Sunteți pe pagina 1din 20

-

AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMAA’:AH

IS GOD/DEITY LOCUS OF NON ETERNAL ACT OF


ISTAVA [REFUTING ENGINEER ALI
MIRZA][Revised Version]
HUSAM
[Pick the date]

ENGINEER ALI MIRZA OF JHELUM HAS CLAIMED THAT IMAM IBN TAIMIAH HAS COMMITED A KUFR
WHEN HE SAID THAT GOD/DEITY IS LOCUS OF NON ETERNAL ACT “ ‘ITAVA’ “. IN THIS RESEARCH ARTICLE
IT IS TRIED TO SHEW THAT EVEN THE ENGINEER HIMSELF IS UNDER DELIMMA OF SAME PROBLEM , SO
WHY HE DOES NOT DECLARE HIMSELF A KA:FIR?
Page 2 of 20

THE LITERAL MEANING OF ‘ISTIVA:’ AND ENGINEER ‘:ALI: MIRZA:

Intorduction

Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: of Jhelum is against ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah RH: .

In fact he has quoted several Texts of Fata:va: of Great ‘Ima:m, as a proof of his claim that ‘Ima:m held
incorrect views.

It is necessary to defend the Great ‘ima:m from the false allegations of the Heretic and Apostate Man
From Jhelum.

But this person has claimed that ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah RH: has committed Kufr on three issues.

1] Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: claims that ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah RH: rejects a Mutva:tir H:adi:th: and this is a
Kufr.

2] Engineer ‘;Ali: Mirza: claims that ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah believes that Non Eternals are without a
Beginning.

3] Engineer Claims that the To Believe that God/Deity is the Locus [Mah:l] of Non Eternals and Non
Eternity is Kufr and ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimaiah RH: holds this belief.

Page 2 of 20
Page 3 of 20

In this article it is discussed that Engineer of Jhelum has no option but either to interprete the word
‘istava: or to believe that God/Deity is the Locus of Non Eternal [H:a:dith: /H:a:dith:] and Non Eternity
[H:-du:th: / Temporality].

It it is proved that there are only two Mutually Exclusive and Mutually Exhaustive options that Either
the Divine Act of ‘Istiva:’ is not in the Literal Meaning [Real Meaning] or God/Deity is the Locus of Non
Eternal Act of ‘Istiva:’ then the Engineer ‘:Ali Mirza: must have to chose one of the two and to reject the
other . A difficult choice indeed.

Preliminary One

The word ‘Istava is a Verb in Past Tense.

It is in Masculine Singular Active Verb.

Its Grammatical Infinitive [‘AL MAS:DAR] is ‘Istiva:’ .

In ‘:Arabic the Mas:dar is also used in the meaning of H:as:il Bil Mas:dar [Derived Noun]. ‘:Arabic does
not have two different words for them.So the word FOR Mas:dar is used for the Derived Abstract Noun
which is the Attribute. In an other sentence the word fgor Mas:dar may be used in the meaning of
Attribute as well. But this can cause some confusions.

Before proceeding further some examples may provide a clear idea.

The word ‘:Ilm[un] in the may mean “To Know”. It may also meaning “Knowledge” as well.

The word Bas:r[un] may mean “To See” or “To Observe” , the very same word may mean “Sight” or
“Observation”.

The Word Vuju:d may mean “To Exist”, but this word may also mean “Existence”.

In some languages there are two different words for each of the two meanings but in ‘:Arabic for boty
meanings a single word is used. This does cause confusion. According to a Great Scholar of ‘Ahlussunnah
Debant the Controversy of Unicity Of Existence [Va:datul Vuju:d] and Plurality of Existences [Ta’:addud
‘Al Vuju:da:t] is due to the confusions of meanings of the word Vuju:d.

Those who takes the Mas:dari: meaning [Grammatical Infinitve meaning] believes in the Plurality of
Existences and those who take the S:fa:ti Meaning [Attributive Meaning , a meaning often denoted by
H:as:il Mil Mas:dar in some languages other than ‘:Arabic] believes in Unicity of Existence. So the dispute
between ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah and Shaikh: ‘Al ‘Akbar is solved by the Science of ‘Ahlussunnah Deoband.

The same dispute it found in the works of Saint Aquinas Thomas who believes in Ipse Esse .

But this is an other issue .

Coming back to the word of ‘Istava: which is a past tense then it is the Act of ‘Istiva:’ in the indefinite
past.

Page 3 of 20
Page 4 of 20

See Verse 41:11

If the verses of Holy Qur’a: and Taken Literally [ In Real Meaning and not Virtually [i.e Neither in
Metaphorical nor in Figurative Meaning] then the Verses mean that:-

1] The Act of ‘itiva:’ [i.e ‘Istava:] was done by Deity/God in Past .

This Act was done on ‘:Arsh .

2] This Act is Not Eternal.

3] This Act of ‘Istiva:’ [‘Istava:] was done by Deity/God after beginning ,after the Creation of the ‘:Arsh
and the beginning of the World.

4] The Word Th:umma is a proof that Even after the Creation of ‘:Arsh this act was not done on ‘:Arsh
immediately by God/Deity but after some time after the Creation Of ‘:Arsh.

So these do prove that the stated above Act of ‘Istiva:’ is not Eternal , hence it is Non Eternal. Even after
an Interval of time [Whose exact length is not known] ‘:Arsh did Exist but the Act of ‘Istiva:’ was not
done on it.

So the stated above Non Eternal Act of ‘Istiva:’ is not an Eternal Attribute.

One can provide some Rational Reasons and Proofs for these claims as well.

‘:Arsh is certainly Not Eternal so ‘Istava: on ‘:Arsh is Absolutely Impossible to be Eternal.

There was a Period of time how so ever short or how so ever long when ‘:Arsh did Exist but this Act of
‘Istiva:’ was not done/ excercised by Deity/God.

Suppose that the ‘Istiva:’ is an Eternal Attribute and not a Non Eternal Act.

In this case Deity/God is Must-vi: in Eternity.

But as the ‘:Arsh [Throne] is Non Eternal and a Creation , Deity/God was Must-vi: Without ‘:Arsh and
Must-vi: Bi Gh:airil ‘:Arsh.

So If After the Beginning of the World God/Deity was Must-vi without ‘:Arsh then God/Deity became
Must-vi: on ‘:Arsh then there is a change. This change is an Act This Act is Certainly not Eternal hence
Non Eternal with certitude.

So the ‘Istava: stated in some Verses of Sacred Qur’a:n is this very act and not the Eternal Attribute of
‘Istiva:’ that is supposed .

This makes it clear that the Act of ‘istiva:’ is Non Eternal whether God/Deity is Attributed by the
Attribute of ‘Istiva:’ that if Existeth is Eternal.

Page 4 of 20
Page 5 of 20

Preliminary Two.

Either the Non Eternal Act of ‘Istiva:’ doeth not Imply the Eternal Attribute of ‘Istiva:’ or the Act above
doeth imply the Attribute.

In the first case Act of ‘isiva:’ can be ascribed to God/Deity if these Verses are taken in Literal Meaning.
But the Attribute of ‘Istiva:’ cannot be predicated to the God/Deity.

So God/Deity is the Agent of the Act Of ‘Istiva:’ but not the Locus of the Attribute of ‘Istiva:’ which is
Eternal.

Since Qur’a:n mentioneth the Act and is silent over the Attribute.

The claim of the Attribute of ‘Istiva:’ requires a proof and the Proof of Act of ‘Istiva:’ is not the Proof of
the Attribute Of ‘Istiva:’ . Act of ‘Istava: may be closely related to the Attribute Of ‘Istiva:’ but the
meanings of both are different ,even if their difference is Subtle and Delicate.

In the second case if the Non Eternal Divine Act implieth an Eternal Divine Attribute then the Entire
discussion is on the Act of ‘Istiva:’ that is Non Eternal and Mentioned in Holy Qur’a:n and Not on the
Eternal Attribute of ‘Istiva:’ that is impled but not mentioned in the Sacred Qur’a:n.

If some one insists that Act and Attribute are one an the same then he must have to accept that this
Divine Attribute is Not Eternal.

Preliminary Three.

If some one claims that the ‘Istiva:’ is Eternal in the Verses of Holy Qur’a:n then he is just interpreting
the verses otherwise there real meaning but in a sublet way.

Since the Qur’a:nic word is ‘Istava: that is a verb in Past Tense and the Verses means that this act was
done on ‘:Arsh , and ‘A:rsh [Throne ] is Not Eternal.

This meaneth that God/Deity did an Act on ‘:Arsh and called it ‘Istava: Virtual Meaning.

So to take a sentence which in real meaning mentioneth an act upon Non Eternal ‘A:rsh , in a meaning
of an Eternal Attribute without ‘:Arsh is just an Interpretation and not an Uninterpreted meaning at all.

So such a person does interpret but claims that he is not interpreting. This is either a folly or a fallacy or
both.

An other reason is that Mas:dar when taken in the meaning of an Attribute differs in meaning of a word
that is a Verb in Past tense.

This means that it is an Interpretation.

But as the both meanings are closely related the taker of the meaning is confusing and neglecting their
subtle difference. That is why he is denying any interpretation.

Page 5 of 20
Page 6 of 20

In general an Infinitive form of the word in ‘:Arabic has two meanings 1] Grammatical Infinitive Meaning.

2] Attributive Meaning.

Twp take the verb in past tense in any one of the Two meaning is an interpretation.

Some Indian Arabists have made a distinction between the two meanings of the single word for by using

‘Al before the Mas:dar form of the word for Infinitive and with out ‘Al for the Attributive Meaning. But
this law is violated since it is coined to solve the confusions. This law cannot be appliedto Holy Arabic
Scriptures say Sacred Qur’a:n and Holy Bukh:a:ri: etc.

Preliminary Four

If some one discard the Real Meaning then the close Virtual meaning has no preference over the distant
Virtual Meaning or an Independent Virtual Meaning if any.

Preliminary Five

Any thing that is Gh:airulla is Makh:lu:q and any thing that is Makh:lu:q [Creation/Creature] is
Gh:airullah. That is any thing that is Separate [Alias] from God/Deity is Creaton of God/Deity.

Similarly any thing that is a Creation/Creature of God/Deity is Gh:airullah.

It is Kufr to believe that a Gh:arullah is Gh:air Makh:lu:q . Similarly it is equally Kufr to believe that any
Gh:air Makh:lu:q is Gh:airullah.

If Engineer of Jhelum denies any one of the two or denies both of the two then he immediately becomes
a Heretic and Even a Non Muslim. [Note If- then Condition].

Sixth Preliminary

A] If the Act Of ‘Istiva:’ i.e ‘Istava: is Non Eternal then it must be Separate from God/Deity.

But the Act of ‘Istiva:’ is an Immanent Act. An Immanent Act is one That either Occureth in its Agent
[Fa:’:il] or is associated with its Agent immediately in its occurrence. So it can neither be Non Immanent
Act nor be an External/Exterior Act. It can not be External since it is an Immanent Act , and It cannot be
Eternal since it is an Act and Not an Attribute, and since the verses explicitly imply its Non Eternity.

So this implies an interpretation. But if some one insists in taking the Literal Meaning of the Verb in Past
Arabic Tense then it becomes Necessary to discard the Principle “It is Absolutely Impossible for any Non
Eternal to be Associated [Qa:’im] with Deity/God [Divine Essence]”.

So there is only two cases Logically Possible to Think.

1] Either the Act of ‘Istiva:’ is in the Literal Meaning in these Verses.

2] Or It is not. If it is not then any meaning taken is either Metaphorical or Figurative.

Page 6 of 20
Page 7 of 20

The First case implies that it is an Eternal Act since God/Deity is not the Locus of Non Eternals.

But this act cannot be Eternal by the very nature of the act and the Verses..

So one has either to accept that God/Deity is a Locus of an Non Eternal Act or this Act is an Attribute.

To take the meaning of an Eternal Attribute of a Word of Non Eternal Meaning is Just an Interpretation.

This is an interpretation even if it is weak. But even a weak interpretation is an Interpretation beyond
doubt.

To accept ‘Istava: as an Eternal Act in its Literal meaning is impossible since this contradicteth the very
Nature of the mentioned above act and the meaning of the Verses.

But this Self Contradicting option implies that it is associated with Deity/God [Since if a word in Past
Arabic Tense is taken in the Meaning of an Eternal Attribute , it is an interpretation and to deny that it is
an interpretation is a Self Contradiction] . So it is not rejected primarily due to its implication stated
above but due to its self contradiction. Secondary it is Absolutely Impossible for a Self Contradicting
thing to be Associated With God/Deity.

How ever if taken in some meaning neither close nor related to its meaning and related meanings it
depend upon the meaning taken whether it is an Attribute or an External Act.

In the second case an interpretation is Necessary, rather the second case is it self a case of
interpretation.

B] It may be Restated as follow:

Either AN Act is Separate from its Agent or it is not.

If it is not then Either it is an Act that is Either Associated with the Agent or in the Agent OR is the Mode
of the Agent.

If the Act is Either in the Agent or is Associated with the Agent then it is an Immanent Act.

If it is just a Mode [H:a:l/ Aspect] of an Agent then it a Modal Act.

The Act of ‘Istiva:’ appears to be the Mode of the Divine Agent. So it is neither separate from God/Deity
nor inseparable from Divine Agent [God/Deity].

However if it is not a Model Act then it is Certainly an Immanent Act, hence inseparable Act of
God/Deity.

If it is a Relative Act even then it is a type of Separate Acts [External Acts]. Since a Relation is Non Eternal
and is Separate from God/Deity.

This is the Reason that those who do believe that neither a Non Eternal Act Immanent is Possible in the
Divine Case nor a Non Eternal Modal Act is Possible for the Divine Agent [God/Deity] try to interpret the

Page 7 of 20
Page 8 of 20

Act Of ‘Istiva:’ by an Eternal and Separate Act [if they are interpretists or try to take it as an Eternal
Attribute , but this is also an Interpretation how so ever subtle and undetectable this interpretation may
be.

This explanation has become more Philosophical and Theological but in more clear words it can be
explained as Follow:-

Only God/Deity and His Attributes are Eternal. If a thing is Eternal then it is Either God/Deity or any
One of His Divine Attributes.

So if Act Of ‘Istiva:’ in Past Tense i.e ‘Istava: is Eternal then It is Either Divine Essence that is God/Deity
Himself or a Divine Attribute . But if it is an Attribute then it ceaseth to be an Act in Past Tense.

If it is an Act in Past Tense then it is Non Eternal , if Non Eternal then God is Not a Locus of It since
God/Deity is the Locus of Eternal Attributes only.

Seventh Preliminary
The Engineer takes the Literal Meaning of this word in these Verses then he MUST take each one of the
Verse in Literal Meaning. It is incorrect to take one word of a Verse in Literal Meaning and pretend that
he is taking the ENTIRE Verse In Literal meaning.

This is nothing but a fallacy .

Taking these Verses in Literal Meanings it is Evident and Obvious that the Act of ‘Istiva:’ [‘Istava:] is Non
Eternal. As this is an Act that cannot be Separate from God/Deity then it is Inseparable From God/Deity.

There are four agreed upon Notions of inseparability.

1] Divine Essence

2] Divine Eternal Attributes.

3] Divine Existence.

4] Divine Nouns

Any thing that is inseparable from God /Deity must belong to any one of them.

But a Non Eternal Act doeth not belong to any one of the four.

The fifth Notion is controversial and it is a Non Eternal Immanent Act.

Those who reject the fifth Notion are compelled to interpret.

Page 8 of 20
Page 9 of 20

Those who do not interpret are compelled to accept the fifth one. But this implies that a Non Eternal Act
is Associated with Deity/God. This implies that God/Deity is the Locus of the said Non Eternal Act ,what
so ever it may be.

Now the question is if Engineer of Jhelum declares that ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah is a Committer of Kufr since
he accepted the fifth controversial Notion then he himself should explain the nature of the act under
discussion.

If he consider this act as Eternal then this is NOTHING BUT AN INTERPRETION by some Hermeneutic
principles.

If he considers it separate from God/Deity then this consideration contradicts the very nature of the Act
under discussion. Additionally this is an Interpretation.

So the Engineer has no chance make a choice.

Suppose that Some one says [say Engineer says] this Act of Istiva:’ is Separate from God/Deity
[Gh:airullah] then he must accept that the Act of ‘Istiva:’ is a Creation.

Suppose that some one [say the Engineer] says that this act is Not Separate [i.e inseparable] from
God/Deity then this Act ceases to be an act and becomes an Attribute if the sayer discards the fifth
Notion.

But if he does so and accepts that ‘Istiva:’ is an Attribute then he is compelled to interpret these Verses
otherwise there Literal meanings and common meanings of them.

Eighth Preliminary.
It is stated that the Verb ‘Istava: is used to present an ACT DONE BY God/Deity in Past, so this act is is an
Act in Past Period. As both of these ‘Aya:t mean that God/Deity did the Act of Istiva:’ i.e ‘Istava: in past
after the Creation of the ‘:Arsh and the World. Even after the Creation of the ‘:ARSH God/Deity did not
do the Act immediatelt but after an interval of time, So Deity was not Must-vi: on ‘:Arsh [Throne] in
Eternity since ‘:Arsh is not Eternal and did not Exist in Eternity. Also Even after a Period of time after the
Creation Deity/God did not do the Act of ‘Istava: on it.

So this is a proof that the Act of ‘Istava: is Not Eternal then there are the following cases:-

1]The Non Eternal Istava: is Associated With God/Deity.

2]Non Eternal Act Of ‘Istava: [Mas:dar ‘Istiva:’] is Deity Himself [i.e Identical to God/Deity Himself].

3] Non Eternal Act is Separate from God/Deity.

If Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: opts for the First Case then it is implied that God/Deity is the Locus of Non
Eternal. Since If Some Thing is Associated [Qa:’im/Sustaunment] With God/Deity [Divine Essence] then
the Deity/God is the Locus of that thing.

Page 9 of 20
Page 10 of 20

This implies that God/Deity is the Locus of Non Eternal Act of ‘Istiva:L’ i.e Act of ‘Istava: .

So this option cannot be accepted by Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: , since this thing is Kufr according to him.

If Engineer Opts for the second then this is a greater Cufr/Kufr.

Since if It is Kufr to believe God/Deity is the Locus of Non Eternal then it is a Prime Kufr to believe
God/Deity is Non Eternal. Since if Deity is Identical to Non Eternal Then Deity is Non Eternal.

So it cannot be the case that the Engineer can opt for the second option.

If Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: opts for the third option that ‘Istava:’ is Separate /Alias From God/Deity then it is
a Creation/Creature.

Since to believe that a Thing is Separate from God yet it is Gh:air Makh:lu:q , is a Kufr/Cufr.

It is Kufr to believe that Gh:airullah is Gh:air Makh:lu:q and it is Kufr to believe Gh:air Makh:lu:q is
Gh:airullah.

It is Kufr and Shirc to believe that God/Deity is Locus of Creations/Creatures.

So if Engineer believes that ‘Istava: [Act of ‘Istiva:’ in Past Tense] is a Creation then this is an innovation
and Heresy.

Since those who interpret these verses and the Verse ‘Istava: in the verses Hermeneutically , do not
consider this word in the Real meaning and those who take the Literal meaning do not consider Istava:
as a Creation/Creature.

The case is similar to Divine Organs.

Those who do not consider the words Like Hands , Eye Feet, FinGer,Fist inregard to God/Deity in Literal
meaning consider them Absolutely Impossible and do not consider them as Creations , since an
ABOLUTLELY Impossible is not a Creation, and those who take them in the Literal Meanings do not
consider them as Creations/Creatures.

So to consider ‘Istava or Hand as Creation WITHOUT INTERPRETATION is pure Heresy and this is the only
option left for the Engineer.

So our Engineer is in a Greater problem then he thinks that ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah is.

But it is a surprise that he does not declare Zubair ‘Ali Zai as Ka:fir who was a supporter of Istava: in the
Literal Meaning of Past Test.

The same was true for the Case of N-z:ul.

Once again recall that:

Page 10 of 20
Page 11 of 20

Those who interpret do not believe in the Literal meaning AND IN UNINTERPRETED of the ‘Istava:. They
consider the Absolute Impossibility of the Literal Meaning in Regard to Deity/God. An Impossible is
Uncreatable.[For example Shari:cul Ba:ri: Is Absolutely Impossible [Per Se Absurd/Mumtana’: Bidh:
Dh:a:y/Absurd Of Itself, hence neither in Divine Omnipotence nor Createable]]

Those who takes the Literal Meaning, do not believe that this ‘Istava is Makh:lu:q.

So if he takes the Literal Meaning of ‘Istava: and Consider it as Makh:lu:q then he becomes a Heretic
since there is no one among literalists who believes that Istava: is Makh:lau:q and Separate from
God/Deity. [To believe that a Gh:airullah is Gh:air Mak:lu:q is a Cufr/Kufr beyond any shadow of doubt].

If he interpret then he ceases to be the taker of Real Meaning [Literalist].

Also all those who interpret do not take the Real Meaning as Creation but consider it as Absolutely
Impossible.

So there is no one who takes the Real Meaning and consider the act in real meaning as a
Creation/Creature.

So Engineer becomes a Heretic from all standards .

If he considers this Act as Eternal then once again he is compelled to interpret the Verse according to
the Eternity of the Act yet the Verse Sheweth the Non Eternal Nature of the Act.

See 7:54, “TH:UMMAS TAVA: ‘:ALAL ‘:ARSH….” , 41:11

Verily Thy Lord Is’ ALL-H Who did Create Heavens and the Earth in Six Days and Then Ascended [to] His
Throne [Then Rose above (Did Rise) Towards the Throne (‘:Arsh)].

The Word Th:umma means then , implying that the act of Ascension was done after the Creation of
Heavens and Earth after the Sixth Day. As the Earth was initially on Water [Liquid] then this is a proof that
God/Deity was not Mustavi: on ‘:Arsh in the Begeinning nor in the Eternity.

This Literal meaning of the Verse is Contradicted if the Act of ‘Istiva: [‘Istava:] is supposed to be Eternal.

So this implies that ‘Istiva:’ and ‘Istava: are Non Eternal.

The question is are they Creations if they are Non Eternals? If every Non Eternal is a Creation Of God
then these are also Non Eternals.

So the ‘Istava: was not in Eternity and is Non Eternal.

Page 11 of 20
Page 12 of 20

Ninth Preliminary

A POSSIBLE RESPONSE OF Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: Of Jhelum.

It is possible that the Engineer may say that there are Verses which in Literal Meanings shew that Divine
Knowledge is Not Eternal, Divine Attribute Of Will is Not Eternal etc.

Our Answer is that it is correct that these Verses in their Literal Meanings shew that Divine Knowledge is
not Eternal but it is NECESSARY TO INTERPRET THEM ACCORDING TO THE ETERNITY [Q-D-M/’AZLIAH]

OF DIVINE KNOWLEDGE.

But Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: does not accepts interpretations in regard to Divine Attributes. After all he
was once an improper AND AN IRREGULAR student of Zubair ‘:Ali: Zai who was a rigid Literalist in case
of Divine Attributes , Divine Acts and Divine Organs.

Tenth Preliminary

Possible meaning of the Word Istiva:’ uninterpreted.

1] To Rise [Rose]

2] To Stand [Stood]

3] To become Straight [Became Straight]

4] To become Equal [Became Equal]

5]To Sit [Sat]

It must be noted that the Construction Bila: Kaifah , negates the Bodification, Incarnation, Solidification,
Anthropomorphism etc. but it does not negate the Non Eternity of the Act.[H:DU:TH:].

Note that it is assumed that Majhu:lul Kaifiah and Bila: Kaifiah both are the two different approaches of
one and same subject.]

A Non Eternal Thing may be without Kaifiah [Mode /State/Howness/H:a:l etc].

Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: cannot use the comments of ‘Ima:m Ma:lik on the Act “ ‘Istava: “, since

Engineer of Jhelum must not do the Taqli:d of ‘Ima:m Malik and should not be allowed to discussion on
this word by quoting the opinion of ‘Ima:m Ma:lik RH: . As s neither his former informal Teacher was a
Muqallid nor he is a Muqallid so it is astonishing to see that one should quote ‘Ima:m Ma:lik RH: for not
studying this Word .

Page 12 of 20
Page 13 of 20

Eleventh Preliminary

‘Istava: is not the only Act that is Non Eternal if the Literal Meanings are insisted but The Act Of Speaking
and the Speech are also Problematic. It is very beneficial to state the problem of Act of Speaking.

According to Literalists Like Zubair ‘:Ali: Zai etc. the Ability Of Speaking a Sentence or a Word is Eternal
and Uncreated.[So the Ability of Speaking or Ability To Speak is an Eternal Attribute in Divine Case (Case
of God/Deity)].

But what about the Acts Of Speaking and Spoken Sentences and Spoken Words.[ Any thing Spoken by
the Ability to Speak].

They are Not Eternal. Since God/Deity Spoke different Sentences and Words [Say ‘Aya:t Of Sacred
Qur’a:n and Words in ‘Aya:t Of Sacred Qur’:an ] in different times and different periods of time.

So the Question is about the Spoken Sentences, Verses and Words in them.

Is God/Deity Locus Of them or Deity/God is Not the Locus of Them.

If Deity/God is the Locus of them the God/Deity is the Locus of Non Eternals and Temporals.

If Deity/ God is Not the Locus of these Non Eternals then there are only two Cases Logically Possible to
Think.

1] Either Deity/God is each of the Non Eternal Sentence and Each Of the Non Eternal Word Himself
[Divine Self]. This is Absolutely Impossible for two basic Reasons.

First: This means that Deity/God Himself is Non Eternal.

Second: This Means Absolute Unicity/Unity is Plurality. This is Self Contradicting.[There may be some
more reasons as well but there two are the fundamental ones].

So the only Option is Left is that Each Spoken Non Eternal Sentence,Verse, Word,Letter is Separate
/Alias From God/Deity. In this case they are Creations.

[Since any thing that is Separate from God/Deity is a Creation and any thing that ia Inseparable from Deity/God
is Uncreated].

But this is not the view of Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza:s Former Irregular Teacher Zubair ‘:Ali: Zai.He never
considers them as Separate From Deity/God and Created.

If Engineer did ask Zubair ‘:Ali: Zai many things why he remained silent on such issues. It is very likely
that he did ask but he is concealing the Truth.

Every one Knows that Zubair ‘:Ali: Zai was a Extremist and use to declare any one as Ka:fir who
Interpreted the Act Of ‘Istava:/’Istiva:’ or believed that ‘Al Kala:m ‘Al Lafz:i: is Non Eternal and Created as
Ka:fir.

Page 13 of 20
Page 14 of 20

In this regard he was more strict that ‘Ibn Q-da:mah. G-d/D-ity Knoweth how may Great Sunni Scholars
were Non Muslims according to this Takfi:ri: minded person. That is why he cannot be included in ‘Ahlul
H:adi:th: .

Coming back to the Problem, if Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: considers that the Divine Spoken Words,
Sentences, ‘A:ya:t and Letters are Non Eternal and Uncreated yet the are Separate and Distinct From
God/Deity then this is a Kufr and a Shirc. Since there are only three things.

1] Either a Thing is God/Deity or It is Not.

2] If it is not then Either God/Deity is the Locus of It or Deity/God is not the Locus Of It.

3] If God/Deity is Not the Locus of It then It is Separate ,Alias, and Distinct From God/Deity.

If Engineer ‘:Ali Mirza: believes in any forth Option then his Heresy , Heterodoxy and Innovation is
proved.

If he accepts any one of the Three then Either He Believes that Spoken Verses Of Qur’a:n are God/Deity,
Or They are Associated With Deity/God Or They are Separate From God/Deity.

A very difficult Choice of the Engineer Of Jhelum.

NOTES: 1]If Engineer ‘:ALI: Mirza: Considers Qur’a:n as Gh:airullah [Separate From God/Deity and
Uncreated then he Violates the Principle “Every Gh:airullah is Makh:lu:q” and If he Considers Qur’a:n as
Separate [Gh:airullah] and Makh:lu:q then this imples that Qur’a:n is Makhlu:q. If he does not consider

Qur’a:n as Makh:lu:q then the only option is to consider Deity/God as Locus of Qur’a:n and God/Deity
and Qu’a:n are Inseparable from one an other . So in this case if it is true that Qur’a:n is Non Eternal and
Spoken by God/Deity by His Divine Will at different times and different periods the God/Deity is Locus of
Non Eternals.

2] Similare the same can be said for ‘Istava:.

3]Similarly the same can be said for N-ZU:L.

The Problem Of N-zu:l

The Act Of N-zu:l is obviously Non Eternal. Since God Descendeth at a Particular on the Heaven of the
World or the Lowest Heaven. So if God/Deity is the Locus of Act Of Non Eternal N-zu:l [Descension] then
Deity /God is Locus of Non Eternal.

If Deity/God is the Very Non Eternal N-zu:l Himself then Deity /God is Non Eternal.

If N-zu:l is Separate From God/Deity the the N-zu:l is a Creation.

Page 14 of 20
Page 15 of 20

Note Ascension and Descension are opposites and it is Absolutely Impossible For any being/Existent to
possess these two opposite Attributes.

So Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: cannot escape .

Now we come to the Attribute of Divine Withness [Ma’:iah]

Ma’:iah [Withness] Of God/Deity

The Divine Withness is also a Non Eternal Attribute.

In the Eternity God/Deity was with His Attributes and was not With His Creations. Since there was No
Creation in the Eternity.

When Deity/God made Created things then it is said that He became With Every Created Thing as Well.

Now this Act of Becoming is Certainly Non Eternal.

If God/Deity Continued to be Not with any Created Thing then Even After Creation of Created Things
Deity/God would have been not With any Created Existent [i.e Creator would not have been with any
Creation even after the Creations were Created]. So the Act of Becoming With is a Non Eternal Act.

Now If this Act is Non Eternal then the Question is ,Is Deiy/God the Locus of the Act?

If God/Deity is then God/Deity is the Locus of atleast ONE Non Eternal.

If This Act is Separate from God / Deity then this Withness and Becoming of With Every Thing from With
Nothing is Separate from God/Deity.In this case God/Deity is not with the Act of Non Eternal Withness
and not With the Act of Becoming with [stated above].

Since it implies infinite backward series of Withnesses. This is Absolutely Impossible , not even Relatively
Impossible [Per Alias Absurd/ Mumtana’: Bil Gh:air].

If God/Deity is Not With the Non Eternal Withness then God/Deity cannot be With any thing with that Non Eternal Withness
WITH WHICH DEITY/GOD IS NOT WITH.[That is if God/Deity is not With the Non Eternal WITHNESS then Deity/God cannot be
with any Created Individual with this WITHNESS].

Ima:m Ibn Taimiah [RH:]and the Problem of Locus.


We have tried to interpret Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah RH: otherwise by making several Hermeneutic
Interpretations, but there are some Salafis who cannot be interpreted.This interpretation may be
provided in a separate article ‘INSHA:’ALL-H.

Page 15 of 20
Page 16 of 20

The basic problem is that according to some Salafis Non Eternal [H:a:dith: ] is general and Makh:lu:q
[Creation] is Particular.

So there may be things which are Neither Eternal Nor Creations.

Such things according to them are Divine Acts.

But Human Acts are both Non Eternal and Creations.

[So the difference Between Divine Acts and Acts of Created Rational Supposita is that Divine Acts are
Neither Created nor Eternal while Acts of the Created Rational Spposita are Created and Non Eternal.

[Non Eternal and Uncreated in the former case and Created and Non Eternal in the latter case].

So these according to them it is Kufr and Shirc to say that God/Deity is Locus of Non Eternals that are
Creations. But the believe that it is neither Kufr nor Shirc to believe that God/Deity is a Locus of Neither
Created Nor Eternal Divine Acts.

We do not agree with the view and believe that It is Absolutely Impossible that Deity/God/ Divine
Essence is a Locus of Non Eternals.

One Should believe that Every Non Eternal is a Creation, and that Every Non Eternal is Gh:airullah.

But Takfi:r is a different Matter. Sine it is about Divine Acts only.

One may see the difference between the Divine Attributes and Divine Acts according to Salafi
Theological System.

Divine Acts are Uncreated and Non Eternal while Divine Attributes are Eternal and Uncreated.

All ‘Ahlussunnah reject the concept of Eternal Creation or Eternally Created Thing.

As they consider that some Non Eternals are Not Creations , some benefit of doubt must be given to
them. So one who believes in it is in Error , but should not be declared as Ka:fir.

Karramites and Salafites.

Karramiah also believed that God is a Locus of some Non Eternals as well. So what is the difference
between them.

The differences are as follow:

1] Karramites did not believe that Non Eternals are General and Creations are Particular.

So if they say God is a Locus of Non Eternal they did mean Locus of Creations.

2] Karramites considered Divine Attributes as Non Eternals but Salafites believe that they are Eternal but
they hold this view for Divine Acts.

Page 16 of 20
Page 17 of 20

But our good old Engineer whose former Teacher Zubair ‘:Ali: Zi was so extremist that he used to declare
any one as Ka:fir who ever tried to interpret ‘Istiva:’ and N-zu:l is not declared as Ka:fir by The Engineer,
but why?

The only reason is that till know this Engineer is Using Zubair ‘:Ali: Zai. But then he shall have used him
completely , ON THAT DAY ENGINEER ‘:Ali: Mirza: shall Hezitate for a single moment and Shall declare
his former Teacher as Ka:fir, Murtadd and Mushric. It may be noted that Zubair ‘:Ali: Zai was extreme
opponent of Vah:datul Vu:ju:d but the Engineer is not opponent of it , why? Why he is silent against
Zubair ‘:Ali Zai and not declaring him that he declared to ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah.

But one may not declare Zubair ‘:Ali Zai as Ka:fir. How ever we say that although Maulavi ‘Ish:aq of Jha:l
Vala: , Mas’:u: ‘Ah:mad BSc. , Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: , and Vah:id Zama:n do differ with one another on
several issues but none of them is ‘Ah:lul H:adi:th: . They are Heretics not just Minor Innovators.

So if they are Muslims then why ‘Ima:m ‘Ibnb Taimiah canot be a Muslim.

It may be noted that Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: is so friendly with twelvers that in his Pamphlet “ Result of Blind
Following” he did not quote a single Scholar of the Twelvers [Neither from Subsect ‘Us:uliah nor from
‘Akh:ba:riah as if he is absolutely Nescient ] , so why he is so against Karramiah.

The answer is that he only wants to attack ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah RH: .

PRINCIPLE OF ‘AHLUSSUNNAH

AL H:-DU:TH:U NAQS: WAN NAQS: ‘:ALALLA:HI MUMTANA’: BIDH:DH:A:T.[ Basic Principle of


‘Ahlussunnah Deoband].

NAQS ON THE DIVINE ESSENCE DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES [DH:A:TUL BA:RI AND S:IFA:TUDH:
DH:A:TIAH ] IS MUMTANA;” BIDH: DH:A:T . [PER SE ABSURD]

To say that H:udu:th: is Mumkin Bidh: Dh:a:t On God/Deity/Divine Essence is Wrong, Incorrect , and an
Innovation. But Non all the Innovations are Kufr. Similarly Not all the Innovation can expoell a Person
From Sunnism [‘Ahlussunnah Val Jama:’:ah].

In a separate article it should be tried to interpret ‘Ima:m ‘ibn Taimaiah RH: as According to ‘Ash’:arite
and Maturidite Principles .

Page 17 of 20
Page 18 of 20

Twelveth Preliminary:
Grammatical Infinitive : To Speak, To Ascend

Verb in Past Tense : Spoke, Ascended

Verb in Present Tense : Speak, Speaks, Speaketh, Speakest; Ascend , Ascends, Ascendeth, Ascendest

Verb in Past Participle : Spoken, Ascended

Verb in Present Participle : Speaking, Ascending

Imperative Form of Verb: Speak, Ascend

Gerund : Speaking. Ascending

Noun of the Verb : Speech, Ascension

Noun Of the Agent : Speaker, Ascender

Istiva:’ means either to Ascend [Infinitive Meaning] or Ascension [Attributive Meaning]

‘Istava: means He Ascended on [some thing].

Try your self for the infinitve to Descend and to Rise.

Please note that Speak and Rise are strong verbs and Ascend is a Weak Verb in English.

[To Engineer ‘:Ali: Miza: . If Divine Ascension is not Spatial even then it is Non Eternal. So Engineer
cannot take shelter in the argument that it is not a Spatial Ascension. Since it is still Non Eternal].

Epilogue
Page 18 of 20
Page 19 of 20

If ‘Ima:m ‘Ibn Taimiah RH: believed that God/Deity is the Locus of Non Eternals the Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza:
and his former Teacher Zubair of H:-d:ru: are not in Good Position.

If they take the word ‘Istava: in the Literal Meaning then they do believe that God/Deity is a Locus of Non Eternal Act Of
‘Istiva:’ i.e ‘Istava: .

If they do not believe that God/Deity is Locus of the Non Eternal Act ‘Istava: [Act of ‘Istava, i.e the act OF Past Tense derived
from the Mas:dar ‘Istiva:’ ] then they are not taking the Word ‘Istava: in the Literal Meaning. At best they are making strong
or weak interpretations , but are not taking the Pure Real Meaning.

So what are they doing , they are just making fallacies and follies .

Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: is in no position to declare ‘Ima:m ‘ibn Taimiah as Ka:fir.

It is better that he should declare himself as Ka:fir before he declares others as Ka:fir.

TO THE FOLLOWERS OF ENGINEER ‘:LI MIRZA:

THE FOLLACIES OF THE ENGINEER HAS BEEN SHOWN AND PROVED.

DISCLAIMER

THE AUTHER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE OF ANY DISTORTION OF MEANING DUE TO THE ERRORS OF TYPIST.

NOTE : ON REVISION SOME MISTAKES WERE DETECTED AND THEY ARE CORRECTED. HOW EVER SOME UNDETEXTED MISTAKES
MAY HAVE NOT BEEN CORRECTED.

Page 19 of 20
Page 20 of 20

Page 20 of 20