAT AND LAZIM OF LAZIM [OF DHAT]. [1] His ideas were used
uncritically by later scholars who came to TOOK IT AS AN AXIOM OF THERE SYSTEM. Since THEN THE VIEW OF THE
AUTHOR OF SUBHAN ASSUBBUH WAS given a new and unexpected twist by LATTER DENOUNCERS OF SELF
POSSIBILITY OF FALSEHOODFALSITY. . In a series of SITES, books ,SITES, ETC. they claimed that TO CONDIDER TRUTH
AS A NON ETERNAL ATTRIBUTE IS TO BELIEVE AL QUR-AN IS A CREATION.. To support this view, they presented
arguments from Different works out of there true context.
t. [2] It can justifiably be said that this argument is INCORRECT. IT lies at the heart of PROPAGANDA against TRUE
AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMA-AH today. The popularity of SUBHAN ASSUBBUH idea was given a new breath of life by
LATTER DENOUNCERS , WHO CLAIMED INCORRECTLY THAT TO CONSIDER TRUTH AS NON ETERNAL ATTRIBUTE
1

2. IS TO BELIEVE THAT THE ESSENCE DHA:T OF SELF NECESSARY EXISTENT IS LOCUS OFC NON ETERNAL [M-H-L
AL H:-Du: TH].
SOURCE OF THIS IN ARGUMENT.
THE AUTHOR OF SUBHAAN ASSUBUH HAS WRITTEN IN HIS WORK :
WHEN DIVINE TRUTH IS CONSIDERED TO BE VOLINTIARY [ VOLITION]
AND AL QURAN IS CERTAINLY THE SPEECH /KAMA:M OF HIM [I.E G-D]
THE IT IS NECESSARY [ACCORDING TO THIS SUPPOSITION] THAT AL QUR-A:N IS NOT AN IMPLIED ATTRIBUTE [M-
QT-DHA:] OF [DIVINE] ESSENCE [DHA:T] ; AND TRUTH IS LAZIM [IMPLIED ATTRIBUTE] OF AL QUR-A:N
; AND LAZIM OF LAZIM IS LAZIM,[IMPLIED ATTRIBUTE OF AN IMPLIED ATTRIBUTE IS AN IMPLIED ATTRIBUTE];
AND IT IS WRONG[BA:-TIL] THAT AN IMPLIED ATTRIBUTE IS VOLINTARYVOLITION [SUBJECT OF WILL
PERTAINING TO WILL] ;V AND BY ‘IJMA:’’ OF ALL MUSLIMS EACH AND EVERY THING WHICH IS OTHER THAN
THE [DIVINE] ESSENCE AND (ESSENCIAL) [DIVINE] ATTRIBUTES IS TEMPORAL [NON-ETERNAL] AND CREATED,
THEN IT IS PROVED WITH CERTAINITY THAT ACCORDING TO THE RELIGION OF OF LIDEAR OF WAHABIAH IT IS
IMPLIED THAT AL QUR-‘A:N IS CREATED.
PG 241 SUB-H:A:N ‘AS-SUBBU:H: FATAVA RADVIAH DARUL VOL-6‘‘ULU:M AMJADIAH.[TRANSLATED LITERALLY]
Now a days it has become a hidden Axiom of a very large number of denouncers of the SELF POSSIBILITYSELF CONTINGENCT
OF FALSEHOODFALSITY IN DIVINE STATEMENTS.
SO IT IS REQUIRED TO ANSWERREPLY THIS ARGUMENT LOGICALY ,PHLOSIPHICALY AND THEOLOGICALY.
UPGRADATION :-
THIS ARGUMENT MAY BE UPGRATED AS FOLLOW.
THIS CAN BE EVOLUTED IN AN ULTIMATE FORM :
THE NON-ETERNITY AND CREATIVITY OF TRUTH OF QURAN DO IMPLY
THE NON ETERNITY AND CREAVITY OF QUR-‘A:N, SINCE TRUTH OF QUR-‘A:M
IS A LAZIM [IMPLIED ATTRIBUTE] OF QUR-‘A:MN.
THE NON ETERNITY AND CREAVITY OF QUR-A’n DOES IMPLY THE NON ETERNITY AND CREAVITY OF OF DIVINE
ESSENCE {WHICH IS GOD|DEITY HIMSELF].
2

3. THERE FORE NON ETERNITYAND CREAVITY OF GOD IS IMPLIED.
AND THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE,AND KUFR.
THERE FORE TRUTH IS ETERNAL AND UNCREATED.
REFUTATION OF THIS ARGUMENT.
FROM THE VERY TIME SUBH:A:N ‘AS-SUBBU:H: WAS FIRST PUBLISHED A NUMBER OF FOLLOWERS OF
SUBH:AN ‘ASSUBBU:H: ARE USING THIS ARGUMENT IN A NUBBER OF FORMS , SOME TIME AS AN AXIOM OF
THEIR RESPECTIVE SYSTEMS OF SELF ABSURDITY OF FALSEHOOD/FALSITY.
ANSWER /RESPONSE/REPLY TO THIS ARGUMENT.
THERE ARE SEVERAL RESPONCES AND SOME OF THEM ARE DIVEN BELOW.
1] ACCORDING TO PHILOSO[HICAL MINDED AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMAAH OF DEOBAND ,EACH AND EVERY
ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE OF DIVINE ESSENCE [ GOD/DEITY] IS IDENTICAL TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE. THEY
DISBELIEVE IN ANY LAZIM [IMPLIES ATTRIBUTE], RATHER OPINE THE SELF ABSURDITY OF LAZIM OR
LAZIM BIDH DHA:T [SELF LAZIM]. ACCORDING TO THEM LAZIM CONTRADICTS IDENTITY [‘‘AINIAH]
SO TRUTH AS ACCORDING TO THEM IS AN ACTIVE ATTRIBUTE , NEITHER A LAZIM OF DIVINE
ESSENCE[ PRIMERY LAZIM] NOR A LAZIM OF LAZIM OF DIVINE ESSENCE [ IMPLIED ATTRIBUTE OF
IMPLIED AN IMPLIED ATTRIBUTE OF ESSENCE /SECONDARY LAZIM].
EVEN THE STATEMENTNESS IS AN ACTIVE ATTRIBUTE.
2] ACCORDING TO THEOLOGICAL MINDED ‘AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMAA-‘AH OF DEOBAND, DIVINE SPEECH
IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ESSENCE, SUBSISTWITH THE ESSENCE,SUSTAINS WITH THE ESSENCE [QA:-‘IM BI
DHA:-TIL BARI] .{ SELF ASSOCIATED,SELF ASSOCIATION = DIS ASSOCIATION IS SELF ABSURD}
IT IS COMMUNICABLE TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE, AND IS NEITHER IDENTICAL NOR SEPARATE [LA: ‘‘AIN WA LA: GHAIR] .THEY DO
NOT BELIEVE THAT AN ATTRIBUTE OF ATTRIBUTE OF GOD IS SUSTAINED WITH THE ATTRIBUTE OF GOD.
AN ATTRIBUTE OF AN ATTRIBUTE OF GOD[A POSATIVE ATTRIBUTE OF AN ATTRIBUTE OF GOD] IS EITHER A RELATIVE
ATTRIBUTE OR AN ACTIVE ATTRIBUTE OF GOD.
THEY ALSO BELIEVE THAT STATMENTNESS IS AN ACTIVE ATTRIBUTE OR A RELATIVE ATTRIBUTE.
3]MODERATE MINDED ‘AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMA:-‘AH OF DEOBAND TRY TO UNIFY BOTH BELIEVES BY CLAIMING THAT IT IS
JUST A VERBAL DISBUTE.
ATTRIBUTE IS IDENTICAL TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THE SENSE /MEANING OF NON-ABSOLUTE IDENTITY, AND NOT IDENTICAL
TO THE ESSENCE IN THE SENSE /MEANING OF ABSOLUTE IDENTITY]
SIMILARLY IT IS NOT SEPARATE IN THE SENSE/MEANING OF ABSOLUTE SEPERATION, AND BUT SEPARATE IN THE SENSE
/MEANING OF NON ABSOLUTE SEPERATION/SEPEBERABLITY]
3

4. HOW EVER ESSENCE OF GOD IS ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL TO GOD [ THAT IS IDENTICAL IN MISDA:Q/SUBJECT AND
MAFHUM/MA’NA:/MEANING/SENSE}
An other term is self identical.
Absolute separate means separate in misdaq and mafhum.
Non Absolute Identity means identical im MISDA:Q and separate in mafhum.
Which is also Non Absolute Seperation/seperablity.
Absolute separation means separate inboth mafhum and misdaq.
IN THESE SENSES/MEANING THE DISPUTE IS CLEARLY A VERBAL ONE.
OBJECTION:-
A NUMBER OF THEOLOGIANS/THEOLOGISTS BELIEVE THAT DIVINE SPEECH IS AN ETERNAL STATEMENT.
SO IF IT IS NOT TRUE THEN IT IS FALSE. AND THAT IS KUFR.
ANSWER TO THIS OBJECTION. is as follow:
A LARGE NUBBER OF ‘AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMAA_’AH do believe that ETERNAL SPEECH IS NEITHER AN INSHA [NON STATMENTAL
SPEECH] NOR A KHABAR[STATEMENT].
SO BOTH INSHA:IAH AND KHABARIAH ARE RELATIVE ATTRIBUTES. THERE IS NO TRUTH OR FALSEHOOD WHICH IS SELF
POSSIBLE WITH OUT KABAR.
SO ETERNAL SPEECH IS NEITHER FALSE NOR TRUE IN ETERNITY SINCE IT IS NOT A STATEMENT.
A SMALL MINORITY DOES BELIEVE THAT ETERNAL SPEECH IS AN STATEMENT. IF SOME ONE DOES HOLD THIS OPENION THEN
ACCORDING TO THIS OPENION THE RESPONSE HAS BEEB GIVIEN IT IN OTHER ARTICLES IN THIS SITE .
IN A NUT SHELL THE RESPONSE IS AS FOLLOW.
IF IT IS A STATEMENT THEN IN REGARD TO ETERNAL REALITIES AND SELF POSSIBILITY OF FALSEHOOD IS IN REGARD TO NON
ETERNITY.
THIS IS A SELF POSSIBILITY OF NON ETERNAL CONNECTION ,NOT IN ACCORDANCE TO
OCCURRANCES . THE ACTUALIZATION OR EXISTENCE OF THESE CONNECTIONS AT MOST IMPLY THE
ANNHALIATION OF TRUTH OF THE SUPPOSED ETERNAL STATEMENT IN REGARD TO ETERNAL REALITIES AND
NON TEMPORAL TRUTHS.
BUT THIS IMPLICATION IS NOT A SELF IMPLICATION [LUZUM BIDH DHAN OR IST-LZAM BIDH DHA:T] BUT IS LUZUM GHAIR ADH
DHA:TI AND IST-LZAM GHAIR ADH DHA:TI:.[ A NON SELF IMPLICATION ]
SO EXISTENCE OF THESE CONNECTIONS ARE ABSURD WITH SEPARATE.
IF OCCURRENCE OF A SEPARATE IMPLIES A SELF ABSURD AND IMPLICATION IS NOT A SELF IMPLICATION THEN THE SELF
ABSUDITY OF ONE THAT DOES OMPLY CAN NOT BE PROVED.
SO IF FALSHOOD IN REGARD TO ETERNAL REALITIES IS SELF ABSURD THE SAID CONNECTIONS CAN NOT BE PROVED AS SELF
ABSURD.
EVEN THE AUTHOR OF SUBH:AN ‘ASUUBBU:H: ACCEPT THIS FACT.
A DETAIL DISCUSSION IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS ARTICLE ,HOW EVER IT SHALL BE DISCUSSED LATTER.
A GOOD PORTION OF THE MATTER IS DISCUSSED IN SOME OF THE PREVIOUS ANSWER.
IT IS ADVISED TO SEE THEM
SOME DISCUSSIONS ARE LEFT DUE TO the reason the present article is not supposed to be a detailed discussion.
THERE FORE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT KALAM AL ALAFZI AND KALAM AN NAFSI ARE LEFT BEHIND.
ONE OF THE BASIC REASON IS ONE THAT THE AUTHOR OF SUBHAN AS SUBBU:H: DID NOT BELIEVED IN DISTICTION B/W
KALAM AL LAFZI AND KALAM AN NAFSI AS HE HAS CONFESSED IN MALFUZAAT PART 04.
THAT IS A REASON AMONG SOME OTHER REASON THAT WE HAVE ALSO NOT DISCUSSED THEM .
HOW EVER A DETAIL DISCUSSION SHALL SOON BE ON LINE INSHA ALLAH.
4