Exposing the logical ground on which the heretics deny God's aboveness over the throne.🧵 What I will present is argued by the philosophers as well as Ash'aris like Sa'eed Fudah in our time. First, we should know propositions can be opposed in 4 ways in Aristotelian logic: 1/25
1) Contradiction: Two propositions are contradictory if one being true implies the other is false, and vice versa. They cannot both be true and cannot both be false. it's between an existent and a nonexistent; a positive and a negative. Example: "You exist" vs "you don't exist."
2) Contrariety: Two propositions are contrary if they cannot both be true, but they can both be false. It's between two existents "positives." Example: "the shirt is white." vs. "the shirt is black." they can be both lifted because the shirt could be blue.
3) Relativity: Relativity refers to a relationship between two entities that are interdependent. It's between two positive "existents." Example: "A is the father of B." vs. "B is the child of A." 4) Privation and Possession: Privation is the lack of a quality or form normally
required by the nature of a thing. It is a type of contrariety, whereas possession, refers to the presence of that quality. It's between a positive and a negative. Example: "The blind man lacks sight." vs. "The sighted man has sight."
From this 4th category comes the issue, and we shall see how they use it. The argument they bring forward suggests that when discussing God, one must distinguish between contradictions and contrarieties, proposing that:
-God is either inside the world or not inside the world" is a proper contradiction. -God is inside or outside the world" is an improper contrariety. So, if we say God is neither inside the world nor outside, it is not a contradiction, as there is lack of potentiality.
for example: The wall is neither seeing, nor blind, and that's not a contradiction since the wall has no ability / potentiality of sight or blindness. [Yes, they compare Allah to a wall.] However, this argument conflates contradictions with contrarieties, relies on this
Aristotelian categorization, and misunderstands the nature of "inside and outside" especially in Arabic as we shall see. Contradictions vs Contrarieties: Contradictions: Two propositions that cannot both be true and cannot both be false. If one is true, the other must be false.
Contrarieties: Two propositions that cannot both be true, but can both be false. We argue that the propositions "inside and outside" are contradictions, not contrarieties that could be simultaneously negated from a negative subject:
In Arabic, "inside" (داخل) and "outside" (خارج) are used as contradictions. If we say something is not inside (لا داخل) we are necessarily saying it's outside (خارج). There is no middle ground where both can be false. Thus, the correct rational form for the proposition should be:
"God is either inside the world or outside the world." But in Greek, it's a bit different [This is one of the cases where Aristotelian logic is interconnected with its Greek language and background], for the opposite is not affirmed, unless the subject is capable of having
such attribute; [a positive subject], and this here, is the trick they rely on to say as we have seen above: "God has no potentiality be described by inside and outside, thus, it won't be a contradiction to say: neither in nor out." However, the Arabic language which God used
to communicate with people, does not employ the concept of privation and possession in this way. For instance, a peripatetic logician might claim an idol is neither alive nor dead, and will not say it's dead, because: it lacks the potentiality of life and death. However,
God addresses idols as "dead" in the Quran, treating life and death as contradictions that cannot both be false simultaneously. He said about the idols: They are dead, not alive—not even knowing when their followers will be resurrected. [16:21] In fact, a subject that is
capable of having a quality of perfection yet lacks it, is more perfect than a subject that is normally incapable of having it. For example, a mute person is more perfect than a mute rock. Ironically, this is the same argument the heretics use when faced with the reality
of their mute, unheard deity. They argue that he is not necessarily mute, because he has no potentiality for the attribute of voice, like a wall that is not described as mute, nor speaking, because it simply lacks such a quality. To that we say, it is indeed mute,
and simply restating your view is a sufficient response to you. Demonstrating the Fallacy: Thus, the original argument incorrectly treats "inside the world" and "outside the world" as contraries rather than contradictions.
The statement "God is either inside the world or not inside the world" is a contradiction by their confession, and we say "not inside the world" effectively means: "outside the world" as demonstrated. So, the proposition "God is either inside or outside the world"
is not an incorrect form but a valid expression of contradiction. Denying both would result in a rational contradiction, similar to stating that something is both "not visible" and "not invisible." Summary: We have seen that their sole reliance is upon a categorization
fundamentally foreign to the language of revelation. They use this categorization as a criterion upon God's revelation to avoid contradiction. However, the statement "neither inside the world nor outside it" is contradictory. And if we grant [for the sake of argument]
that something could exist neither inside nor outside due to lack potentiality, why is that relevant to the entity of God? Where is their proof that God has no potentiality to be outside the world, for them to throw such random judgment? Isn't every external, ontological,
independent entity, necessarily either: inside or outside of another external, ontological, independent entity? Their stance is mere heretical speculation that opposes a flood of verses and hadiths from revelation.
We have also seen that this division is fallacious, at least from an Arabic perspective, and upon scrutiny, it falls under the first category of contradiction. Therefore, whoever affirms a god "neither inside the world nor outside" is either affirming an impossible entity,
or an abstraction with no external reality, similar to the intellect philosophers label as the first cause! but most certainly, not the God of Muhammad ï·º.