23.11.2018 Views

The figurative or metaphorical use of word "word" and "spirit" in Surah 'Annisa

The figurative or metaphorical use of word "word" and "spirit" in Surah 'Annisa

The figurative or metaphorical use of word "word" and "spirit" in Surah 'Annisa

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMAAH<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>figurative</strong> <strong>or</strong><br />

metaph<strong>or</strong>ical <strong>use</strong> <strong>of</strong> the<br />

w<strong>or</strong>ds “WORD” AND<br />

“SPIRIT” IN <strong>Surah</strong> ‘Annisa ,<br />

Ayah :171<br />

A DISCUSSION ON THE WORDS “WORD” AND<br />

“SPIRIT” IN ISLAMIC THEOLOGY<br />

HUSAM<br />

11/22/2018<br />

A number <strong>of</strong> people get conf<strong>use</strong>d when they f<strong>in</strong>d the w<strong>or</strong>d “WORD” <strong>and</strong> “SPIRIT” <strong>in</strong> regard to Saiyiduna<br />

Isa /Iesous [Peace Be Upon Him]. Some people deliberately <strong>use</strong> these two w<strong>or</strong>ds <strong>in</strong> Christological<br />

Mean<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> Athanasian <strong>and</strong> Post Athanasian Tr<strong>in</strong>itarians. So it is tried to shew the other mean<strong>in</strong>gs<br />

which they neglect <strong>in</strong> Catholic <strong>and</strong> Islamic <strong>The</strong>ological Systems.


2<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is a confusion about the verse <strong>of</strong> Su:rah ‘Ann-sa:’ that this verse calls Iesous / “I:sa:<br />

[“ALAIHISALA:M/AS] as WORD OF DEITY/GOD <strong>and</strong> SPIRIT OF GOD/DEITY.<br />

Actually the Verse <strong>use</strong>th the Pronouns Relations as ‘HIS WORD’ <strong>and</strong> ‘HIS SPIRIT’.<br />

This is discussed as WORD OF GOD/DEITY <strong>and</strong> SPIRIT OF DEITY/GOD.<br />

[<strong>The</strong> w<strong>or</strong>ds GOD/God <strong>and</strong> DEITY/Deity are <strong>use</strong>d <strong>in</strong> exactly the same mean<strong>in</strong>g “ <strong>The</strong> SUPREME EXISTENT”,<br />

so the are <strong>of</strong>ten commuted over the slash”/”]<br />

<strong>The</strong> Verse stated above is given as follows:- .<br />

ٰۤ يٰ‏ اَهۡ‏ لَ‏ ۡ ال كِتٰ‏ بِ‏ ‏َلَ‏ تَغۡ‏ لُوۡ‏ ا فِىۡ‏ دِيۡ‏ نِكُمۡ‏ وََلَ‏ تَقُوۡ‏ لُوۡ‏ ا عَلَى ‏ّٰللاه ِ اَِلا ۡ الحَ اق ؕ اِ‏ انمَا ۡ ال مَسِيۡ‏ حُ‏ عِيۡ‏ سَى ابۡ‏ نُ‏ مَرۡ‏ يَمَ‏ رَسُوۡ‏ لُ‏ ‏ّٰللاه ِ وَكَلِمَتُه ؕ اَ‏ ۡ ل قٰ‏ ٮهَاٰۤ‏ ٰ اِلى مَرۡ‏ يَمَ‏<br />

وَ‏ رُ‏ وۡ‏ حٌ‏ مِِّنۡهُ‏ فَاٰمِنُوۡ‏ ا بِاّٰلله ِ وَ‏ رُ‏ سُلِه ؕ<br />

...<br />

A]O People <strong>of</strong> the Scripture! Do not exaggerate <strong>in</strong> your religion n<strong>or</strong> utter<br />

aught concern<strong>in</strong>g Allah save the truth. <strong>The</strong> Messiah, Jesus son <strong>of</strong> Mary,<br />

was only a messenger <strong>of</strong> Allah, <strong>and</strong> His w<strong>or</strong>d which He conveyed unto<br />

Mary, <strong>and</strong> a spirit from Him. So believe <strong>in</strong> Allah <strong>and</strong> His messengers,<br />

<strong>and</strong> say not "Three". Cease! (it is) better f<strong>or</strong> you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he<br />

should have a son. His is all that is <strong>in</strong> the heavens <strong>and</strong> all that is <strong>in</strong> the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.<br />

Page 2 <strong>of</strong> 15


3<br />

B]'O people <strong>of</strong> the Book! Exceed not <strong>in</strong> your religion, <strong>and</strong> do not say <strong>of</strong><br />

Allah anyth<strong>in</strong>g but truth. <strong>The</strong> MessiahIssa son <strong>of</strong> Marium is only the<br />

Messenger <strong>of</strong> Allah <strong>and</strong> His w<strong>or</strong>d that was sent to Mary <strong>and</strong> a spirit from<br />

Him.<strong>The</strong>n believe <strong>in</strong> Allah <strong>and</strong> His Messengers<br />

<strong>and</strong> do not say, 'three'. Refra<strong>in</strong> f<strong>or</strong> your own good. Allah is the only one God. Far is it from His Hol<strong>in</strong>ess that He should have a son. To<br />

Him belongs whatever is <strong>in</strong> the heavens <strong>and</strong> whatever is <strong>in</strong> the earth. And Allah is Sufficient, as real Doer.<br />

C] People <strong>of</strong> the Book, go not beyond the bounds <strong>in</strong> your religion,<br />

<strong>and</strong> say not as to God but the truth. <strong>The</strong> Messiah, Jesus son <strong>of</strong> Mary,<br />

was only the Messenger <strong>of</strong> God, <strong>and</strong> His W<strong>or</strong>d that He committed to<br />

Mary, <strong>and</strong> a Spirit from Him. So believe <strong>in</strong> God <strong>and</strong> His Messengers,<br />

<strong>and</strong> say not, 'Three.' Refra<strong>in</strong>; better is it f<strong>or</strong> you. God is only One God. Gl<strong>or</strong>y be to Him -- That He should have a son! To Him<br />

belongs all that is <strong>in</strong> the heavens <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> the earth; God suffices f<strong>or</strong> a guardian.<br />

D] O People <strong>of</strong> the Scripture, do not commit excess <strong>in</strong> your<br />

religion <strong>or</strong> say about Allah except the truth. <strong>The</strong> Messiah,<br />

Jesus, the son <strong>of</strong> Mary, was but a messenger <strong>of</strong> Allah <strong>and</strong><br />

His w<strong>or</strong>d which He directed to Mary <strong>and</strong> a soul [created at a<br />

comm<strong>and</strong>] from Him. So believe <strong>in</strong> Allah <strong>and</strong> His messengers.<br />

And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better f<strong>or</strong> you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above<br />

hav<strong>in</strong>g a son. To Him belongs whatever is <strong>in</strong> the heavens <strong>and</strong> whatever is on the earth. And sufficient<br />

is Allah as Disposer <strong>of</strong> affairs.<br />

[<strong>The</strong> ‘’Arabic Text c<strong>or</strong>respond<strong>in</strong>g to the translations <strong>in</strong> red colour is not<br />

given].<br />

This verse is <strong>of</strong>ten misunderstood beca<strong>use</strong> some expressions <strong>of</strong> this<br />

verse is taken <strong>in</strong> Athanasian mean<strong>in</strong>gs. But this is just a confusion to<br />

ascribe Tr<strong>in</strong>itarian <strong>The</strong>ology to ‘Isla:mic Terms ,constructions <strong>and</strong><br />

phrases.<br />

If it is researched <strong>in</strong> detail even <strong>in</strong> Christian scriptures there are some<br />

m<strong>or</strong>e mean<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> them which are <strong>of</strong>ten neglected.<br />

Page 3 <strong>of</strong> 15


4<br />

<strong>The</strong> Term ‘’W<strong>or</strong>d’’ <strong>in</strong> the Phrase ‘’W<strong>or</strong>d Of God/Deity’’<br />

<strong>The</strong> ‘’Arabic w<strong>or</strong>d Kalimah /Calimah[Pl:Kalima:t/Calima:t] means w<strong>or</strong>d. <strong>The</strong>re is a difference between<br />

Kalimah amd Kala:m./Cala:m. <strong>The</strong> w<strong>or</strong>d Cala:m/Kala:m means ‘’Speech’’.<br />

<strong>The</strong> difference between a w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>and</strong> a speech is obvious.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Greek w<strong>or</strong>d Logos means Reason <strong>or</strong> Act <strong>or</strong> W<strong>or</strong>d.<br />

[A w<strong>or</strong>d may be expressed as a part <strong>of</strong> a speech].<br />

But the questions is what is the mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the w<strong>or</strong>d ‘’WORD’’ <strong>in</strong> the Catholic <strong>and</strong> ‘isla:mic <strong>The</strong>ologies.<br />

Discussion on the w<strong>or</strong>d ‘’WORD’’.<br />

1] It is <strong>use</strong>d f<strong>or</strong> the Second Hypostasis <strong>in</strong> the Tr<strong>in</strong>ity <strong>of</strong> Triune God.<br />

2] It is <strong>use</strong>d f<strong>or</strong> the New Testament. [Say New Testament is the W<strong>or</strong>d Of God/Deity].<br />

3] It can be <strong>use</strong>d f<strong>or</strong> Hebrew Bible. [Say Tanakh is the W<strong>or</strong>d Of Deity/God].<br />

4] Every w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>in</strong> a sentence directly Spoken by Deity/God can be called as w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>of</strong> God/Deity.<br />

Catholic <strong>The</strong>ology.<br />

Sa<strong>in</strong>t Aqu<strong>in</strong>as Thomas the Great Catholic Scholar writes:-<br />

Damascene these three k<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>of</strong> w<strong>or</strong>ds (De fide Orthod ,i,13)<br />

Say<strong>in</strong>g that the w<strong>or</strong>d is called the natural movement <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>tellect , whereby it is moved <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong>s<br />

And th<strong>in</strong>ks as light <strong>and</strong> splendour , which is the first k<strong>in</strong>d.<br />

‘’Aga<strong>in</strong>’’ he says that the w<strong>or</strong>d is what that is not pronounced by vocal w<strong>or</strong>d but it is uttered <strong>in</strong> the<br />

heart, which is the third k<strong>in</strong>d.<br />

‘’Aga<strong>in</strong> ‘’ also the w<strong>or</strong>d is the Angel – that is the messenger <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>telligence., which is the second<br />

k<strong>in</strong>d.<br />

W<strong>or</strong>d is also <strong>use</strong>d <strong>in</strong> <strong>figurative</strong>ly f<strong>or</strong> the signified <strong>or</strong> effected by the w<strong>or</strong>d, thus we are accustomed to<br />

say ‘’ this is the w<strong>or</strong>d I have said to you <strong>or</strong> which the k<strong>in</strong>g comm<strong>and</strong>ed, allud<strong>in</strong>g to some deed signified<br />

by the w<strong>or</strong>d either by the way <strong>of</strong> assertion <strong>or</strong> <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>and</strong>.[Q:XXXIV, PAGE 185]<br />

Page 4 <strong>of</strong> 15


5<br />

In an answer to an objection the Great Catholic Scholar Aqu<strong>in</strong>as Thomas accepts the <strong>figurative</strong> <strong>use</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

the w<strong>or</strong>d ‘’WORD’’.<br />

Objection:4<br />

Further no div<strong>in</strong>e person is made. But the w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>of</strong> God is some th<strong>in</strong>g made .F<strong>or</strong> it is said ‘’Fire, hail, snow<br />

,ice, the st<strong>or</strong>ms which do His w<strong>or</strong>d (Ps:148,8). <strong>The</strong>ref<strong>or</strong>e the w<strong>or</strong>d is not a personal name <strong>in</strong> God.<br />

Page 185 Summa <strong>The</strong>ologica Vol 1<br />

Great Catholic <strong>The</strong>ologian Sa<strong>in</strong>t Aqu<strong>in</strong>as Thomas answers this objection as follow:<br />

<strong>The</strong> term w<strong>or</strong>d is taken there <strong>figurative</strong>ly as the signified <strong>or</strong> effected by a w<strong>or</strong>d is called a w<strong>or</strong>d. F<strong>or</strong><br />

Creatures are said to do the w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>of</strong> God , as execut<strong>in</strong>g any effect to which they are <strong>or</strong>da<strong>in</strong>ed by the<br />

w<strong>or</strong>d conceived <strong>in</strong> the div<strong>in</strong>e wisdom, just as any one is said to do the w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>of</strong> the k<strong>in</strong>g when he does<br />

the w<strong>or</strong>k to which he is appo<strong>in</strong>ted by the k<strong>in</strong>g’s w<strong>or</strong>d.<br />

How ever there is a problem that the vocal sounds uttered by vocal c<strong>or</strong>d <strong>and</strong> the tongue is/& beyond<br />

doubd WORDS, <strong>and</strong> it is an irrefutable fact that they are also w<strong>or</strong>ds <strong>in</strong> some mean<strong>in</strong>g. One cannot say<br />

that they are w<strong>or</strong>ds <strong>in</strong> some <strong>figurative</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>gs. This is <strong>in</strong>c<strong>or</strong>rect <strong>and</strong> wrong idea to declare the w<strong>or</strong>ds<br />

uttered by vocal c<strong>or</strong>ds <strong>and</strong> tongues <strong>of</strong> human be<strong>in</strong>gs are not w<strong>or</strong>ds <strong>in</strong> literal mean<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />

Sa<strong>in</strong>t Aqu<strong>in</strong>as Thomas says:<br />

<strong>The</strong> clearest <strong>and</strong> most common sense is when it is said <strong>of</strong> the w<strong>or</strong>d spoken by the voice, <strong>and</strong> this<br />

proceeds from an <strong>in</strong>teri<strong>or</strong> source as regard to two th<strong>in</strong>gs found <strong>in</strong> the exteri<strong>or</strong> w<strong>or</strong>d- that is the vocal<br />

sound itself <strong>and</strong> signification <strong>of</strong> the sound.<br />

F<strong>or</strong> acc<strong>or</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g to the philosophers the vocal sounds signifies the concept <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>tellect.<br />

Aga<strong>in</strong> the vocal sound proceeds from the signification <strong>or</strong> imag<strong>in</strong>ation as stated <strong>in</strong> the book <strong>of</strong> Soul.<br />

<strong>The</strong> vocal sound which has no signification cannot be called a w<strong>or</strong>d , hence the exteri<strong>or</strong> vocal sound is<br />

called a w<strong>or</strong>d beca<strong>use</strong> it signifies the <strong>in</strong>ner concept <strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d.<br />

Thus theref<strong>or</strong>e first <strong>and</strong> chiefly the <strong>in</strong>ner concept <strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d is called a w<strong>or</strong>d, secondary the vocal sound it<br />

self ,signify<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>teri<strong>or</strong> concept is so called , <strong>and</strong> thirdly the imag<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> the vocal sound is called a<br />

w<strong>or</strong>d.<br />

[I Answer That…Art:1 , Q:XXXIV, SUMMA THEOLOGICA VOL:1]<br />

One may add written w<strong>or</strong>ds <strong>and</strong> w<strong>or</strong>ds <strong>in</strong> written speech <strong>and</strong> text as well as<br />

the fifth type.( Imag<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>or</strong> written Text may constitute the sixth type).<br />

Thus there are several mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the w<strong>or</strong>d ‘’WORD’ accepted <strong>in</strong> Catholic <strong>The</strong>ology at least by<br />

Thomists:-<br />

Page 5 <strong>of</strong> 15


6<br />

1] A Noun <strong>of</strong> the Second Hypostatic Person <strong>in</strong> the Div<strong>in</strong>e Ousia.<br />

2] Natural movement <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>tellect/<strong>in</strong>telligence.<br />

3] Angel <strong>or</strong> messenger <strong>of</strong> Intellegence/<strong>in</strong>tellect.<br />

4] Someth<strong>in</strong>g uttered <strong>in</strong> the heart.<br />

5] Vocal Sounds which signify some mean<strong>in</strong>gs .<br />

6] Imag<strong>in</strong>ations Of Vocal Sound.<br />

7] Metaph<strong>or</strong>ical <strong>use</strong> <strong>of</strong> the w<strong>or</strong>d ‘’W<strong>or</strong>d’’.<br />

This list does not seems to be complete s<strong>in</strong>ce it does not <strong>in</strong>clude the W<strong>or</strong>ds <strong>and</strong> W<strong>or</strong>ds <strong>in</strong> the<br />

Sentences Spoken by God/Deity directly <strong>and</strong> the written w<strong>or</strong>ds either <strong>in</strong>dependently as <strong>in</strong><br />

dictionaries <strong>or</strong> <strong>in</strong> written text <strong>of</strong> documents.<br />

Any how it does prove that the w<strong>or</strong>d ‘’W<strong>or</strong>d’’ [Pl: W<strong>or</strong>ds] is <strong>use</strong>d <strong>in</strong> several mean<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> not only<br />

<strong>in</strong> one mean<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

Further the Metaph<strong>or</strong>ical mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the w<strong>or</strong>d ‘’W<strong>or</strong>d’’ are also <strong>in</strong> regular <strong>use</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Construction/Phrase ‘’WORD OF GOD/DEITY’’ can be <strong>use</strong>d <strong>in</strong> <strong>The</strong> Metaph<strong>or</strong>ical Mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>or</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />

the Figurative Mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the w<strong>or</strong>d ‘’WORD’’.<br />

<strong>The</strong> term w<strong>or</strong>d is taken there <strong>figurative</strong>ly as the signified <strong>or</strong> effected by a w<strong>or</strong>d is called a w<strong>or</strong>d. Just<br />

as if Creatures are said to do the w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>of</strong> God , they can said be the w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>of</strong> Deity/God as execut<strong>in</strong>g any<br />

act to which they are <strong>or</strong>da<strong>in</strong>ed by the w<strong>or</strong>d Spoken by God/Deity.<br />

F<strong>or</strong> example the first Div<strong>in</strong>e Sentence that was Spoken by Deity/God Non-Eternally acc<strong>or</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g to<br />

Genesis is:-<br />

[O] Light be <strong>and</strong> light became.<br />

This is translated <strong>in</strong> some polished way ‘’Let there be light’’.<br />

[And there was light].<br />

Each w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>of</strong> the the Sentence Of God/Deity is the W<strong>or</strong>d Of God/Deity. So if the Construction is <strong>use</strong>d<br />

f<strong>or</strong> Iesous then this means that the w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>in</strong> the phrase <strong>or</strong> construction is <strong>use</strong>d <strong>figurative</strong>ly <strong>and</strong> not<br />

necessarily as a Notion <strong>of</strong> God/Deity.How ever this does not mean that Sa<strong>in</strong>t Aqu<strong>in</strong>as Thomas agree<br />

with the ‘Islamic mean<strong>in</strong>g exactly, the po<strong>in</strong>t is that the w<strong>or</strong>d W<strong>or</strong>d can be <strong>use</strong>d Metaph<strong>or</strong>ically <strong>or</strong><br />

Figuratively .<br />

<strong>The</strong> w<strong>or</strong>d ‘’WORD’’ <strong>in</strong> the phrase/construction ‘’W<strong>or</strong>d Of God/Deity’’is not a Notion <strong>of</strong> God/Deity.<br />

[ Notion is the Idea whereby one can Know Div<strong>in</strong>e Existent]<br />

Page 6 <strong>of</strong> 15


7<br />

Once it is accepted that such mean<strong>in</strong>gs are possible it is sufficient to say that the Construction is <strong>in</strong><br />

the Metaph<strong>or</strong>ical <strong>or</strong> Figurative mean<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> it is not necessary to def<strong>in</strong>itize the Metaph<strong>or</strong>ical <strong>or</strong><br />

Figurative mean<strong>in</strong>g if there are m<strong>or</strong>e than one mean<strong>in</strong>g. However one may list all the possible<br />

Metaph<strong>or</strong>ical <strong>or</strong> Figurative mean<strong>in</strong>gs with out shew<strong>in</strong>g any <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ation to any one <strong>of</strong> them. One may<br />

also take just one mean<strong>in</strong>gs among them even if he is may not prefer any one <strong>of</strong> them.<br />

USE OF THE WORD ‘’WORD’’ IN ‘ISLAMIC THEOLOGY<br />

In ‘Islamic <strong>The</strong>ology the w<strong>or</strong>d ‘’WORD’’ is <strong>use</strong>d <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g mean<strong>in</strong>gs:=<br />

1] F<strong>or</strong> the Div<strong>in</strong>e Essential Attribute <strong>of</strong> Speech that is believed to be the Essential <strong>of</strong> the Div<strong>in</strong>e Essence.<br />

2] F<strong>or</strong> the W<strong>or</strong>ds <strong>in</strong> the Sentences <strong>of</strong> Deity Spoken Non Eternally <strong>in</strong> Div<strong>in</strong>e Revelation.<br />

3] F<strong>or</strong> Sentences Spoken <strong>in</strong> Revelations Non Eternally.<br />

4] Strictly w<strong>or</strong>ded sentences.<br />

5] Div<strong>in</strong>e Comm<strong>and</strong> <strong>or</strong> Div<strong>in</strong>e Comm<strong>and</strong>ment.<br />

6] W<strong>or</strong>d <strong>in</strong> the Text <strong>of</strong> copies <strong>of</strong> Holy Qur’an. Etc.<br />

7]Any th<strong>in</strong>g that is ca<strong>use</strong>d <strong>or</strong> effected by Div<strong>in</strong>e Comm<strong>and</strong>.<br />

This is the Metaph<strong>or</strong>ical <strong>or</strong> Figurative <strong>use</strong> <strong>of</strong> the w<strong>or</strong>d ‘’WORD’’.<br />

So the question is why God/Deity called Iesous [‘’AS] as ‘’ HIS WORD’’ .<br />

It is clear that this is <strong>in</strong> the metaph<strong>or</strong>ical mean<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

Al-Masi:h: `I:sa:, son <strong>of</strong> Maryam, was only a Messenger <strong>of</strong> God/Deity <strong>and</strong> His w<strong>or</strong>d (<strong>in</strong><br />

metaph<strong>or</strong>ical <strong>or</strong> <strong>figurative</strong> mea<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the w<strong>or</strong>d ‘’ WORD’’), that GOD/DEITY Did bestow on<br />

Maryam (May the bless<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> God/ Deity be upon her) <strong>and</strong> a spirit from (created one AND NOT<br />

A RELATIVE TERM ) by﴾ Him;) `I:sa: is only one <strong>of</strong> Allah's servants <strong>and</strong> one <strong>of</strong> His creatures.<br />

Allah said to him, ‘’ Let there Be’’ <strong>or</strong> `’Be'’, <strong>and</strong> he became/ was, <strong>and</strong> God/Deity did send<br />

‘’I:sa: [‘’AS] as a Messenger.<br />

`Isa was a w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>in</strong> Metaph<strong>or</strong>ical <strong>or</strong> Figurative mean<strong>in</strong>g from God/Deity . ‘’I:sa: [‘’AS] was<br />

bestowed on Maryam, mean<strong>in</strong>g He created him with the w<strong>or</strong>d `Be' <strong>or</strong> ‘Let there Be’that He sent<br />

with Jibril to Maryam <strong>in</strong> the immaterial Revelation. Jibri:l [“AS] blew the life <strong>of</strong> `Isa <strong>in</strong>to<br />

Maryam by Allah's leave, <strong>and</strong> “I:sa: came to existence as a result.<br />

This is why “I:sa: was a w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>and</strong> a ru:h: (spirit) created by God/Deity, as he had no father to<br />

conceive him. Rather, he came to existence through the w<strong>or</strong>d that Allah uttered, `Be,' <strong>and</strong> he<br />

was, through the life that Allah sent with Jibri:l.<br />

Page 7 <strong>of</strong> 15


8<br />

This <strong>in</strong>cident was <strong>in</strong> place <strong>of</strong> the n<strong>or</strong>mal conception between man <strong>and</strong> woman that results <strong>in</strong><br />

children.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is a question that is sometime asked that God/Deity did Spoke “Be”<br />

“Let there Be” then the actual spoken w<strong>or</strong>d by God/Deity is Be [Cun/Kun] <strong>and</strong> not ‘I:sa: /Iesous [Peace Be Upon Him] rather he was<br />

Ca<strong>use</strong>d by the Comm<strong>and</strong>ment <strong>of</strong> “Be” <strong>or</strong> “Let ther Be” Spoken By God/Deity. He was a Created Suppositum. <strong>The</strong>n he cannot be a WORD<br />

OF GOD/DEITY. So it is not a WORD.<br />

This question is answered as follow:<br />

<strong>The</strong> Iesous /“I:sa: [“AS] is not a w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>of</strong> God/ Deity <strong>in</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>gs 1 to 5 given above but <strong>in</strong> the 6 th mean<strong>in</strong>g which is a metaph<strong>or</strong>ical <strong>or</strong><br />

<strong>figurative</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g .When there is a change <strong>of</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g then Iesous [“AS] is a w<strong>or</strong>d od Deity/God <strong>in</strong> one mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> the w<strong>or</strong>d Be that<br />

ca<strong>use</strong>d <strong>and</strong> effected him was w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>in</strong> an other mean<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

An other objection is that as follow:<br />

If every th<strong>in</strong>g is a Creation <strong>of</strong> God/Deity this implieth that Every Human Be<strong>in</strong>g is a Creation <strong>of</strong> God/Deity, then this implieth that every<br />

human be<strong>in</strong>g is a WORD OF GOD/DEITY <strong>and</strong> if every human be<strong>in</strong>g who so ever he/she may be is a w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>of</strong> God/Deity then he /she must<br />

be obeyed even if the human be<strong>in</strong>g is an atheist <strong>and</strong> comm<strong>and</strong>s to disbelieve <strong>in</strong> God/Deity.<br />

This may be answered <strong>in</strong> two ways. First not every Human Be<strong>in</strong>g is b<strong>or</strong>n <strong>in</strong> the manner Holy Iesous /”I:sa: [“AS] is made.<br />

<strong>The</strong> second answer is that <strong>in</strong> the mean<strong>in</strong>g a Human Be<strong>in</strong>g may be called W<strong>or</strong>d Of God/Deity is just a Metaph<strong>or</strong>ical <strong>or</strong> Figurative mean<strong>in</strong>g<br />

<strong>and</strong> this mean<strong>in</strong>g there is no obedience Necessary. Evidently this is a problem due to confus<strong>in</strong>g two different mean<strong>in</strong>gs. A Fallacy <strong>of</strong><br />

Ambiguity.<br />

An other objection is that as follow:<br />

If every th<strong>in</strong>g that is ca<strong>use</strong>d by the comm<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> revelation can be called as w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>of</strong> God/Deity then why<br />

only Iesous /”I;sa [“AS] is called so. <strong>The</strong> answer is that such a th<strong>in</strong>g is an act <strong>of</strong> gl<strong>or</strong>ification.<br />

F<strong>or</strong> example every th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the w<strong>or</strong>ld is <strong>of</strong> God/Deity but if a particular Ho<strong>use</strong> is called as Ho<strong>use</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

God/Deity this is just to gl<strong>or</strong>ify the ho<strong>use</strong>.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Term Spirit <strong>in</strong> the Phrase ‘’Spirit Of God/Deity’’<br />

<strong>The</strong> ‘’Arabic w<strong>or</strong>d Ru:h: means Spirit <strong>in</strong> English . In Hebrew R-ukh , <strong>in</strong> Greek Pneuma <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong> Spiritus<br />

are its equivalents.<br />

This w<strong>or</strong>d is generally <strong>use</strong> f<strong>or</strong> an immaterial Rational Suppositum.<br />

How ever it ihas several mean<strong>in</strong>gs both Proper <strong>and</strong> Improper [say Metaph<strong>or</strong>ical, Figurative etc].<br />

Page 8 <strong>of</strong> 15


9<br />

Catholic <strong>The</strong>ology:-<br />

In Catholic <strong>The</strong>ology this w<strong>or</strong>d is <strong>use</strong>d <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g mean<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />

1] <strong>The</strong> Third Hypostasis <strong>in</strong> the Div<strong>in</strong>e Ousia [Godhead].<br />

2] F<strong>or</strong> each <strong>of</strong> the three Hypostases <strong>in</strong> the Div<strong>in</strong>e Ousia.<br />

In Objection 1 ,Art:: Q: XXXVI, Summma <strong>The</strong>ologica an Objection is quoted by Great Catholic Philosopher <strong>and</strong> <strong>The</strong>ologian Sa<strong>in</strong>t Aqu<strong>in</strong>as<br />

Thomas as Follow:<br />

But the name <strong>of</strong> Holy Ghost is common to the three persons.<br />

[Pg :191 Vol:1 ,Summa <strong>The</strong>ologica.<br />

In response to this objection the Great Catholic <strong>The</strong>ologian accepts that the w<strong>or</strong>d(s) Holy Ghost is <strong>use</strong>d <strong>in</strong> two fold mean<strong>in</strong>gs. He makes<br />

subtle dist<strong>in</strong>ction between the W<strong>or</strong>d/W<strong>or</strong>ds ‘’Holy Ghost’’ taken as two w<strong>or</strong>ds <strong>or</strong> a s<strong>in</strong>gle w<strong>or</strong>d.<br />

Au<strong>in</strong>as Thomas further quotes Sa<strong>in</strong>t August<strong>in</strong>e an other great Catholic <strong>The</strong>ologian as follow :-<br />

F<strong>or</strong>, as August<strong>in</strong>e says (De Tr<strong>in</strong>. xv, 17; v, 11), "Beca<strong>use</strong> the Holy Ghost is common to both, He Himself is called that properly which both<br />

are called <strong>in</strong> common. F<strong>or</strong> the Father also is a spirit, <strong>and</strong> the Son is a spirit; <strong>and</strong> the Father is holy, <strong>and</strong> the Son is holy." Secondly,<br />

from the proper signification <strong>of</strong> the name. F<strong>or</strong> the name spirit <strong>in</strong> th<strong>in</strong>gs c<strong>or</strong>p<strong>or</strong>eal seems to signify impulse <strong>and</strong> motion; f<strong>or</strong> we call<br />

the breath <strong>and</strong> the w<strong>in</strong>d by the term spirit.<br />

3] F<strong>or</strong> the Tr<strong>in</strong>ity <strong>of</strong> the Triune God.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Great<br />

Reply to Objection 1: <strong>The</strong> expression Holy Spirit, if taken as two w<strong>or</strong>ds, is applicable to the whole Tr<strong>in</strong>ity: beca<strong>use</strong> by 'spirit' the<br />

immateriality <strong>of</strong> the div<strong>in</strong>e substance is signified; f<strong>or</strong> c<strong>or</strong>p<strong>or</strong>eal spirit is immateriality <strong>of</strong> the div<strong>in</strong>e substance is signified<strong>in</strong>visible,<br />

<strong>and</strong> has but little matter; hence we apply this term to all immaterial <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>visible substances.And by add<strong>in</strong>g the w<strong>or</strong>d "holy" we signify<br />

the purity <strong>of</strong> div<strong>in</strong>egoodness.<br />

4] F<strong>or</strong> any Immaterial Substance.<br />

In Footnote 1 on page 191 the translat<strong>or</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Summma <strong>The</strong>ologica <strong>in</strong> English write:-<br />

It should be b<strong>or</strong>e <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d that the w<strong>or</strong>d ‘’ghost’’ is old English equivalent f<strong>or</strong> the Lat<strong>in</strong> w<strong>or</strong>d spiritus.<br />

Whether <strong>in</strong> the sense <strong>of</strong> breath <strong>or</strong> blast <strong>or</strong> <strong>in</strong> the sense <strong>of</strong> immaterial substance.<br />

This Footnote further says that Mounder wrote ‘’ Jhesu Christe the w<strong>or</strong>de <strong>and</strong> goste <strong>of</strong> God (See Oxf<strong>or</strong>d Dictionary)’’<br />

5]F<strong>or</strong> any Rational Suppositum with very little matter. Say F<strong>or</strong> human Spirit<br />

Page 9 <strong>of</strong> 15


10<br />

6]F<strong>or</strong> Angel.<br />

Sa<strong>in</strong>t Aqu<strong>in</strong>as Thomas does write :<br />

Reply to Objection 1: <strong>The</strong> expression Holy Spirit, if taken as two w<strong>or</strong>ds, is applicable to the whole Tr<strong>in</strong>ity: beca<strong>use</strong> by 'spirit'<br />

the immateriality <strong>of</strong> the div<strong>in</strong>e substance is signified; f<strong>or</strong> c<strong>or</strong>p<strong>or</strong>eal spirit is <strong>in</strong>visible, <strong>and</strong> has but little matter; hence we<br />

apply this term to all immaterial <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>visible substances. And by add<strong>in</strong>g the w<strong>or</strong>d "holy" we signify the purity <strong>of</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e<br />

goodness. But if Holy Spirit be taken as one w<strong>or</strong>d, it is thus that the expression, <strong>in</strong> the usage <strong>of</strong> the Church, is accommodated<br />

to signify one <strong>of</strong> the three persons, the one who proceeds by way <strong>of</strong> love, f<strong>or</strong> the reason above expla<strong>in</strong>ed.<br />

7] W<strong>in</strong>d<br />

8] Blast [<strong>of</strong> air]<br />

<strong>The</strong> Footnote stated above also provide two examples:<br />

i) <strong>The</strong> Ghost <strong>of</strong> st<strong>or</strong>m.(Spiritus procelarum); Hampale Psalter<br />

ii) Trubled gost is sacrifice <strong>of</strong> God ; Prose Psall<strong>or</strong> AD 1325<br />

One may see the Jewish <strong>use</strong> <strong>of</strong> the w<strong>or</strong>d Spirit <strong>in</strong> Jewish Literature .<br />

<strong>The</strong>se are the <strong>use</strong>s <strong>of</strong> this w<strong>or</strong>d.<br />

Reply to Objection 1: <strong>The</strong> expression Holy Spirit, if taken as two w<strong>or</strong>ds, is applicable to the whole Tr<strong>in</strong>ity: beca<strong>use</strong> by<br />

'spirit' the immateriality <strong>of</strong> the div<strong>in</strong>e substance is signified; f<strong>or</strong> c<strong>or</strong>p<strong>or</strong>eal spirit is <strong>in</strong>visible, <strong>and</strong> has but<br />

little matter; hence we apply this term to all immaterial <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>visible substances.And by add<strong>in</strong>g the w<strong>or</strong>d<br />

"holy" we signify the purity <strong>of</strong> div<strong>in</strong>egoodness.<br />

But Holy if Spirit be taken as one w<strong>or</strong>d it is thus that the expression<br />

<strong>in</strong> the usage <strong>of</strong> the Church is accommodated to signify one <strong>of</strong> the three persons the one who proceeds by way <strong>of</strong> love f<strong>or</strong> the reason<br />

above expla<strong>in</strong>ed.<br />

This does shews that it is just a usage <strong>of</strong> the Church. As this w<strong>or</strong>d did exist bef<strong>or</strong>e the foundation <strong>of</strong><br />

Church , it can not be <strong>use</strong>d <strong>in</strong> the Church’S Usage bef<strong>or</strong>e the foundation <strong>of</strong> the very Church stated<br />

above.<br />

So this means that this w<strong>or</strong>d did have some mean<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> this w<strong>or</strong>d was <strong>use</strong>d <strong>in</strong> those mean<strong>in</strong>gs<br />

bef<strong>or</strong>e the foundation <strong>of</strong> Church.<br />

Page 10 <strong>of</strong> 15


11<br />

This also means that if the Phrase SPIRIT OF GOD is <strong>in</strong> the literature bef<strong>or</strong>e the foundation <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Church it cannot be <strong>use</strong>d <strong>in</strong> the Church’s Usage , s<strong>in</strong>ce the Usage <strong>of</strong> the Church cannot exist bef<strong>or</strong>e<br />

the foundation <strong>of</strong> the Church. This the all literature bef<strong>or</strong>e Church it does have different mean<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />

As this w<strong>or</strong>d is not a relative term it may be <strong>use</strong>d as a relative terms as well. This means that this w<strong>or</strong>d<br />

may be <strong>use</strong>d as a term that is not relative as well.<br />

In reply objection :2 Sa<strong>in</strong>t Aqu<strong>in</strong>as Thomas says :-<br />

Although the name Holy Ghost does not <strong>in</strong>dicate a relation ,still it takes place <strong>of</strong> a relation, still it takes place <strong>of</strong> a relative<br />

term.<br />

<strong>The</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t is that if it does not <strong>in</strong>dicate a relation then this means that the stated above term can be <strong>use</strong>s<br />

<strong>in</strong> two mean<strong>in</strong>gs, a] as a relation , b] as not a relation. Similarly it can take place <strong>of</strong> a relative term <strong>and</strong> it<br />

can take place <strong>of</strong> a term that is not relative.<br />

If this is the case with the Compound term ‘’ Holy Ghost/Spirit’’ it is primarily the case with the Term<br />

Spirit/Ghost/Goste etc.<br />

So plurality <strong>of</strong> possible mean<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> a s<strong>in</strong>gle term is undeniable.<br />

‘Isla:mic <strong>The</strong>ology:-<br />

In ‘Isla:mic <strong>The</strong>ology this term is <strong>use</strong>d <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g mean<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />

1] F<strong>or</strong> an Immaterial Substance.<br />

2] F<strong>or</strong> Human Spirit.<br />

3] F<strong>or</strong> a Special Angel.<br />

4] F<strong>or</strong> Div<strong>in</strong>e Revelation,<br />

5] F<strong>or</strong> Holy W<strong>in</strong>d <strong>or</strong> Holy Blown Air.<br />

.<br />

So this w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>in</strong> not <strong>use</strong>d <strong>in</strong> one <strong>and</strong> the same mean<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

Metaph<strong>or</strong>ical Use <strong>of</strong> the w<strong>or</strong>d.<br />

Page 11 <strong>of</strong> 15


12<br />

Metaph<strong>or</strong>ically <strong>or</strong> Figuratively these w<strong>or</strong>ds f<strong>or</strong> any one who is pure heart <strong>or</strong> who is a source <strong>of</strong><br />

motivation towards reighteousness. In the case <strong>of</strong> Iesous [‘’I:SA:] [‘’Alaihis Sala:m] the term Ru:h: can be<br />

<strong>use</strong>d <strong>in</strong> Metaph<strong>or</strong>ical <strong>or</strong> Figurative mean<strong>in</strong>g f<strong>or</strong> a th<strong>in</strong>g that is ca<strong>use</strong>d by Immaterial Div<strong>in</strong>e<br />

Comm<strong>and</strong>ment <strong>or</strong> Immaterial Angel.<br />

Any th<strong>in</strong>g that is ca<strong>use</strong>d by any Div<strong>in</strong>e Power <strong>or</strong> any Immaterial Substance <strong>or</strong> by direct comm<strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

God/Deity.<br />

In ‘Isla:mic <strong>The</strong>ology God/Deity is the Per Se Subsistent Essence That is Beyond all Possible Matterials<br />

<strong>and</strong> Matter. Div<strong>in</strong>e Essence [i.e God/Deity] is Neither Matter not Matterial.<br />

But neither the w<strong>or</strong>d Substance n<strong>or</strong> the w<strong>or</strong>d Spirit is <strong>use</strong>d f<strong>or</strong> the Div<strong>in</strong>e Essence [That is God/Deity].<br />

Maj<strong>or</strong>ity <strong>of</strong> ‘Ahlussunnah believe that Div<strong>in</strong>e Essence [i.e God/Deity] is Neither Accident n<strong>or</strong> Substance.<br />

S<strong>in</strong>ce there w<strong>or</strong>ds are <strong>use</strong>d f<strong>or</strong> Cont<strong>in</strong>gent Per Se Subsistent Essences. Similarly the w<strong>or</strong>d Ru:h: is either<br />

<strong>use</strong>d f<strong>or</strong> Per Se Cont<strong>in</strong>gent Substance <strong>or</strong> f<strong>or</strong> a Suppositum with very little quantity <strong>of</strong> Matter.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are some reasons f<strong>or</strong> this. Two <strong>of</strong> them are given below:<br />

1] One <strong>of</strong> them is that these w<strong>or</strong>ds are not <strong>use</strong>d F<strong>or</strong> Div<strong>in</strong>e Essence <strong>in</strong> ‘’Arabic Scriptures say Holy<br />

Qur’a:n ,Holy Bukh:a:ri: etc.<br />

2] <strong>The</strong>se w<strong>or</strong>ds can ca<strong>use</strong> confusions <strong>and</strong> ambiguities.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Phrase ‘’ Spirit Of God/Deity’’ does not imply any Notion Of God. So the argument is based on two basic misconceptions.<br />

1] <strong>The</strong> relation <strong>of</strong> God/Deity <strong>and</strong> His spirit is <strong>in</strong> analogy to the relation <strong>of</strong> Human Be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> his/her spirit. This is a wrong <strong>and</strong><br />

an <strong>in</strong>c<strong>or</strong>rect Analogy.<br />

2] Spirit is assumed to be a relative term but it is not a relative term. It may be <strong>use</strong>d as a Relative Term yet it is not<br />

Necessary to <strong>use</strong> this term as a Relative Term.<br />

Aqu<strong>in</strong>as Thomas the great Catholic <strong>The</strong>ologians writes?:<br />

<strong>The</strong> relation <strong>of</strong> Preposition ‘’OF’’<br />

This relation is not shewn by any w<strong>or</strong>d analogous to the Preposition ‘’OF’’ <strong>in</strong> ‘’Arabic. Actually there is a construction <strong>of</strong><br />

Reference [‘Al muraccab Al ‘Id:a:fi:] . Yet it convey the same mean<strong>in</strong>g to the hightest degree <strong>of</strong> approximation.<br />

So we can see the <strong>use</strong> <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g phrases <strong>and</strong> constructions.<br />

Ho<strong>use</strong> Of God/Deity. City Of Deity/God, Man Of Deity/God, Heaven Of God/Deity, W<strong>or</strong>ld Of Deity/God, Friend Of God/Deity,<br />

Servant Of God/Deity, Angel Of God/Deity ,Lion Of Deity/God, Sw<strong>or</strong>d Of Deity/God.<br />

Similarly the case is with Spirit Of Deity/God.<br />

Page 12 <strong>of</strong> 15


13<br />

<strong>The</strong> term Spirit must not be taken as a Relative Term as a Term that is not a Relative Term <strong>in</strong> this construction <strong>or</strong> phrase.<br />

Now many th<strong>in</strong>gs are found clear.<br />

SCHOLARS OF ‘AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMA:”AH DEOBAND<br />

‘Ahlussunnah <strong>of</strong> Deob<strong>and</strong> do believe that there is a Kala:m ‘An Nafsi [Esoteric Speech] that is the Essential Attribute <strong>of</strong> Div<strong>in</strong>e<br />

Essence <strong>and</strong> is Uncreated, Eternal Either Identical to Div<strong>in</strong>e Essence <strong>or</strong> Associated With Div<strong>in</strong>e Essence].<br />

An other one is ‘Al Lala:m ‘Al Lafz:i: [Exoteric Speech] that is Non Eternal <strong>and</strong> Created <strong>and</strong> neither Associated with Div<strong>in</strong>e<br />

Essence n<strong>or</strong> Identical With Div<strong>in</strong>e Essence.<br />

In this case with the Exception <strong>of</strong> the Eternal Speech rest <strong>of</strong> the Speech(es) are Non Eternal say <strong>in</strong> Tablet <strong>or</strong> <strong>in</strong> Copies <strong>or</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />

hhuman M<strong>in</strong>ds etc.<br />

Some may believe <strong>in</strong> three types <strong>of</strong> Speech(es) , 1] Eternal Nafsi 2] Eternal Lafz: 3] Non Eternal Lafz::i.<br />

In such cases if a type Div<strong>in</strong>e Speech <strong>in</strong> Real Mean<strong>in</strong>g is not Eternal then a w<strong>or</strong>d <strong>in</strong> Virtual Mean<strong>in</strong>g cannot be Eternal at all.<br />

EPILOGUE<br />

1] If some one is called ‘’Spirit’’ <strong>or</strong> Spirit <strong>of</strong> God <strong>in</strong> both cases the w<strong>or</strong>d Spirit<br />

is not a Relative term.<br />

2] It is not <strong>use</strong>d <strong>in</strong> the Athanasian <strong>The</strong>ological mean<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />

3] If the w<strong>or</strong>d is <strong>use</strong>d f<strong>or</strong> an Immaterial Substance <strong>or</strong> Immaterial Suppositum<br />

<strong>or</strong> a Substance <strong>or</strong> Suppositum with very small amount <strong>of</strong> matter it may be<br />

<strong>use</strong>d <strong>in</strong> Real /Literal Mean<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

4] If it is <strong>use</strong>d f<strong>or</strong> a Material Substance <strong>or</strong> Mattarial Suppositum it is <strong>use</strong>d <strong>in</strong><br />

Virtual /Non Literal Mean<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />

5] In Phrases like Spirit Of God/Deity the Reference to Deity/God doeth not<br />

change the <strong>or</strong>ig<strong>in</strong>al mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the w<strong>or</strong>d.<br />

6] Div<strong>in</strong>e Revelation can also be termed as Spirit s<strong>in</strong>ce they are neither<br />

Matter n<strong>or</strong> Material.<br />

This does shew that as “I:sa: /Iesous [“AS] was ca<strong>use</strong>d <strong>and</strong> effected by A Div<strong>in</strong>e Comm<strong>and</strong>ment <strong>in</strong> Div<strong>in</strong>e Revelation he is<br />

called both SPIRIT OF GOD/DEITY <strong>and</strong> WORD OF DEITY.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Problem Of the W<strong>or</strong>d “ Div<strong>in</strong>e”.<br />

<strong>The</strong> w<strong>or</strong>d Div<strong>in</strong>e doeth not imply any th<strong>in</strong>g other that ‘’Of God/Deity’’.<br />

Page 13 <strong>of</strong> 15


14<br />

F<strong>or</strong> Example K<strong>in</strong>gdom <strong>of</strong> Deity <strong>or</strong> K<strong>in</strong>gdom <strong>of</strong> God means noth<strong>in</strong>g other than the Div<strong>in</strong>e<br />

K<strong>in</strong>gdom. <strong>The</strong> w<strong>or</strong>d Div<strong>in</strong>e does not change the mean<strong>in</strong>g. If this w<strong>or</strong>d does , it is just one <strong>of</strong> the<br />

two mean<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> the w<strong>or</strong>d.<br />

Div<strong>in</strong>e K<strong>in</strong>gdom doeth can mean ‘’K<strong>in</strong>gdom Of Deity’’ <strong>or</strong> ‘’K<strong>in</strong>gdom Of God’’ if this construction<br />

constituted <strong>of</strong> just two w<strong>or</strong>ds have some other mean<strong>in</strong>gs as well.<br />

DISCLAIMER<br />

A] THE AUTHOR IS ‘AHLUSSUNNAH . ANY<br />

QUESTION ASKED OR ANY THING STATED IS<br />

JUST TO SHEW THE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE<br />

CULT OF ENGINEER MUH:AMMAD ‘’ALI: MIRZA:<br />

OF JHELUM. NO CONJECTURE CAN BE MADE<br />

ABOUT THE BELIEFS OF THE AUTHOR FROM THE<br />

ARTICLES WRITTEN AGAINST THE ENGINEER OF<br />

JHELUM, ANY CONUNDRUM ASKED , OR ANY<br />

ARGUMENT WHICH IS ACTUALLY PRESENTED<br />

AGAINST THE HERETIC ENGINNER OF JHELUM.<br />

B]AUTHOR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY<br />

MEANING OR DISTORTION IN MEANING OR<br />

APPARENT GRAMMATICAL ERROR WHAT SO<br />

EVER.<br />

Page 14 <strong>of</strong> 15


15<br />

C] THE AUTHOR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE OF ANY<br />

DISTORTION OF MEANING DUE TO TYPING<br />

ERRORS AND SPELLING ERRORS<br />

,GRAMMATICAL ERRORS COMMITTED BY THE<br />

TYPIST.<br />

D] THE AUTHOR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR<br />

ANY ALLEGATION MADE ON THE AUTHOR BY<br />

ENGINEER OF JHELUM. SINCE HE ATTACKS<br />

ALL AHLUSSUNNAH WHO TRY TO DEFEND<br />

ISLAM BY SUCH MISTAKES STATED IN “C”.<br />

Page 15 <strong>of</strong> 15

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!