396846208-IS-GOD-DEITY-LOCUS-OF-NONETERNAL-ACT-OF-ISTAVA-IN-THE-THEOLOGICAL-SYSTEM-OF-ENGINEER-ALI-MIRZA-OF-JHELUM

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