AHLUSSUNNAH VAL JAMAAH

Further Studies in the

Principle Of Ta’:li:q Bil
Muh:a:l
Refuting Ali Mirza, Refuting Mirza Jhelumi
Saiyidah Talat Zahrah Naqvi
[Pick the date]

A LOGICAL DISCUSSION ON THE PRINCIPLE OF SUSPENSION WITH/FROM IMPOSSIBLE, AND THE WRONG
USE OF THE PRINCIPLE BY MIRZA: OF JHELUM.
Page 1 of 11

Page 1 of 11
 Page 2 of 11

Further Studies in the Principle

Of Ta’:li:q Bil Muh:a:l
Introduction
Mirza: Jhelumi [b:1977 ce] has tried to Malign the Truth of ‘Isla:m by preaching a Pseudo ‘Isla:m
instead of the Real ‘Isla:m. This why all the Muslim sects dislike the teaching of Mirza: Jhelumi: and
jointly declare him as an Apostate.

In one of his videos he stated that he shall accept MAa:h:mu:di: Mirza:’is as Muslim if they cease to
declare Mirza: Jhelumi, his disciples and Muslims as Ca:fir.

It is the divine grace that his this heresy was detected and he was refuted accordingly. Letter a number of
other scholars also realised this Apostate belief of Mirza: Jhelumi: But Mirza: Jhelumi tried to defend
himself by the misuse of the Principle “ Ta’:li:q Bil Muh:a:l”.

An immediate response was made on the fallacy deliberately committed by Mirza: Of Jhelum , which was
generated due to the misuse of mentioned above Principle.

In this Work it further investigations are made so that if G-d Willeth , the disciples of Mirza: Jhelumi:
may realise the mischievous fallacy made by the founder of the Jhelumite and Enginnerite Circle.

Key Words

Rationally Impossible = Absolutely Impossible= ‘Al Muh:a:l ‘Al ‘:Aqli: =Per Se Absurd/Impossible

Rationally Necessary= Absolutely Necessary =’:Al Va:jib ‘Al ‘:Aqli: =Per Se Necessary

Rationally Contingent –Absolutely Contingent=’Al Mumkin ‘Al ‘:Aqli: =Per Se Contingent

Possible = ‘Al Mumkin ‘Al ‘:A:m

Contingent =’Al Mumkin ‘Al Kh:a:s:

Omnipotence =’Al Qudratul Culliah

Preliminary 1
A concept or a conceptual thing [‘Al Mafhu:m] is divided into three types.

If the very self of the individual implieth its Negation or Non Existence or both then it is Rationally
Impossible or Rationally Absurd.

Page 2 of 11
 Page 3 of 11

If the very Self of the Individual implieth its Existence then it is Rationally Necessary

Inf the very Self of the Individual is neither of the First two stated above then it is Rationally Contingent.

A Rationally Possible is one that is not Rationally Impossible. So the difference is that Possible is more
General than Contingent.

Divine Omnipotence is on all the Rationally Contingent individuals .

Preliminary 2
A Rationally Contingent Individual if implieth extrinsically a Rationally Imp[ossible then it is
Occurrenceally Impossible or Relatively Impossible or Per Alias Impossible..

If it does not Implieth extrinsically then it is called Occurranceally Necessary. [Va:jib ‘Al Vu:qu:’:] or
Relatively Necessary.

NB:- It is Absolutely Impossible for an Absolutely Impossible to Imply an Absolutely Contingent

Intrisically and It is Absolutely Impossible for an Absolutely Contingent to Imply an Absolutely
Impossible Intrinsically. Intrinsic Implication may be called Per Se Implication. Extrinsic Implication
may also be called as Per Alias Implication without any problem at all.

How ever it is disputed whether to call it as Per Alias Necessary since there is a problem that some
Philosopher considered Per Alias Necessary to be Per Alias Eternal. So they believed in plurality of Per
Alias Necessary and Per Alias Eternal Essences etc. But there is only one Eternal Essence and that is Per
Se Eternal , So in order to abolish such confusion the Term Occurranceal Necessary is less confusing and
is the natural option for this article.

We provide an example . The Replica of G-d and a Being Equal to G-d is Absolutely/Rationally
Impossible i.e Per Se Impossible.

But Revelation of a Book other than Qur’a:n on Holy Prophet is Relatively Impossible or Per Alias
Impossible.

The occurrence of Qia:mah is Occurrenceally Necessary. In the case if there is no confusion in the
meaning one may say Per Alias Necessary but it is not recommended ,rather is discouraged since

A number of people get confused with the Peripatetic Definition of Per Alias Necessary. According to
them if an Individual is Per Alias Necessary then it is also Per Alias Eternal. This is strictly wrong and
Cufr and Shirc , Further this approached to the dogma of Anteriority of the World.

An other example is that if it is asked whether it is in Divine Power to punish himself , the answer is that
it is not since it is Absolutely Impossible . If it is asked whether it is in Divine Power to punish a Created
Rational Suppositum who is not guilty of any Transgression and any Sin at all then Answer is , it is since
such an act is Relatively Impossible.

Page 3 of 11
 Page 4 of 11

Preliminary 3
Further discussions on Impossible, Contingent and Necessary

One may decide a thing / an act / an eventto be Rarionally Absurd or Rationally Impossible or Absolutely
Impossible from the relations of the terns of Subject [Maud:u:’:] and Predicate [Mah:mu:l].

If the Predicate constitutes the part of the Subject or if the Subject constitutes the part of the predicate ,
then the negation of the relation is Rationally Impossible. Similarly negation of Law of Thought is also
Rationally Impossible.

For example A is Not A is Rationally Impossible. Since this contradicts the Law of Identity, the First Law
of thought.

Similarly t “It is true that A is B and A is not B” is Rationally Impossible.

Also “ It is True that Neither A is B nor A is Not B” is a Rationally IMPOSSIBLE Act/event.

Rationally Necessary

A thing/ an event / an act is Rationally Necessary or Absolutely Necessary according to the relations of
the terms of Subjects and respective Predicates.

If the Predicate some how form the notion or term of the definition of the subject or Subject forms the
part of the definition of Predicate then it is Rationally Necessary.

Similarly Laws of Thoughts are Rationally Necessary. For example it is Rationally Necessary that A is A.

It is Absolutely Necessary that it is False that A is B and A is Not B.

It is absolutely Necessary that it is false that neither A is B not A is Not B.

Any thing/act/ event/ attribute that is Neither Rationally Necessary nor Rationally Impossible is
Rationally Contingent.

Any thing etc. that is Not Rationally Impossible is Rationally Possible.

So the difference between Rationally Contingent and Rationally Possible is obvious .

All Rationally Contingents are Rationally Possible but Not all Rationally Possible are Rationally Absurd.

So Rationally Possible is more General than Rationally Contingent..

Impossible by Supposition

It is not Absolutely Impossible that Socrates Siteth, It is not Absolutely Necessary that Socrates Siteth.

Similarly It is not Absolutely Impossible that Socrates Doeth not Sit. Also It is not Absolutely Necessary
that Socrates Doeth not Sit.

Page 4 of 11
 Page 5 of 11

This implieth that “it is Rationally Contingent that ‘Socrates Sitheth and Socrates Doeth not Sit’ ”.

But it is Rationally Impossible for Socrates to Sit as long as Socrates is not Sitting.

Similarly it is Rationally Necessary for Socrates to sit as long as Socrates siteth [i.e as long as he is
sitting].

So these two types are Impossible by Supposition in the first case and Necessary by Supposition in the
second case.

These two cases excludes Absolutely Impossible and Absolutely Necessary respectively yet they are
included in Rationally Impossible and Rationally Necessary respectively.

This means that a Rationally Contingent with some conditions are Rationally Absurd or Rationally
Impossible but not Absolutely Impossible.

Similarly a Rationally Contingent is Rationally Necessary with some Conditions but not Absolutely
Absurd.

How ever If a Rationally Contingent or an Absolutely Contingent implieth a Rationally Impossible

Extrinsically or Exteriorly then it is Occurrenceally Impossible [Muh:a:l Bil Vuqu:’:].

So one must differentiate between the two.

Some time the terms Absolutely Necessary or Rationally Necessary are used for Rationally Necessary
Existent and this means that there is an existent such that the negation of Its Existence is Absolutely
Impossible .

Occurrenceally Necessary is one that is not Occurrenceally Impossible. Both are Rationally Contingent.

How ever the particular cases which are called Necessary by Supposition or Impossible by Supposition
are Rationally Necessary or Rationally Impossible but neither Rationally Necessary nor Rationally
Impossible.

Hence neither Absolutely Necessary not Absolutely Impossible.

However Rationally Contingent and Absolutely Contingent are alternative terms . Exactly alternative
unless and otherwise some one supposes a difference between them in his /her discussions.

Preliminary 4
Ta’:li:q Bil Muh:al or Suspension by Impossible or Suspension from Impossible are the two subtypes of
suspension.

Page 5 of 11
 Page 6 of 11

For example if IF AN ACT OR EVENT OR THING is suspended from an Impossible then the act is said
to be impossible.

For example A be an Act which is Impossible [regardless of its type] . Let B be an act that is suspended
on it . Then B is also Impossible [Regardless of its type].

But according to most of the Logicians , this is nothing but Implication.

This means that If A occurs then B occurs.

So if an Impossible occurs then the implied one also occurs.

For example Annihilation of the Onmi-Creator implieth the Annihilation of all those things Created b the
Omni-Creator.

But Annihilation of The Omni-Creator is Rationally Impossible and Absolutely Impossible. The
Annihilation of all the Creations is Absolutely and Rationally Contingent.

Yet this is an Implication from Impossible to Contingent.

A person of this mind or opinion may say that the Annihilation of the Entire Creation is Occurenceally
Impossible.

Such discussions are interesting for those who contemplate on the intrinsic and extrinsic natures of
implications.

Preliminary 5
If a thing / act / thing / attribute is hinged upon an Absolutely Contingent then it is Absolutely
Contingent.

Even if it Occurrenceal Impossible then any thing etc. hinges upon it is occurrenceal Impossible. But as
long as it is hinges upon it or suspended by it , it is Occurenceal Impossible. But if the suspension or
hinge it self is Absolutely Contingent , then it is not Occurrenceally Impossible if not supposed to be
hinged upon it.

Preliminary 6
It is impossible that a person say Mr P is a Muslim and denies a True Prophet.

Similarly it is impossible that a person say Mr Q is a Muslim and believes in a False Prophet [False
claimant of Prophethood].

A Mah:mu:di: Mirza:’I believes that Mirza: Qa:dia:ni: is a true prophet [Na’:u:dh:ubillah Va

‘Astagh:farullah].

So by using the stated above principle one may suspend an act on the first Impossible act.

Page 6 of 11
 Page 7 of 11

But it is Contingent to believe that an Impossible is Contingent.

It is also Contingent to believe that a Contingent is Impossible.

It is Contingent that a Mirza:’i: believes a Person say P is a Muslim and denies a True Prophet.

Since this belief is Absolutely Contingent even if it is Impossible that A person say P is a Muslim and
denies a True Prophet.

It is impossible that a person P is a Muslim and believes in a False Prophet [A Person whose claim of his
Prophethood is False].

If it is Impossible that a Person is a Muslim and believes in a False Prophet [A Person whose claim of
Prophethood is False] even then the belief that “a Person is a Muslim and believes in a False Prophet” is
Contingent.

In the above case this is a false belief. A false belief is also Contingent..

As the belief is Absolutely Contingent a it is Absolutely Contingent that a Mirza:’i: believes in the belief.

So it is not a Suspension from an Impossible but from a Contingent.

Mirza: Jhelumi: confuses between an Impossible event/act/thing and the Contingent belief that the
event/act/thing is Contingent.

So it is not a suspension from Impossible but from a Contingent.

Similarly the similar can be said for the case “ It is Impossible that a Person Q is a Mislim and
disbelieves in a True claimant of Prophethood.

It is not impossible to believe in a belief that an act is not Impossible , even if the act is Impossible.

Similarly It is not impossible to believe in a belief that an act is Impossible , even if the act is not
Impossible.

We provide an example :-

Incarnation of G-d in Human and Animal beings is Absolutely and Rationally Impossible.

But there are many who believe that Incarnation of G-d in Human Being or Animal Being or both is
Absolutely and Rationally Contingent.

So the belief is not Absolutely Impossible yet the Truth of the belief is Absolutely Impossible.

An other example is of self contradction.

The only thing that is certain is uncertainty. This is a self contradictory sentence since

Uncertainty cannot be certain. This implieth Uncertainty is Certain . That is Not A is A, and that is B is
Not B.

Page 7 of 11
 Page 8 of 11

But one may believe in this belief and this means that the believer is a believer in a false belief. The belief
is not impossible but it is contingent. The thing which is Impossible is the truth of the belief.

Similarly Oxymorons are also Contingent BELIEFS. Even if they are really Impossible. For example :=

He is sleeping awake. He is sitter and stander. He is silent and speaking. He is a silent speaker. Etc.

Many people argue for G-d by the following argument.

Every thing has a Cause.

The series of effect and cause cannot go infinitely backward. So there must be cause of call causes.

This argument is self contradictory since If all things have Causes then the Cause of all Causes is a thing .
So it must have a Cause. So it is Self Contradictory but many people believe in the self contradiction
belief that every thing has a cause and believe in a finite number of causes in backward direction. Since it
implies an infinite backward series. That is why where Logic of exception is introduced or Theologians
change the argument to make it save from Self Contradiction. They say all that have a Beginning has a
cause.

But one thing is certain that people may believe in a self contradictory belief. A self Contradictory belief
is Contingent but the truth of the self contradictory belief is Absolutely Impossible.

This shews that a Mirza:’i: may believe that Mirza: is a prophet [May ALL-H Forbit ] and one who
disbelieve in Mirza: as a prophet is also a Muslim. At best this is a Self Contradicting belief. But even this
false belief is Absolutely and Rationally Contingent. How ever the Truth of this belief is Rationally
Impossible and Falsehood of this belief is Rationally Necessary.

So what Mirza: suspended on this False belief is a Suspension from Contingent and not from an
Impossible.

Who ever we have not quantified the word Impossible and Necessary.

If It is Rationally Impossible even then the arguments are sound and valid. If it is Occuranceally
Impossible even then they are Correct.

Let it be chosen my Mirza::

It may be noted that if an Absolutely Contingent his suspended from a Occurrenceally Impossible then it
is Occurrenceally Impossible.

But if a Contingent is not occurenceally Impossible it is Absolutely Contingent but neither Rationally
Impossible not Rationally Contingent.

So what game this man from Jhelum is playing with his followers , disciples and students.

Page 8 of 11
 Page 9 of 11

It must be noted that that if an act/event /thing/ attribute is against Absolute Reality then it is Absolutely
Impossible. But the belief against the Absolute Reality is Absolutely Contingent. However the truth of the
belief is Absolutely Impossible and Rationally Impossible. So what Mirza: Jhelumi: has confused is that
he did made his listeners to think that “Absolute Impossibility of an Act” and Absolute Impossibility of
Truth of the Contingent belief that the act is Absolutely Contingent” are one and the same.

This is wrong and incorrect.

Conclusion 1
Mirza: Jhelumi: tired to defend himself on his pure Cufr by the principle of Ta’:li:q Bil Muh:a:l .

Let it be repeated in a very brief and precise Summary.

Engineer Mirza: Jhelumi: said that if today Qa:diani: [Mah:mu:di: Mirza:’i:] cease to declare Mirza: , his
disciples and Muslims as Ca:fir , he shall cease to declare Qa:dianis [Mah:mudites] as Ca:fir.

On this belief our objection was that this means that Mirza: Jhelumi: did Not consider the denial of
Finality of Holy Prophet as Cufr.

When this conspiracy of Mirza: Jhelumi: was unveiled and unearthed , then he attemted to say that he was
making a Suspension on Impossible.

He tried to purport that he he is using the Principle Of Ta’:li:q Bil Muh:a:l.

So what is the thing which is Impossible according to Mirza:Jhelumi: .

This Impossibility according to Mirza: Jhelumi: is that “a Mah:mudite can not cease to declare a person
who disbelieve in the Claim of Prophethood of Mirza: Qa:diani: as Ca:fir”.

He did not suspend the Cufr of Mah:mu:dites on the Cufr which is the belief of denial of the Finality.

So what he did as according to his mentality and sensibility that he used the Argument not for the Cufr of
Mah:mudites but for the Impossibility. There is a difference between Cufr and Impossibility,

Since there definitions are different.

It is not necessary that a belief of an Impossible thing/Act is Cufr.

Example. : If some one believe that Contradictions are Absolutely Contingent only in a particular thing
say Apple , then this belief is incorrect and wrong. But it is not Cufr.3

But if some one believes that Contradiction in G-d is Absolutely Contingent then this is a Cufr.

Similarly Paradoxes are Absolutely Impossible . So if someone believes in the Absolute Contingency of
Paradoxes in G-d then this is Cufr. But if he believes in Absolute Contingency in a particular thing say an
Apple then it is not Cufr.

Page 9 of 11
 Page 10 of 11

Conclusion 2
It must be noted that if a Person X believes in more then one articles of Cufr , then it is pure cufr to say
that that if he I.E X ceases to believe or to exercise only one of them then to declare the Person X as
CA:FIR SHOULD BE CEASED.

So the Principle of Ta’:li:q Bil Muh:a:l does not save Mirza: Jhelumi: from the Cufr.

Conclusion 3
Mirza: is trying to mislead and misguide his listeners.

He is neglecting the basic principle that cufr is generated from denouncing the Finality of the Holy
Prophet.

Instead of it Mirza: is generating Cufr from the mentioned above generation he is suggesting that Cufr is
Generation from the stated above generation. Then he is attempting to shew an implication between the
negation of the Claim of Mirza: Qa:diani and the declaration of Cufr by Mah:mudites.

Conclusion 4
Finally if such arguments are valid then let it be allowed to make a parallel Ta’:li:q .

Even if Mah:mu:dites cease to declare Muslims as Ca:fir even then they are not Muslims.

A humble request

Mirza: Jhelumi: is not telling the truth.

Disclaimation
The author is not responsible for errors of grammar and
spellings and any thing due to them.
The Author does not hold any belief contrary to
Ahlussunnah , so any thing which may make confusion

Page 10 of 11
 Page 11 of 11

about the belief of the author is either “For the sake of

Argument or an error due to typist.

AN APPEAL TO ALL THE

FOLLOWERS OF MIRZA:
JHELUMI:
It is requested to think again about Mirza: Jhelumi: , his
teachings and their implications.For the Sake of ALL-H the
Almighty Being please do not follow him and his apostate
believes.He is not preaching the True ‘Isla:m but a heretic
religion borrowing many things from ‘Isla:m yet also his
innovations which are pure Cufr. How many proofs and
evidences do you require to make you convince that Mirza:
Jhelumi: is a Heretic and an Apostase.

Page 11 of 11