A Necessary Being must...

A Necessary Being must, from every respect, be a necessary being - a necessary being in essence and a necessary being in all aspects. In a term, there is, according to this proof, a false consequence in the said argument about the well-known example: "If the sun has risen then it is daytime", or sometimes we say: "The sun has not risen, then it is not daytime", or "It is not daytime, then the sun has not risen". Concerning the second part, it is said that it is consequently false, i.e.

the case is consisting of two parts, the first called the premise, and the second called the consequent. Thus: "If the sun has risen" is the promise, and "then it is daytime" is the consequent. If the consequent was false, the premise would be false, too, that is, if "it is not daytime", then it will be known that "the sun has not risen". In this argument the consequent - the disorder of the world - is false, it is a lie, since the world is not in disorder.

The falsity of the consequent means the falsity of the premise, that is, the supposition of multiplicity of gods is false, too. In the said noble ayah the false consequent is not the non-existence of the world, but the false consequent is the disorderliness of the world. It says: "Had there been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have been in a state of disorder", but you see that the world is not in a state of disorder.

It does not say: "Had there been many gods, the world could not have existed." The sate of disorder befalls something existent. If it is said in respect of a non-existing thing, it will be a falsity. This is why the Qur'an says: "If the world had had many gods it would have been corrupt". It does not say: ...it would not come to existence, whereas the relevant induction of antagonism mentioned by the philosophers denotes the disorderliness of the world.

Using this proof of antagonism is critisized on the grounds that what is applicable to this ayah is other than this proof established by the philosophers. The critics assert that this proof does not well conform to the appearance of the ayah.

The import of the proof is: "Had there been many gods, the world would not have been created," while the import of the ayah is: "Had there been many gods, the world would have been in a state of disorder." That is, the existing world would have been in disorder.