(Mustahil Dhati) or (Mustahil Aradi)?

Discussion in 'Aqidah/Kalam' started by SaadSohail, Mar 18, 2019.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Well-Known Member

    I came across this from Fatawa Fayzul Rasool by Mufti Jalaludin Amjadi.


    Rough translation of passage highlighted red:
    Question: Zayd says that the birth of a Prophet after Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is hypothetically possible (Rationally possible/intrinsically possible) but since shariah has declared Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) as the Seal of Prophets therefore the birth of a Prophet after him is sharan muhal. Please illustrate in the light of shariah, to what extent Zayd's statement is right and if it is wrong what is the shariah ruling on him?

    Answer: Without a doubt the birth of a Prophet after our master and the last Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is sharan muhal and Aqlan mumkin bil dhat (Intrinsically possible/rationally possible).
    But After He is [declared] the Seal of Prophets, it is Muhal dhati/intrinsically impossible for another Prophet [who is Seal of Prophets] to be born. (Answer continues)

    (Answer continues)
    Before the revelation of this verse, the birth of a Prophet after Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was mumkin/possible in two ways. First by Imkan Wuqui (Possibility of occurance/imkan wuqui) and second by Imkan dhati (Intrinsically possible/rationally possible). The verse removed the first possibility which is Imkan Wuqui and not Imkan dhati. Since Zayd, in this issue, said that the birth of a Prophet after Mohammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is Sharan Muhal and only considered it mumkin in the sense of imkan dhati (rational possibility/intrinsic possibility), his statement is right because he believes only in the sense imkan dhati NOT in the sense Imkan Wuqui.

    Shaykh Abu Adam of sunnianswers said something similar regarding this as quoted by brother faqir in this thread.

    The fact that The Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is the greatest prophet and the last prophet is by Allaah's decree. It is not intrinsically necessary, but dependent upon Allaah's decree. Allaah could have left creating any prophet at all, let alone a best one or a specific one. However, once we know that Allaah has decreed this, by Him telling us, then we know that this is necessary, not intrinsically, but because Allaah's decree does not change, and because Allaah does not lie. I think the issue is straight forward.

    If it was intrinsic, then it would either be intrinsic to the Prophet or to Allaah. This would lead to saying that the Prophet is eternal, or that Allaah had no choice but to create him and make him the greatest and last. No Muslim says that. What is intrinsically impossible is that Allaah's will could change or that He could tell a lie.

    Brother Faqir says:
    as-salamu `alaikum sidi

    I had some email correspondence with him after I first heard of this issue. His view is that intrinsically impossible is something that the mind does not accept the existence of, without the need for repeated experiences, or revealed information. It pertains to propositions that are somehow self contradictory in themselves, not something external, like if someone said, "there is a perfectly square circle."

    The fact that the Prophet Muhammad is the greatest creation, and that he is the last prophet, is known only by revealed information, otherwise how could we possibly reach such a conclusion? However, once it is known by revelation from Allah, then we know that it is impossible, not intrinsically, but because we have been informed of Allah's decree by Allah Himself, and it is impossible that He should lie, or that His decree should change.

    Allaah COULD have decreed for other prophets to exist, and He COULD have made another prophet the greatest. Who or what would have prevented Him? It is just that He has not willed that to be, so it will not be.

    He believes that to claim that it is intrinsically impossible is dangerous... You can confirm this with him directly as well, insha'Allah.

    Rough Translation of Highlighted text in Black:
    Question:Zayd says Divine Qudrah pertains to impossibility which [according to him] is muhal bil ghayr (Mumtaniý bi’l Ghayr or Mustaĥīl Árađī) & Mumkin Bil Dhat (Rationally possible or intrinsically possible). To prove his point, he says that it is within the Qudrah of Allah (swt)that those Kufar, whose Kufr is proven from the Quran and they are without a doubt Kafir, to send them to Jannah But he wouldn't do this because He has informed of this in the Quran but it is within His Qudrah. But Bakr opposes & endorses the opposite view. According to shariah whose statement is right?


    Answer: Based on the views of Jumhur/majority of Ahlus Sunnah, it is sharan Muhal and Aqlan Mumkin Bil dhaat (Intrinsically possible/ Rationally possible) while according to some scholars (Imam Nasafi and others) it is also rationally impossible.

    Question: Is sharan muhal in this case Mustahil aradi/ Mustahil bil ghayr? Because if it was mustahil dhati/intrinsically impossible it would have been Aqlan Muhal/rationally impossible as well?


    Rough translation of Highlighted text (black).
    Question: Is forgiveness of mushrikeen within the Qudrah of Almighty Allah (swt) or not?
    Answer: Without a doubt the pardon of the Kufar is within the Qudrah of Almighty Allah (swt) but its occurrence (wuqu) is muhal. The pardon of mushrikeen is Aqlan mumkin bil dhaat (Rationally possible or intrinsically possible) but Sharan Muhal bil ghayr (Mumtaniý bi’l Ghayr or Mustaĥīl Árađī) .


    Shaykh Abu Adam has said something similar here:

    It is also incredible stupidity to say that it is only contingently impossible (mustaheel `aradi) for Allah to lie, for if it was not absolutely impossible that Allah should lie, then how would one know it is mustaheel `aradi??? Mustaheel `arađiyy is when something is possible, like the existence of any created thing, but Allah tells us that it will not be, such as a mukallaf kaafir entering Paradise. That is, it is rationally possible that a kaafir could go to Paradise, but contingently impossible, because Allah has told us that this will never happen, as this is His decree. So if it was not absolutely impossible that Allah should lie, then how would they know that this information about Him not lying was correct? This is nothing less than zandaqah, extremem kufr, it is to put doubt in the religion as a whole, let alone contradicting that Allah’s kalaam is not created.
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2019
  2. SaadSohail

    SaadSohail Well-Known Member

    Aoa brother Abu Hassan,

    I hope that you please clarify some things that i have found confusing, probably due to my lack of knowledge.

    Taken from The killer mistake, page 88

    1) wajib dhati: intrinsically necessary to exist
    2) wajib aradi: contingently necessary – intrinsically mumkin but becomes wajib due to an external factor
    3) mustahil dhati: intrinsically impossible to exist
    4) mustahil aradi: contingently impossible – instrinsically mumkin but becomes mustahil due to an external factor

    5) imkan dhati: existence is intrinsically possible
    6) imkan wuquyi: possibility of occurrence – can NEVER become wajib or mustahil

    Taken from truth about a lie, Page 14
    Mayārah’s conclusion then decimates the argument of the kadh’dhābiyyah.67 He says68 that similarly,
    mustaĥīl mentioned is mustaĥīl dhātī and not mustaĥīl árađī. He also gives an illustration to describe
    the difference to clear any confusion or misunderstanding of these terms by novices and unskilled
    The conclusion of this [cautionary] note is: wajib mentioned is wajib dhati and not wajib
    áradi; and mustahil is mustahil dhati not áradi; and jayiz is jayiz dhati [by nature,
    If a certain thing is ordained wajib by the Lawgiver that it shall happen thus, it is wajib
    or if its being ordained impossible is made known by a report from sharaýi source
    that it shall not happen, it is mustahil áradi; (69) however jayiz does not mean permissible (70)
    or one is allowed to do a certain act.
    Taken from killer mistake: Page 83
    Imām Sanūsī says:
    This wājib that is mentioned is wājib dhātī [intrinsically necessary]. As for wājib árađī, it is that which is related to the Divine Will of Allāh táālā – like the punishment of Abu Jahl. Because, when we look at the innate nature of this thing – it is jāyiz, possible; both the possibility of punishment and its absence are rational. However, when we look at the Divine Will of Allāh táālā to punish him, as has been informed to us by the truthful and veritable Messenger– blessings of Allāh táālā upon him and peace – this becomes necessary [wājib] and it cannot be conceived that it will not come to be. Indeed, it is not necessary to consider something wājib dhātī only upon proviso; because by default and when mentioned absolutely, wājib does not mean anything except wājib dhātī. And it cannot be considered wājib árađī unless it is qualified thus expressly

    You wrote : While it is true that pardon of Abū Lahab appears to be intrinsically possible, Allāh táālā has however Willed to punish him and has conveyed to us via his Divine Speech. And because of its relation to the Will and Knowledge of Allāh táālā – which are both Pre-eternal, pardon is mustaĥīl dhātī.

    Q1) Isn't what is ordained impossible and made known through shariah "Mustahil aradi" or "intrinsically mumkin but made impossible due to external factor?
    Q2) Imam Sanusi states "As for wājib árađī, it is that which is related to the Divine Will of Allāh táālā – like the punishment of Abu Jahl." If the punishment of Abu Jahl is "Wajib Aradi" shouldn't his pardon be mustahil aradi?
    Q3) Likewise, if the pardon of Abu Jahl is mustahil dhati because of its relation to the Will and knowledge of Allah (swt) as you stated, shouldn't his punishment be "Wajib dhati" in relation to the Will and knowledge of Allah (swt)?

Share This Page