1

Juz 8,Su:rah 6 A:yah 12 Rku: 1

(8,6,1,12)

The Word Kataba in the Verse is averb of Past Tense. A verb implies an Act and not an Attribute.

An Act has two inevitable requirements.

1]An Agent of the Act.

2]Beginning and Non Eternity of the Act.

Thus the act of Writing of Mercy On Divine Essence Doeth have a Beginning and is Not Eternal.

This implieth that the term/result of the act of Writing i.e Mercy is also Hath a Beginning and is Not
Eternal.

As the Self of Divine Essence is Divine Essence Itself i.e Divine Essence and Divine Self are Absolutely
Identical [Not even Relatively Identical] then this implieth that Divine Essence [Dh:a:tul Ba:ri: ] Wrote
Mercy on His Own Essence.

Now Mainstream of Ahlussunnah do not take this verse in its literal meaning for certain reasons. But in
this article we want to ask Engineer Ali: Mirza: about his views so that we may expose some flaw in his
system as evident from his lectures.

First:=

If Divine Essence did write Mercy on Itself then whether the act of writing Mecry on the Divine Essence
is With Divine Will or without Divine Will.In other sentence The Act of Writing Mercy on Divine Essence
by Divine Essence is Intentional[Valuntary] or Unintentional [Involuntary]?. Also Are some Non Eternal
Divine Acts Involuntary and Unintentional? Can an Intentional/Voluntary Divine Act be Eternal and Pre-
Existent ?
2
Second:=

If Ali: Mirza: does not interpret this verse other wise its Literal Meaning then this implies that Divine Act
of Writing Mercy and the Written Mercy both are Neither Eternal Not Pre Existent and both do have a
Beginning.

In this case it is implied that Non Eternals or Post Existents or both are Either Associated With Divine
Essence or do Sustain in Divine Essence or both. Does Engineer Ali Mirza: believe in this?

But it appears that he does not believe in it. How ever as according to his literal system of Commentary
on Verses and Traditions should believe in this as stated above. So this is an inharmony in his system and
his system is inconsistent.

Third:=

If Engineer Ali: Mirza: does not take this verse literally then it is implied that Divine Essence Did not
write any thing on His Holy Essence/Self. It is just a metaphor or a figure.

In this case the Mercy can be taken as an Eternal Attribute and not as a Non Eternal Act. So the Act of
Writing may also be taken as Eternal Attribute or it may be considered as a Metaphor for the
Association With or Sustainment In. [In Association With Divine Essence or Sustained In Divine
Essence].

But then the questions are:=

How Engineer Ali Mirza: interpret the clause of the Quranic A:yah?

What are the reasons for discarding the Real Meaning [Literal] of the Verse and Choosing the Virtual
[Metaphorical/Figurative] Meaning of the Verse?

Can he prove each one of the alleged reason from the Explicit Verses of Qura:n and Explicit Texts of
Ah:adi:th S:ah:i:iah:?

Third:=

Does the Literal Meaning of the Verse under discussion and stated above Not Shew that Divine Essence
is Locus of Acts that have a Beginning and are Neither Eternal not Pre Existent?

If so then:=

Is there an Explicit S:ah:i:h: Tradition of H:adi:th: which saith that Non Eternal Things are Abolutely
Impossible upon Divine Essence?
Is there an Explicit A:yah of Holy Qura:n which saith that Non Eternal Things are Abolutely Impossible
upon Divine Essence?

If neither then does it mean that interpretations of A:yah and Sh:ah:i:h: H:di:th: can be made on
3
Rational ,Logical, Theological, Philosophical argumentations and reasonings?

If so then what are the Laws and Principles of these Argumentations and Reasonings?

What if some one deny them by arguing that they are neither Qura:n Nor H:adi:th: .

Fourth:=

If Divine Mercy Stated in the verse is Eternal then then the word Kataba is used dor some thing Eternal.
If so then it is an Attribute and not an Act.To call an Attribute as an Act is a Metaphor.

So on what Reasons and Ground Engineer Ali Mirza interpret a Stated Act as an Attribute?

As if an Attribute Hath a Term then it is also Eternal , then it is implied that there are two Eternal
Attribute , one that is denoted by the Act Kataba and second the term of the Attribute Mercy that is
stated to be Written. But this means that the first one is La:zim of Divine Essence and the second one is

La:zim of La:zim of Divine Essence.

But Divine Lava:zim do not have Lava:zim if they are Affirmative ,Assertive ,Existential and Positive.

This means that Mercy cannot be La:zim of La:zim. If not so then Why it is stated as if it is a Term of

some Divine Attribute denoted by the word Kataba or as if it is the La:zim of La:zim? ( ) 1
If the Mercy is an Eternal Attribute ,then it is Eternally Associated with the Divine Essence or it
Sustaineth in Divine Essence Eternally or both, implying that it is not written on the Divine Essence at
some point in the Tense of Past. So this meaning implies that the Word Kataba is just a Metaphor or a
Figure , then why a Literalist like Zubair Ali: Zai, Engineer Ali: Mirza, Ish:aq Jha:l Vah:i:d Azzama:n etc.

Not take the verse literally and leave their principle of Literalism. On what grounds they dispute with
Karramiah and declare them as incorrect on this issue. If a Karra:mi takes the verse in Literal Meaning
then Why he is condemn by these advocates of Literalism. (2)

This is applied to the Engineer Ali: Mirza: more perfectly since he sometimes become too Literalist
more than the others, so literalist that be becomes Unacceptable to Ahlul H:adi:th: as well.

It must be noted that :=

Engineer Ali: Mirza: is asked to answer all these questions properly , with out asking counter
questions [What he uses to re-term as Phakki] since we want to know the basic believes of the
Enginner and His Scheme of Interpretations. If he is unable to do it then this constitutes the proof that
he his system has serious flaws [S-Q-M] and he is unable to remove them. Counter Question cannot and
do not help the Engineer in this regard but only expose the inability of Explaining the Text of this Clause
of A:yah.

Additionally it is our concern that HowEngineer Ali Mirza: Interpret this verse from its literal meaning and it is not our concern what
4
others do and how they interpret and what are their reaons of interpretations.

Also if Engineer Ali: Mirza: claims that even an act can be Eternal then it is asked to state an explicit difference between An Act and An
Attribute, and between An Eternal Act and Eternal Attribute? Or Does he fail to make such a distinction?

One may also ask that if Mercy is an Eternal Divine Attribute then why Divine Essence [Nounly/Namely ALL-H (Subh:a:n-hu: Va
Taa:la Va Azza Va Jalla) some times becometh Angry, or Punisheth the sinner and the transgressor.

If Mercy is Eternal then it is implied that Mercy is Necessary Upon Divine Essence [Ar Rah:mah Va:jib Alallah] , which is
even not accepted by Mutazilah who limited them selves to the claim that Justice is Necessary Upon Divine Essence [Al
Adlu Va:jib Alallah].

If Mercy is Necessary Upon Divine Essence [Dh:a:tul Ba:ri:] Then Divine Essence Must Necessary Do Mercy even Upon Kuffar
Val Mushriki:n as well. That is Rah:mah and K-r-m Alal Kuffar would be Necessarily Necessary.

Conclusion

A Possible Reply Of Ali Mirza:

It is the secondary nature of the Engineer of Jhelum, that when he did not have any proper answer he use to do at least one
of the two things given below:=

1]He begins to make jokes generally shifting to Panja:bi Language as if it is permitted to joke and to make fun inPanja:bi and
prohibited in Rikh:tah/Urdu: .

2] He attempts to make Counter Questions [AL JAVA:B AL ILZA:MI] which he terms as Digestive Powder a local medicine
called Phakki.

We do anticipate his response.

He can at best say that there are some Verses which imply that even Divine Knowledge is not Eternal. He at best may argue
that if verses like them can be interpreted them in similar way this verse may also be interpreted other wise.

Answer to the Possible Reply of Engineer Ali: Mirza: Of Jhelum

The Divine Knowledge is an Essential Attribute, and the word Essential [Adh:Dh:a:ti:] is not only in opposition to bestowed
[At:ai] but also in opposition to Active [Fili:]. So Divine Knowledge is neither an Active Attribute [As: S:ifatul Filiah] nor
an Bestowed Attribute [As: S:fatul At:a:iah]. Such an Attribute is Eternal there for it is necessary to Interpret it but the
Attribute of Mercy is not an Essential Attribute and if so then one needs some additional Reasonings and Argumentations to
Interpret it. But based on some Essential Attribute it is incorrect to claim that each and every Divine Act is an Attribute .
If an Act is Identical to an Attribute then it is an Attribute and not an Act. For example Divine Essence doeth know each and
every thing in a Single ACT OF Divine KNOWLEDGE, and this Single Act is the Divine Knowledge Itself, That is Act and the
Attribute are Absolutely Identical.
5
But such an assertion cannot be made for all Divine Acts. If so then No Divine Act shall remain Voluntary and every Divine Act
shall become involuntary and unintentional with out Divine Will , and it shall be implied that they emanate necessarily with out
Divine Will as some Philosophers say.

But it may be noted that some Extreme Qariah and Extreme Jabariah inspite of their dispute over Taqdi:r agreed that Divine
Knowledge is not Eternal. Jahm was also of the belief that Divine Knowledge is Not Eternal and constantly in Mutation.

He probably used these verses in his attempt to prove that Divine Knowledge is not Eternal.

But the question is why Engineer Ali Mirza disputes from Jahm. If he is so Literalist then he must follow Jahm at least in
regard to Jahms View about Divine Knowledge. If he not so Literalist then he must state the reasons on which he disputes
from Jahm in regard to Divine Knowledge .

Also it is necessary to be shown that if some arguments are valid for interpretation of some verses of Qura:n in regard to
Divine Knowledge , is it correct to use Analogy to interpret other verses in regard to other Acts or Attributes.

If Ali: Mirza of Jhelum shall use his former trick then we shall make a Logical Critique and shall see how he is Loyal to his
Analogies which he is likely to use in response to aur questions and challenges stated above.

Any how if Engineer Ali: Mirza of Jhelum does Interpret then if these interpretations are based on Rarionality and Reason
then we deserve similar rights to reject some of Engineers views on basis of Rationality and Reasons.

This Shall be discussed only when this man from City of Jhelum attempts to respond the challenge.

Great Expectation

1]It is expected that the Engineer Ali Mirza shall attempt to Explain this Verse properly keeping all these questions asked
above in proper context so that we may write a Critique of his Explanation of this verse.

Once again If Engineer Ali: Mirza: uses counter Arguments instead of direct and explicit Answers this shall Only Shew that
he cannot respond properly and his system cannot explain this Holy Verse Principally and Positively implying Flaws in his
system.

2] It is expected that Engineer Ali: Mirza: shall not try to use the Counter Question Method in order to hide flaws in his
system but shall try to answer directly and excogitately. But if he uses his trick then a detail analysis of his method and its
application in regard to Juz 8,Su:rah 6 A:yah 12 Rku: 1 may be given Insha:ALL-H.(3)

Epilogue

If the Act of Writing is not Eternal then this implies that the term of Act of Writing i.e Written Mercy is not Eternal.

This implies that Divine Essence is a Locus of Non Eternals.

Or
It is necessary to accept that Non Eternal Mercy is not Written On Divine Self.

If Divine Mercy is Eternal then it is not Written at some point in Tense of Past. So the word Kataba needs an
interpretation.(4)
6
Footnotes:

(1) Concept of La:zim of La:zim in case of Divine Essence was invented by Ah:mad Rad:a Barailvi and is likely to
be adopted by Engineer Ali: Mirza: .

(2) Karramites are modified Mushabbites and H:ashvites. They however reject to interpret Divine Verses on basis
of Rational Arguments.

(3) Some denouncers of Divine Omnipotence over Falsehood/Fasity also used this verse in an attempt to Deny

Divine Omnipotence over Falsehood/Falsity but as this verse needs Interpretation any argumentation based on a verse
which Requires an Interpretation and is not taken in Literal Meaning is incorrect as a Basic Principle.

(4 ) That is what the challenge is all about. We want to see the Reasons of Interpretations of the Engineer of Jhelum.

His system is inconsistent in either case. Naturally a Counter Question is cannot remove the inconsistency of his system.