According to 'Ash"arites and Maturidites [Two sects of Ahlussunnah] Essential Attributes Of Deity ['ALL-H] are either " Identical to the Divine Essence" or "Neither Identical Nor Seperate" [ That is Communicable and Additional to Divine Essence but not Identical]. But Active and Relative Attributes of God are Neither "Identical to Divine Essence" nor "Neither Identical not Seperate". How ever according to Salafites all the Divine Attributes are same. They do shew traces of confusions when they criticise "Neither Identical nor Seperate" yet also deny "Identical to". Also they do not admit the Seperablity. Any How they do not say that Any Attribute Of God is God. But what did Zubair believed himself???? Here I reproduce an objection for Zubair Ali Zai 's former disciple Engineer Ali Mirza:= Objection It is evident that An Attribute Of God is Not God. If an Attribute Of God is Not God then a Relative Attribute Of God is not then any Attribute of An Attribute Of God is not the Attribute Of God. So "An Attribute Of God is not "an Attribute Of Attribute Of God" , and "an Attribute of an Attribute Of God" is Not "the Attribute Of God". Imam Ahmad Bin HJanbal only believed that all the Attributes Of God are Uncreated. But he neither said " An Attribute Of God is God" nor said "All Attributes Of God ar God". Similarly he did not said that Relative Attributes Of Attributes of God are Uncreated. So those who make objection on the Possibilioty of Falsehood actually confuse the " Attribute of an Attribute Of God" and Attribute Of God. If it is accepted that there are two Attributes of Truths , one that is a [Relative ] Attribute of God, and other one that is "A Relative Attribute of an Attribute Of God say Speech" then Possibility of Falsehood in regard to the latter stated Attribute is " Neither a defect [N-qs:] on Divine Essence [God/DEITY] Nor a Defect [Flaw] Upon the Attribute Of God. But a defect of a relation of a thing that is neither God nor an Attribute Of God. It is not in regard to the first type of truth. How ever in an other meaning the second truth may still be ascribed to God, but not in the meaning that it is a direct Attribute of God independent of Speech Of God , a Direct Attribute Of God.
WHAT IS THE POSSIBILITY If a thing is in POWER of Deity then it is Possible. If the thing is NOT Possible then it is NOT in POWER of Deity. I am still unable to work out why Zubair thought that it is a Disgrace Of Deity to say Falsehood is in Power Of God, and why it is not a Disgrace to say Falsehood is not In Power Of God. If it is a disgrace of God to say Falsehood is in Divine Power then it is a greater Disgrace to say Falsehood is not in Divine Power. Consequently if it is a Disgrace to say Falsehood is Possible then it is a greater Disgrace to say Falsehood in Impossible. If Zubair declared Imam Ahl Al H:adi:th: Sha:h 'Isma:"i:l Shahi:d and those who accept his excogitations in this regard as Heretic or Kafir or both then there are several conundrums. 1] If to believe falsehood is in Power Of Deity is incorrect
and a disgrace of Deity then either falsehood [Kidh:b] is not in Divine Power or it is " Neither in Divine Power" nor"not in Divine Power" in the second case it is violation of Law of Exclusion Of Middle. In the first case a greater Disgrace is implied and that is Falsehood is not in Divine Power. The term Possible [Mumkin] defined as a thing that is Neither Necessary Nor Impossible. Falehood of a Speech is Neither Necessary like Deity HIMSELF Nor Impossible like the defects of Attributes or Defects of Essence like Ignorence or eating or fornication. So Ali Mirza who has blindly followed his former treacher did commit the same mistakes and errors which were committed by SEMI AHLULHADITH: ZUBAIR ALI ZAI.
Ghula:m Rasu:l Sa"i:di did misguide Zubair "Ali: Zai by asking some questions in regard to Possibility Of Falsehood which he was unable to reply, and this is one of the causes that simple minded Ali Zai became against Shah Isma:"i:l Shahi:d. His objections on Ahlussunnah Deoband an general and Maulana Rashi:d of Gongoh RH in regard to The
Possibility of Falsehood uncovers the fact that his simple mind was unable to go in debth of theological issues. Ali Zai was unable to answer the question " If Istiva:' is Eternal and "Arsh is not then Was ALL-H Mustavi IN EERNITY,? and if so then was He Mustavi with out "Arsh?? This does shew that he was too simple minded to understand such issues.
Last not the least "Ali Mirza was initially a Barailvi and A Barailvis even if he becomes a Ahlul Hadith: , have some enimity for Shah Isma:"i:l Shahi:d [Astaghfarullah].