Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMA:”AH

ETERNAL DIVINE SPEECH


IS NOT A SUPPOSITUM
A REPLY TO RESPECTED DAVID WOOD
HUSAM
[Pick the date]

In a debate with ‘Ah:mad H:ija:b his opponent accused the Truth of Islam that it also believeth in the
Incarnation of Sacred Qur’a:n , similar to the Dogma of Incarnation of Hypostatic Word . This accusation
is refuted in this article.
Page 2 of 11

In a debate between Respected David Wood and Respectable ‘Ah:mad H:ija:b , the former mentioned
respected person made an Objection on ‘Isla:m , that ‘Isla:m considers Sacred Qur’a:n as a Person,
hence ‘Isla:m just replaces the Logos by Sacred Qur’a:n.[1]

In his attempt to prove the allegation the former mentioned person tries to misinterpret a number of

Sacred Traditions of ‘Ah:a:di:th: .

His simply argues that the Attributes like Rationality, Ability to Speak, and to advocate are ascribed

To Sacred Qur’a:n in these Holy Traditions.

He actually tries to ascribe Trinitarian and Athanasian meanings and definitions to ‘Isla:mic Terms and
words.

This is certainly incorrect and a fallacy beyond doubt.

How ever it is required to discuss the problem according to Catholic and ‘Isla:mic Theologies, in order to
shew that his arguments are incorrect according to both standards equally alike.[2]

According to Catholic Definition A Person/ Hypostasis is one that is:-

1] Individua

2]Substantia

3]Completa

4]Per Se Subsistens

5]Seperata ab Aliis

5]Sui Iuris

6] Per Se Existence [One that Existeth in Alio/ Other is not a Hypostasis/Person].

7] Per S e Seorsum [Apart/Separate]

8]Incommucable

9] Rational.

If the notes from 1 to 8 are satisfied then the one is Suppositum [Pl: Supposita].

If this Satisfieth the 9th one then it is a Person.

So a Person is a Rational Suppositum. If a Suppositum does not satisfy the last one it is an
Irrational Suppositum .

Page 2 of 11
Page 3 of 11

So a Hypostasis /Hypostasis is a Rational Suppositum.

Now we can say that according to Catholic Theology :-

1] The Human Nature Of Christ is not a Person /Hypostasis since it is not Per Se Seorsum. It Exist in
Alio/Other.

2] The Human Spirit is not a Person/Hypostasis since it belong to the HUMAN BEING AS A PART OF ITS
Nature. It violates the note of Completa.

3] Divine Ousia/Essence is Per Se Subsistent but IT VIOLATES IN INCOMMUCABLITY . It is extremely


communicable to each of the Person/ Hypostasis that it does not exist apart of each of them.

Now coming back to Holy Qur’a:n , It is a Divine Essential Attribute Of Divine Essence.

No Attribute is Per Se Subsistent. So It cannot be a Person/Hypostasis.

So even on the standard of Catholic Theology this allegation is incorrect, wrong and false.

It appears that the learned Objection Maker neglected the basic definition of a Person/Hypostasis,
otherwise he could not have committed this fallacy.

How ever it is not sufficient to shew that this allegation is wrong and incorrect. Since the Learned
Objection Maker tried to allege that ‘Isla:m believeth in the Incarnation , Multi Incarnation ,
Manifestation , Multi Manifestation , Assumption and Multi Assumption of Sacred Qur’a:n.

So it is required to know the subjects of the Word of Qur’:an in ‘Isla:mic Theology.

The Word Qur’a:n is used for the following Subjects:-

1]The Essential and Eternal Attribute Of Speech Of Divine Essence.

This Divine Speech is Esoteric According to Majority of ‘Ahlussunnah [‘Asha:”irah and Maturi:diah].

But Minority of ‘Ahlussunnah [Salafiah and H:ana:balah] believes that It is Exoteric /Verbal Speech.

2] Divine Speech that is Separate From Divine Essence . This is Exoteric/Verbal Speech.

3] Speech in Divine REVELATION.

4] Recitation of Qur’a:n by Rational Supposita [say Human, Jinn, Angle Beings].

5]Text Of Qur’a:n in Written Forms [Written in Books, Tablets etc].

6]Imagination of Recitations and Written Words.

The 2] signifieth the 1].

Page 3 of 11
Page 4 of 11

It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE [not even Relatively Impossible] that the Divine Attribute Of Speech
becometh Per Se Subsistent.

Similarly according to ‘Isla:mic Theology It is Absolutely Impossible for any Divine Attribute to become
Per Se Subsistent.

Similarly Incarnations, Multi Incarnations, Manifestations ,Multi Manifestations , Assumptions and Multi
Assumptions are ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE in case of Divine Essence and Divine Essential Attributes ,
according to ‘Isla:mic Theology.

So if some one takes the meaning that this is the case of Incarnation or Personification/Hypostasisation
of Attribute or Its Incarnation etc [as stated above] he does commit fallacy and error.

So there is a strict difference between Per Se Subsistent and Not- Per Se Subsistent ,

Incarnable and Unincarnable , etc.

So what are the explanations and commentaries of such Texts of Traditions?

Commentaries and Explanations of such traditions.

Some Traditions report that Sacred Qur’a:n shall advocate for the reciters as if Qur’a:n is a Person
Hypostasis.

Majority Of ‘Ahlussunnah do not take these Traditions as Uninterpreted. They interpret them otherwise
their literal meanings say figurative or metaphorical meanings [which are the subdivisions of Virtual
Meanings].

How ever they do agree that these Texts of Traditions are about the recitations , and not about the
Eternal Attribute Of Speech that is Associated [Qa:’im] With Divine Essence and is Inseparable from the
Divine Essence.

They consider that the commence of Recitations in some personal/hypostatic forms is Absolutely
Impossible [not even Relatively Impossible]. They believe that the Conversion of Accidents into
Substances [Jauhar/Pl:Java:hir] and Entities [“Aun/Pl:’A”ya:n] is Absolutely Impossible and Intrinsically
Absurd.

So they interpret that the copies of Qur’a:n or Recording of Qur’a:n shall advocate in some new manner
unknown to us. At most they have to assume that some one who is reciting the Text of Sacred Qur’a:n
by his/her memory then the Copy of Sacred Qur’a:n in the Holy Heavenly Tablet shall be the advocate.

[There is no objection even if some one believes that the Copies of Sacred Qur’a:n shall become Rational
Supposta ,since all the copies of Qur’a:n are neither Eternal nor Associated with Divine Per Se Subsistent
Essence . Most of ‘Ahlussunnal believe that God/Deity Hath Power to Recreate any thing that hath been
Annihilated or that hath ceased to exist.So if a Copy has annihilated , it can be recreated. Since an
Absolute Possible if Existeth in Past and Annihilated in Present or Future or both doeth not make it

Page 4 of 11
Page 5 of 11

Absolute Impossible. ] An other interpretation is that as a person recites a Verse Of the Holy Qur’a:n it is
immediately written by Angels , and the written copies shall advocate for the person since God/Deity
shall grant them the Power and Ability of Speaking. Such a thing is Absolutely Contingent and Not
Absolutely Impossible, so it is in Divine Omnipotence.

A ccording to Excogitators of ‘Ahlussunnah Deoband ‘Al Kala:m ‘An Nafsi: is Uncreated and Eternal , and
‘Al Kala:m ‘Al Lafz:i: is Non-Eternal. They represent the view of ‘Asha”irah and Maturidiah. In this case if
it is supposed that that ‘Al Kla:m ‘Al Lafz:i: is considered as Per Se Subsistent, there is a way to consider
it as an Advocate. But if it not Per Se Subsistent then it can Subsist in some thing that is Per Se
Subsistent. One may define an Essence as one that is Per Se Subsistent. In this case if Kala:m ‘Al Lafz:i:
subsisteth in Some thing Per Se Subsistent and other then it even then the Per Se Subsistent Substratum
can act as Qur’:n as the Copies of Holy Qur’a:n are.

How ever the Minority Of ‘Ahlussunnah Consider such a Conversion as Absolutely Possible and
Intrinsically Contingent. This at first sight appears as a ridiculous and obscure opinion. Yet it

Is not so as it appears to be at first. One need to study this dogma in some detail.

It analogy exists in Catholic Theology.

CATHOLIC THEOLOGY
Catholic Theology believes in the Real Presence Of Iesous/”I:sa: the Messiah [Masi:h:] in Euchistic

Ceremonies.

There are several point of discussion . Two most important Parts of Catholic Euchrist are

1] Transubstantianism

2] Euchristic Accidents.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION

As we do not believe in Transubstantiation , it need not to discuss Transubstantiation in detail, and any
discussion on it is beyond the scope of the present composition/article.How ever it shall benefit both
Catholics and ‘Ahlussunnah to state this type of conversion with out any criticism and may help to
develop mutual understanding.

Transubstantiation is a very special type of Converson. In this type of conversion the Substance [say S1]
ofof a Thing [say T1] becomes a thing T2 UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:-

1] S1 BECOMETH T2

2] No thing is added to T2

3] No thing is substracted from T2.

Page 5 of 11
Page 6 of 11

3] T2 remains exactly as it was before the conversion of S1 into T2.

4]As the conversion occurs S1 ceaseth to exist as S1. Since it is now T2.

5] It is not the case that S1 hath annihilated but it is converted.

6] If there is a another thing T3 with Substance S3 , and a conversion occurs with T2, now S1 and S2 both
have become T2 . So now S3 is T2 and S1 is T2 without any Real and without any Logical difference and
distinction.

Now it appears that as the Substance S1 is converted into T2 , the accidents of T1 say A1 have ceased to
exist. Similarly the same is appeared in case of T3 that its accidents say A3 have ceased.

But this is not the case, as one shall see if he reads below.

EUCHRISTIC ACCIDENTS.

In Euchristic Accidents , when the Substances of Breads and Wines are converted into Flesh and Blood
Of Christ the accidents of the m are sustained with out substances.

If an Accident existeth without any Substance , then this thing is termed as the conversion of Accident
into Substance [Jauhar,Pl:Java:hir] or Entity [“Aun,Pl:’A”ya:n].

So this is just a verbal dispute.

According to Catholic Theology an accident can exist without a Substance. According to the Minorities
Of ‘Ahlussunnah , If an Accident Existeth with out a Substance then it has becometh a Substance.

Since any thing that Existeth without a Substance is a Substance Itself.

Catholic Theologians divide accidents into two types.

1] Absolute Accident.

2] Model or Relative Accidents.

The first type can exist without Substances. The second type cannot exist without Substances. Since they
are Modes of Substances. [3]

The examples of the second are Motion and Form.

Any how the Voice and Sound can are such Accidents which can Exist without Substance, and in other
sentence , they can be converted in to Substances.

[It may be noted that as the Accidents can move as the Euchristic cakes can move then these movements
are not the spatial movements of Substances and Substantial things but they are the Spatial movements
of Accidents with out Substances.]

Page 6 of 11
Page 7 of 11

So this is just a dispute of terminologies. If an Accident survives even if it is not with its substance then
according to one , It is an Accident without a substance and according to the other the Accident has
become a Substance. So there is NO Real difference .

So if the Recited WORDS, SENTENCES [VERSES], CHAPTERS OF Sacred Qur’a:n are sustained without
Substance that may be termed as they have become Subsistent, there is no probelm in regard to the
alleged incarnations ,multiincarnation, embodiment, multi embodiment ,manifestation, multi
manifestation, assumptions, multi-assumptions , personification , multi-personification ,hypostatization
, mult-hypostatization of the Eternal Attribute of Qur’a:n. Since It is not the Holy Attribute Of Divine
Speech that is the subject of these stated above acts but the Recitation by Humans which are
accidents.etc.

It may please be noted that when Respected Davis Wood in his debate with respectable ‘Ah:mad H:ija;b
denied that the Christian Incarnation is not a Subset of Hindu Multi-Incarnation [In response to a
question] then he must have to agree on the same principle that appearance of Holy Qur’a:n hath
nothing to do with Incarnation , multi-incarnation etc. Actually Respected David Wood wants to make
some doubt on the Absolute Unicity of Deity/God in ‘Isla:m by attempting to shew that the dogmas of
Incarnations , Manifestations, are also found in Holy Traditions. But thus is not the case and he actually
confuses different Subjects of Holy Qur’a:n

But this is not unique to ‘Isla:m. It an be found even in Christendom

When God himself spoke the word of the sentence “Let there be light” or ” [O] Light Be”

‫ ֑אֹור‬ ‫י ְִ֣הי‬
[ Please read these words from Right to Left. Transliteration “Aur Yahi”. See the Arrow for direction
,right to left.

Please read the transliteration from right to left in words and from left to right in letters .]

It is certainly different from the case when some one reads these words in Genesis.

Similarly the Divine Knowleges of these words are different from these words read by a human reader.

It may be noted that these words are Eternally Known by/to God/Deity and thus in Divine Knowledge
these words are Eternal.

One may discuss further but for a rational person who so ever he/she may be this is sufficient to shew
that even the words of Deity/God in the Sentences of God/Deity Spoken by God Himself are different
frm the Words latter written in Genesis. The author of Genesis is simply quoting the Words and
Sentences Of God/Deity Spoken at the time when there was darkness and God/Deity Created Light.

Note that FROM Genesis [] 1:5 and onwards God/Deity Spoke many Words and Sentences say Ge1:5,

Page 7 of 11
Page 8 of 11

,1:6, 1:8,1:9 ETC. Each Word and each Sentence was Spoken By Deity one after an other as Stated in
Genesis.

No one can say that the sentence 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one
place, and let the dry land appear” was Spoken by Deity/God before the Sentence “ Let There Be Light.

But “Let There Be Light” was Spoken before it. God/Deity Spoke these Words after there was darkness
and lightlessness. So this is a proof that none of the Spoken WORD in any Spoken Sentence is Eternal.
Every one of THEM is Non-Eternal

Some Questions For Respected David Wood.


1] When God/Deity said Let There Be Light or “[ O] Light Be or more literally “Be Light”.

[ ‫֑אֹור‬ ‫] י ְִ֣הי‬, did he said it after the Creation of the earth or He said these words [Actually
Hebrew words given above] in Eternity? In the case it is said in Eternity then this implies that the Light is
Eternal. If not in Eternity then this implies that these words Spoken by Yahuvah were not Eternal.

2] Are these words ‘ Words Of God/Deity or some one else?

3] Do these words ceased to exist immediately after they were spoken by Deity/God or they still exist
independent of readers, books, as they were when they were first Spoken By Deity/God?

4] Can Spoken words of God/Deity Cease to Exist?

5] Are these Words of God/Deity Subsistent or not Subsistent?

6] Is it possible that these spoken words are recorded in some thing what so ever the thing may be?

7] Is there a difference between the Words Spoken by God/Deity at the time Light was made by saying it
and a man reading the same words in Genesis?

8] Were these two Hebrew Words Spoken by God/Deity Himself Accidents ?

If Not then are the Per Se Subsistent?

9] Do these words Exist in Hypostasis as the Human Nature Exist in Hypostatic Union? If the answer is in
affirmation then the question is “Do the constitute Hypostatic Union”?

10] Is these two Hebrew Words existed before the Genesis was Authored by Its Author?

11] Can these two words Incarnate? The question is whether it is Absolutely Impossible or Relatively
Impossible. [Absolutely Impossible is not in Divine Power say like it is Absolutely Impossible for
God/Deity to Incarnate in Animal or Angelic Natures and to Assume them. But it is Relatively Impossible
for the Third Hypostasis to Incarnate in any Human Nature and to assume it]

Page 8 of 11
Page 9 of 11

12] Was there a Single Jewish Scholar form the time Genesis was authored by Its Author to the birth of
Athanasius , who claimed that these words are Eternal? Also did the author of New Testamental Gospels
believe that these words

‫֑אֹור‬ ‫י ְִ֣הי‬

Spoken By God/Deity were Eternal?

13] If these words are Non Eternal then whether God/Deity Spoke both Words Simultaneously or

Deity/God first Spoke ‫י ְִ֣הי‬


Then He Spoke

‫֑אֹור‬ ?

14] Is the Divine Act Of Speaking these two Words Eternal or Non Eternal.

If it is non Eternal [Non Eternal] then the words cannot be Eternal. If the Act of Speaking these
Words Eternal then these Words are Eternal and If these Words are Eternal Light is also Eternal?]

15] Is the Act of Making the World Eternal?

16] Is the Divine Act Of Speaking distinguished from the Divine Act Of Making? Also , are these acts
transitive or intransitive? [The words Transitive or Intransitive are used in regard to grammatical terms].

17] Were these Divine Words audible even if there was no one to hear them Except the Divine Speaker?

18] Can these Words advocate for any one?

19] Are these Hebraic Words Of God/Deity given above, Material or Immaterial? If they are immaterial
then can they be termed as Spirits?

20] Do these Words stated above come in Existence from Non Existence Ex Nihilo ? If so then did they
cone in Existence in Divine Ousia .

21] Are the Divine Words in Divine Revelations that came to Hebraic Prophets Eternal?

22] What is the difference between the Divine Words Directly Spoken by Deity/ God and the Divine
Words that came to Hebraic Prophets in Revelation?

Page 9 of 11
Page 10 of 11

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] The Terms Person and Hypostasis are used in one and same meaning/ definition throughout this
composition. So it is shewn by a slash, these words commutes over the slash just to remind that these
two words are used as exact alternatives in this article/composition.

[3] Catholic and Sunni Theologies agree on several issues.

1] Unity of Divine Essence/Ousia.

1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k6MBedWTww&list=PLAKMpOennu-N5pjwlVlggxXoGzggeNbnX

2] Absolute Free Divine Will

3] Creation Ex Nihilo

4] Non Eternity Of the World

5] Beatific Vision

The jointly refute the believes of peripatetic philosophers.

Who can forget the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas against the Peripatatic heresies of ‘Ibn ‘Ar Rushd ,
particularly in regard to the alleged Eternity of the World.

So either side can borrow from one another when they agree on the basic Axioms Abrahamic Religions.

Page 10 of 11
Page 11 of 11

Page 11 of 11