Page 12 of 36 one thing in Common, they attempt to prove God/Deity selecting other ways as well which are independent of Incarnation,Male Human Nature and Assumption of Male Human Nature. So one who claims that these two are the only ways to Know God say some thing not said by others. It must be noted that it is beyond the scope of this article to Discuss the Possibility and Impossibility of Assumption Of Human Nature [Incarnation]. It is neither Immediately Evident to Finite Rational Supposita of Finite Knowledges and Rarionalities nor in the innate Knowledge of any Finite Rational Suppositum of Finite Knowledge whether the one that is seen and perceived by five senses and one that appeareth as a Human is a Male Human Nature of a Hypostatic Union assumed by the Hypostasis of the Union or a Male Human Person. So the demonstrations of such a Male Human Nature and Assumption Of Male Human Nature Can only be by Posteriori Argumentations and not by Priori Argumentations. Similarly Posteriori Argumentations can be used to demonstrate the very Divine Essence [God/Deity] independent of any Assumed Created Nature what so ever. If similar Argumentations can be used to argue and to shew for the Divine Existent and Very Self Of the Divine Existent that is the Divine Essence Directly without any Medium/Middle of any Assumed Created Nature then there is nothing in these Anti Islamic Objections that maketh them valid and correct. If there is at least one Hypostasis in the Godhead of God , the very Eternal Self of the Divine Hypostasis is neither perceived by any Human Sense nor an innate object of Human Knowledge and Rationality . If all the Knowledges if proceed by the Assumed Created Nature which is the Male Human Nature in this particular case and neither from the very self of the Hypostasis nor from the Godhead of the Hypostasis then Hypostasis and the Divine Ousia [Godhead] becomes Unknown, each one of the two in itself. Twelve Preliminary Page 12 of 36
Page 13 of 36 If it is assumed that Divine Essence [God/Deity] is Unknowable in Itself then this is the view of 5 th century BCE Sophists and some Atheists 19 and 20 th centuries CE. It is a kind of Atheism to claim that Human Minds can never know whether God Existeth or Existenth Not, since this belief annihilates Faith in Divine Essence [God/Deity]. If it is accepted that God/ Deity [Divine Essence] cannot be known by Finite Supposita of finite Knowledges with the only exception that God/Deity [Divine Essence] can be known by the Assumed Created Nature then this meaneth that all Knowledges about God/Deity [Divine Essence/Ousia] Come from the assumed Assumed Male Human Nature. If this is so then the grounds for this Exception are infinitely weak . Since If it is Impossible to Know God/Deity [Divine Essence] from any Creation then it is irrelative whether the Creation is an Assumed Male Human Nature or it is not. If it is Possible to Know God from Creations then it is once again irrelevant whether a Particular Creation is an Assumed Male Nature or not. To claim that it is Impossible to know God from Some Creations and Possible to Know God from other Creations is a claim with out any Proof. Since the very act of Assumption of the Created Nature is it self a Creature. As stated in the Eleventh Preliminary it is certainly not evident whether the one that is seen and sensed by human senses is a Human Person or a Human Nature, it requires a proof whether the perceived thing is a Male Human Nature or a Male Human Person. What kind of proof can demonstrate the act of Created Assumption itself. Since Assumption if possible requires an agent that is the Assumer. If Assumption implieth an Assumer then it doeth not imply that the Assumer is God/ Deity or Divine Essence or a Non- Divine Assumer [Created Assumer]. Once again it shall be claimed that Only God/ Deity / Divine Essence or an Hypostasis Hath the Power to Assume. But this is a Preposterous argument. This presumes God/Deity before the act of assumption. This is a Priori and not a Posteriori. [This is discussed above]. Page 13 of 36
David W. Montgomery presents a rich ethnographic study on the practice and meaning of Islamic life in Kyrgyzstan. As he shows, becoming and being a Muslim are based on knowledge acquired from the surrounding environment, enabled through the practice of doing. Through these acts, Islam is imbued in both the individual and the community. To Montgomery, religious practice and lived experience combine to create an ideological space that is shaped by events, opportunities, and potentialities that form the context from which knowing emerges. This acquired knowledge further frames social navigation and political negotiation. Through his years of on-the-ground research, Montgomery assembles both an anthropology of knowledge and an anthropology of Islam, demonstrating how individuals make sense of and draw meanings from their environments. He reveals subtle individual interpretations of the religion and how people seek to define themselves and their lives as “good�? within their communities and under Islam. Based on numerous in-depth interviews, bolstered by extensive survey and data collection, Montgomery offers the most thorough English-language study to date of Islam in post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan. His work provides a broad view into the cognitive processes of Central Asian populations that will serve students, researchers, and policymakers alike.