AHLUSSUNNAH

Principle Of Taliq Bil

Muhal Complete
Refuting Mirza Jhelumi
Ahlussunnah
07-Sep-19

Mirza Jhelumi said that he shall cease to declare Mahmudites as Non Muslim if they cease to declare
Muslims as Non Muslims. When objection was made on Mirza Jhelumi , he tried to defend himself by
using the Principle of Suspension from Impossible. A detail discussion is made on this invalid defence by
the said principle.
 Page 1 of 25

AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMAAH

Mirza Jhelumi and the Principle Of Ta’liq bil Muhal: Refutation of an attempt to defend Mirza Of Jhelum

Refuting Mirza Jhelum, Refuting Ali Mirza

27-Aug-19

Page 1 of 25
 Page 2 of 25

Part One

There is a Supporter of Mirza: Jhelumi: who have tried to defend an apostasy of Mirza: Jhelumi:

By using the principle of Ta’:li:q Bil Muh:a:l.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCSmSsZAjxw

Before discussing the problem it is necessary to provide some prerequisites of the Problem.

Mirza: Jhelumi: is greatly influenced by Laho:ri: Mirza:’ism. It was proved long before that he is a
Lahorite.

Lahorism is a cult of Mirza:’ism . After the death of the founder of Mirza:’ism , Mirza:’ism was devided
into two basic sects.

1] Mah:mu:di: Mirza:’ism or Qa:dianism

2] Laho:rism or Paigh:amism.

The first sect of Mirza:’ism was founded be the son of Mirza: Qa:diani: namely Mirza: Bashi:ruddi:n
Mah:mu:d.

The second sect was founded by Muh:ammad ‘:Ali: Laho:ri: , who was a disciple of Mirza: Qa:diani: .

Mirza: Jhelumi: has supported Qa:diani: sect . But actually he is trying to save Laho:rism from the Takfi:r.

This shews that he has strong inclinations and tendencies towards La:ho:rism.

There are certain evidences for this claim.

1] On one hand La:ho:rites claim that Mirza: Gh:ula:m Qa:diani: did not claim prophethood, and on the
other hand they accuse Great Scholars of ‘isla:m for claiming prophethoods for themselves.

This is exactly what the Mirza: Jhelumi does.

Page 2 of 25
 Page 3 of 25

This is a weak La:ho:ri: argument in support of Mirza: Qa:diani: .

2] La:ho:ri: Mirzai were first who denied that Mirza: Qa:diani: claimed Prophethood. Mr Gh:amidi: just
borrowed their belief belief. But he was unable to present any new argument for his false claim “Mirza:
Qa:diani: did not claimed Prophethood”. He only repeated the arguments of Muh:ammad ‘:Ali: Laho:ri: .

So inclinations and tendencies of Mirza: Jhelumi: and Gh:a:midi: shews that both of the two are two
representatives of Lho:rism.

3] La:ho:rism is in consistency with Ra:fid:ism. This means that a person can be a La:ho:riite as well as a
Ra:fid:ite.

4] Mirza: Jhelumi: has claimed that he declares Qa:dianis as Ka:fir just because they declare him and his
followers as Ka:fir and not due to the reason they deny the finality and lasthood of Holy Prophet.

How ever he argues that they shall never declare Mirza: Jhelumi: and his followers as Muslims.

But in his strange argument , he finds a secret way to declare La:horites as Muslims [‘Astagh:farullah Va
Na’:u:dh:ubillah].

Since La:ho:rites apparently deny that Mirza: Qa:diani: claimed Prophethood and hey do not declare
those who deny the claims of Mirza: Qa:diani: as Ka:fir , unless and otherwise they declare Mirza:
Qa:diani: as Ka:fir.

This Principle is borrowed by Mirza: Jhelumi, with the modification that any one who declares Mirza:
Jhelumi: and his deciples as Ka:fir is not a Muslim. This declaration is independent of the believes of the
declarer .

It is clear that if a La:ho:ri: Mirza:’i: does not declare Mirza: Jhelumi: as Ka:fir then Mirza: Khelumi: and
Jhelumite Disciples , then Mirza: Jhelumi and his Disciples shall not declare the La:ho:ri: Mirzai: as Ka:fir.

What does this means? This means that Mirza Jhelumi: is in perfect harmony with La:ho:rism.

5] The apparent Monotheistic Tendencies of Mirza: Jhelumi: were just to attract youth of ‘Ahlul
H:adi:th: . But Mirza: Jhelumi: did not declare any one as Ka:fir and Mushrik if he or she holds some
beliefs of Shirk. That is the reason he does not declare Nus:airiah of Sha:m as Ka:fir and
Mushric/Mushrik because they believe that Saiyiduna: ‘:Ali: is an Incarnation and a Menifestation of G-
d.

But this is also borrowed from Mirza:’ism. Since both of the sects of Mirza:’ism deceived Muslims by
shewing Monotheistic Tendencies. Even Mirza: Qadiani attempted to refute Unity Of Existence , in order
to deceive Muslims who reject Unity Of Existence.

So it is clear that Mirza: Jhelumi has learnt many things from Mirza: Qa:diani: and his disciple
Muh:ammad ‘:Ali: Laho:ri: .

There is a Supporter of Mirza: Jhelumi: who have tried to defend an apostasy of Mirza: Jhelumi:

Page 3 of 25
 Page 4 of 25

In this article this support shall be refuted ‘Insha:’All-h.

It is made clear that Mirza: Jhelumi declares Mah:mu:di: Mirza’is as Ka:fir just because they declare
Mirza: Jhelumi: and his disciples as Ka:fir. If they cease to declare him and his disciples as Ca:fir, he shall
immediately cease to declare them as Ca:fir.

Several objections were made on this View of Mirza: Jhelum: .

One of them was that this means that Mirza: Jhelumi: does not comsider that Mah:mudi: Mirza’ites are
Ca:fir , since they deny the Finality of Holy Prophet [PBUH].

This further means that Mirza: Jhelumi: does not believe in the Finality of Holy Prophet as a Certainty
but as a Probability [A type of Uncertainty].

Now a defender of Mirza: has advocated him by the principles of Suspension from Impossible and
Suspending an Impossible.

They say that it is Impossible that a Mah:mu:di: Mirza’i: continue to believe in in Mirza: Qa:diani: as a
Prophet and at the same time begin to believe that Muslims are Muslims.

So he says that what Mirza: Jhelumi: said is something that either is suspended from an Impossible or
itself suspends an impossible. Both are impossible.

So it is impossible for Mirza: Jhelumi: to declare Mahmudites as Muslim.

Ta’:li:q Bil Muha:l and Mu’:allq ‘:Alal Mumkin are well known Principles.

Let the both principles may be discussed as follow:

1] If One that is Per Se Absurd [Absolutely Impossible] suspendeth a thing then the thing is Absolutely
Impossible.

2] If a thing suspendeth an Absolutely Imposible then the thing is Absolutely Impossible.

On the contrary if a thing is suspended on an Absolute Contingent then it is Absolutely Contingent.

Similarly if a thing suspends an Absolute Contingent then the thing is absolutely Contingent.

For Example it is written in Holy Qur’a:n:-

And when Moses came to Our appointed tryst and his Lord had spoken unto him, he said: My Lord!
Show me (Thy Self), that I may gaze upon Thee. He said: Thou wilt not see Me, but gaze upon the
mountain! If it stand still in its place, then thou wilt see Me. And when his Lord revealed (His) glory to
the mountain He sent it crashing down. And Moses fell down senseless. And when he woke he said:
Glory unto Thee! I turn unto Thee repentant, and I am the first of (true) believers.

Page 4 of 25
 Page 5 of 25

7: 147 Qur’a:n

This verse is about the Beatific Vision Of G-d. Mu’:tazilah and Shiites believe that Beatific Vision is
Absolutely Impossible. But according to Sunniites it is Absolutely Possible.

The argument is that the Divine Vision is Suspended on the Rest State of the Mountain and that the
Mountain remain firm at its place.

As the it is Absolutely Contingent that the mountain to remain firm and still , so any thing which is
suspended on it is also Absolutely Contingent.

So Beatific Vision which is suspended on it is Absolutely Contingent. However if Beatific Vision is

Relatively Impossible in this World then is another case.

But What the supporter of Mirza Jhelumi is doing, he is trying to prove that it is Absolutely Impossible
for a Mahmu:di: Mirza’I to cease to declare Muslims as Ca:fir.

But this cannot be the case.

Perhaps Mirza: Jhelumi: does not know what an Absolutely Impossible is.

An Absolutely Impossible is one whose very self intrinsically Implieth its Non Existence.

For example an other G-d i.e Shari:c ‘Alba:ri: is Absolutely Impossible.

An Absolutely Impossible is beyond Divine Omnipotence. So it is incorrect to say Deity Hath

Omnipotence to Create Shari:c ‘Al Ba:ri: i.e Replica of G-d Himself.

So what game this person is playing. He is not telling the truth. His supporter who asked this question in
the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCSmSsZAjxw

is so baised that he failed to see that in the videos Mirza: Clearly states that if Mah:mudites [Qa:dianites]
accepts others as Muslim and cease to declare them as Ca:fir Mirza Jhelumi: shall also cease to declare
them as Ca:fir.

What the game he is doing is stated below:-

1] He is Suspending the supposed Cessation of Declaration of Cufr of Mah:mudites by Mirza: on the

Cessation of declaration of CUFR of Muslims by Mah:mudites.

2] The claim of Suspension of one on another is just based on the claim of Mirza: of Jhelum. That this is
impossible rather Absolutely Impossible, But is not Absolutely Impossible.

So the Argument from Ta’:li:q Bil Muh:a:l is invalid.

Page 5 of 25
 Page 6 of 25

This Ta’:li:q [Suspension] is incorrect.

Suppose that if it is Absolutely Impossible for Mah:mu:dites to believe in the Finality of Holy Prophet,
and if Some one says that if Mah:mudites begin to believe in the Finality of Holy Prophet then he shall
cease to declare them as Ca:fir , this would have been a better Ta’:li:q.

But Mirza: Jhelumi: has made a different Ta’:li:q .

Mirza: Jhelumi: has declared Ta’:li:q on an event that is neither Absolutely Impossible nor Relatively
Impossible.

Perhaps Mirza: Jhelumi: thinks that any thing which he considers as Muh:a:l is Muh:a:l.

This shews that Mirza: does not know the difference between Impossible Per Se Absurd [Mumtani’:
Bidh: Dh:a:t/ Absolutely Impossible] and Muntani’: Bil Ghair [Per Alias Absurd/Relatively Impossible].

I think he does know but he is just playing games with his audiences who have not studied the subject .

So what is the flaw in the system of Mirza: Jhelumi:.

1] First of all the cessation of declaration of stated above Cufr by Mah:mu:dites is not Absolutely
Impossible. Since Absolutely Impossible is a thing which implieth its own negation. An Example is
Annihilation of G-d , an other example is Creation of Shari:c ‘Al Ba:ri: .

Does Mirza: consider this type of Impossibility????

2] Second one is Relatively Impossible. For example it is Relatively Impossible that G-d shall send a Ca:fir
in heavens and an infallible in hell.

A Relatively Impossible is An Absolute Contingent which implieth an Absolute Impossible.

Such an Implication is extrinsic and not intrinsic , since an Intrinsic implication between an Absolutly
Contingent and an Absolutely Impossible is Absolutely Impossible.

Even if it is accepted that these are Absolutely Impossible instead of relatively Impossible , even then the
stated above cessation is neither Absolutely Impossible nor Relatively Impossible.

Additionally this so called argument is not valid on Lahorites.

What does this means??

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.

Page 6 of 25
 Page 7 of 25

Instead of it Mirza: is generating Cufr from the mentioned above generation. Then 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.

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.

Mirza has said that If Qadianis cease to declare others as Ca:fir then he shall cease to declare them as
Cafir.

This is a certain Cufr. But now Mirza: Jhelumi has said that his words are taken out of the context.

This is certainly a Curf. Since if it is Muh:al that Mirzai Mah:mudi will accept deniers of the claim of
Prophethood of Mirza Qadiani as Ca:fir even then under the supposition of the occurrence of this
Muh:al

Once again please understand the nature of the problem

It is not the matter that what is impossible for Mah:mudites, the problem is if it is supposed that the
have done the impossible then then Mirza: would not have said what he had said.

Please study both of his cplips:

Page 7 of 25
 Page 8 of 25

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bFRkxlqGWU&t=381s

Now his invalid defence shews that he is expert in the art of deceiving.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCSmSsZAjxw

There is nothing out of context.

AHLUSSUNNAH VAL JAMAAH

Further Studies in the Principle Of Ta’:li:q Bil Muh:a:l-1

Refuting Ali Mirza, Refuting Mirza Jhelumi

Saiyidah Talat Zahrah Naqvi

06-Sep-19

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

Part Two

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.

Page 8 of 25
 Page 9 of 25

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.

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..

Page 9 of 25
 Page 10 of 25

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.

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.

Page 10 of 25
 Page 11 of 25

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.

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.

Page 11 of 25
 Page 12 of 25

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.

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.

Page 12 of 25
 Page 13 of 25

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.

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.

Page 13 of 25
 Page 14 of 25

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.

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.

Page 14 of 25
 Page 15 of 25

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.

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.

Page 15 of 25
 Page 16 of 25

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.

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.

Page 16 of 25
 Page 17 of 25

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
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.

AHLUSSUNNAH WAL JAMAAH

Part 3

Further Studies in the Principle Of Ta’:li:q Bil Muh:a:l -2

Page 17 of 25
 Page 18 of 25

Refuting Ali Mirza, Refuting Mirza Jhelumi Refuting Ahlesunnatpak , a sect founded by Mirza Jhelumi

Talat Zahrah Naqvi

06-Sep-19

Further Studies in the Principle of Ta’li:q Bil Muh:a:l

PRELIMINARY 1

It is Certainly Impossible that any Person shall be made a Prophet after Holy Prophet.

In another sentence the same meaning can be presented as follow.

It is Certainly Impossible that a Person is Prophetised after Holy Prophet.

Now there are some more Impossibilities discussed below:

It is Impossible that a Person P1 believes that there is a Person who is Prophetiesed After Holy Prophet
and is a Muslim.

Since If a Person say P1 believes claims that he is a Muslim yet believes that here is a Person P2 who is
Prophetised after Holy Prophet then he is a Ca:fir.

So this person is a Ca:fir.

His claim is Wrong and Incorrect.

It is impossible that the claim of a Person say P2 that he ( i.e P2) is a Prophet is True and denier of his
(i.e P2)’sClaim is a Muslim.

Page 18 of 25
 Page 19 of 25

In another form of sentence the same meaning may be conveyed as follow.

It is impossible that the claim of a Person P2 that he (P2) is a Prophet is True and the denier of his (i.e
P2’s) claim is not a Ca:fir.

But there is another problem.

It is contingent that a person P1 believes that the claim of a Person P2 that he (i.e P2) is a Prophet is
True and the denier of his (i.e P2’s) claim is a Muslim.

It is contingent that a person P1 believes that the claim of a Person P2 that he (i.e P2) is a Prophet is
True and the denier of his (i.e P2’s) claim is not a Ca:fir.

Let consider the following case more Logically.

Let it be Impossible that a Person P2 is a Prophet and a Person P3 who denies his Prophethood is a
Muslim.

Let it be Necessary that a Person P2 is not a Prophet if a Person P3 denies that the Person P2 is a
Prophet and does not cease to be a Muslim.

Another formation of the same meaning is as follow:

Let it be Necessary that a Person P2 is not a Prophet if a Person P3 denies that the Person P2 is a
Prophet and does continue to be a Muslim.

But suppose that there is a Person P1 who does not believe in it.

So P1 may believe that a Person 2 is a Prophet and the denier P3 of Prophethood of P2 is Muslim.

This is not impossible..

Since even if it is claimed that it is Impossible that the Person P2 is a Prophet and him (P2) as a Prophet
is a Muslim.

In other words it is expressed in the following sentence.

A Person P2 cannot be a Prophet if a distinct Person P3 denies that P2 is a Prophet and (the Person P3)
is a Muslim.

The Word CANNOT represents IMPOSSIBILITY.

This very sentence can be expressed without any mutation in meaning and with conservation of
meaning in the following sentence.

It is IMPOSSIBLE that a Person P2 is a Prophet is a distinct Person P3 denies that P2 is a Prophet and

(the Person P3) is a Muslim.

Page 19 of 25
 Page 20 of 25

But it is not impossible that a Person P1 does not believe that ‘It is IMPOSSIBLE that a Person P2 is a
Prophet is a distinct Person P3 denies that P2 is a Prophet and

(the Person P3) is a Muslim’.

This is irrespective of the truth or falsehood of the following belief:=

“It is IMPOSSIBLE that a Person P2 is a Prophet is a distinct Person P3 denies that P2 is a Prophet and

(the Person P3) is a Muslim.”

So this is a problem which MUSTNOT be confused since the confusion makes a fallacy.

Mirza: Jhelumi: is a Master in Fallacy Making .

He is deliberately making such fallacies to vail and cover his Apostasies and Heresies.

He has hinged or suspended [Ta’:li:q] on the thing which is not Impossible but Contingent.

Since if a thing is not Impossible then it is Possible. But if the Possible is not Necessary then it is Certainly
Contingent. All the definitions are provided in the part 1 of the “Further Studies”.

Now this clever Mirza Jhelumi tries to defend his Apostasy and Heresy BY THE Principle of Ta’:li:q Bil
Muh:a:l.

But what the game he is playing with his audiences who are not the students of such subjects , is that he
is declaring that the following as Muh:a:l i.e Impossible]:

A Person P1 believes that a distinct Person P3 disbelieves in the claim of Propherhood of a Person P2
and P3 continues to be a Muslim.

This is not Impossible but a belief of Cufr. Curf is not Impossible but Contingent.

The thing which is Impossible is as follow:-

A Person P2 is a Prophet and the Person P3 who denies the that P2 is a Prophet is a Muslim.

These are the complex cases of Impossibles.

So this is clear that Mirza: Jhelumi: commits two Fallacies.

First he deliberately Confused between the Impossiblity of an Act / Event /Attribute/ a Thing and belief
of a Person P1 about about the Impossibility that it is not Impossible.

Second he Suspended the cessation of Tacfi:r not on the Impossible but on the Contingent by confusing
between the two by neglecting the differences between the two.

Page 20 of 25
 Page 21 of 25

If further Analysed it is found that Mirza: Jhelumi: is not Suspending the cessation of the declaration of
Cufr of Mah:mu:di: Mirza:’is by saying that “If the begin to believe in the finality of Holy Prophet then he
shall cease to declare them as Ca:fir”.

On the contrary he is hinging the cessation of Tacfi:r not on the cessation of there belief in Mirza:
Jhelumi: but on the cessation of Tacfi:r exercised by them . This is a Proof that Mirza:

Jhelumi: does not believe that one of the Basic Cufr of them is the denial of the Finality of Holy Prophet.

So he is not hinging and suspending their cessation of Tacfi:r on it but on he is suspending and hinging
the cessation of their Tacfi:r on an other thing and that is the Tacfi:r of the deniers of Mirza: Qa:diani’s
claim of Prophethood.

PRELIMINARY 2

Mirza: Jhelumi: has said the very same thing for Nus:airiah as Well.

According to Mirza: Jhelumi: if Nus:airiah cease to declare those who disbelieve that Saiyiduna: ‘:Ali: RD:
is a Divine Incarnation , as Ca:fir then Mirza: Jhelumi: shall cease to declare Naus:airiah as Ca:fir.

This means that he does not consider the belief of of Divine Incarnation as Cufr and Shirc. Even if it is
Impossible (according to Mirza: Of Jhelum) that a believer in the Incarnation of D-ity cease to declare
those who disbelieve in the dogma of Incarnation Of G-d as Cufr and Shirc.

This means that a thing is just impossible according to Mirza: Jhelumi: but to believe in it is not Cufr.

On the contrary Mirza: Jhelumi: should have said that Nus:airiah are Primarily Ca:fir and Mushric due to
their belief in Divine Incarnation. Whether it is impossible for them to disbelieve in Divine Incarnation or
not.

Now coming back to the Problem of Mah:mu:dites.

It is Impossible that Mirza: Qa:diani: be a Prophet. To believe in this particular Impossibility is a Cufr.

But to believe in this Impossibility is Not Impossible. That is why Mah:mu:dites disbelieve in this
Impossibility. Mirza: Jhelumi: does not base the Cufr of Mah:mudites on the belief of this Impossibility as
not Impossible. But on the Tacfi:r of denier s of Mirza: Qa:diani: .

Then he hinges the cessation of Tacfi:r of Mah:mudites on the Cessation of Tacfi:r of Disbelievers of
Mirza: by Mah:mudites.

Finally he Hinges the cessation of Tacfi:r of disbelievers in Mirza: Qa:diani by Mah:mu:dites on the
supposed impossibility of belief in the claim of Prophethood of Mirza: .

In all this network he makes the Impossibility of disbelieve in the claim of Mirza: Qa:diani: by
Mah:mu:dites as a basis upon which he hinges the Cessation of Tacfi:r of Mah:mu:dites.

Page 21 of 25
 Page 22 of 25

Why he is doing that.

He is simply doing it because he considers that to disbelieve in the Claim of Mirza: is Impossible by a
Mah:mu:di Mirza:’I as long as he is a Mah:mu:di: Mirza:’i. So he hinges the cessation of Tacfi:r on this
impossible.

But if so he is not declaring this as Cufr but just Impossible.

On the contrary if a person believes in two or more Cufrs , then to say that if the person cease to believe
in any one of the two Cufrs , one should cease to declare the person as Ca:fir, then such a Saying is a
Cufr ITSELF. Even if one uses the Principle of Ta’:li:q Bil Muh:a:l and claims that it is impossible for the
person to disbelieve in one of the two Cufr stated above.

This makes the faith of Mirza: Jhelumi: to cease .

Preliminary 3

There are AT LEAST two Cufrs of Mah:mu:dite Mirza:’is according to Muslims.

1] To believe that Mirza: Q:diani: is a Prophet. [‘Astaghfarullah Va: Na’:u:dh:ubillah]

2] To declare disbelievers in Mirza: Qa:diani as Ca:fir.

If some one say P1 says that if a Mah:mu:di: Mirza:’i: P2 ceases to declare Disbelievers in Mirza: Qa:diani
as Ca:fir , he shall cease to declare him as a Ca:fir, then this clearly means that according to P1 the first
belief of P2 is not Curf.

So P1 is also a Ca:fir.

Now P1 tries to defend himself by saying that if P2 ceases to declare disbelievers in Mirza: Qa:diani as
Ca:fir then it is Impossible that Mirza: Qa:diani: Mirza: Qa:dia ni: is a Prophet then P1 is trying to prove
the Impossibility of cessation of Tacfi:r of Disbelievers in Claim of Prophethood of Mirza: by P2 , so that

P1 may continue to declare P2 as Ca:fir on the basis of second belief, but P1 is not declaring P2 as Ca:fir
on the first belief.

This proves that he is using the first belief of P2 as a proof of impossibility of the cessation of the second
Cufr of P1 but it self as an Independent Cufr of P2.

What P1 is doing is exactly the same ,what Mirza: Jhelumi: as done.

So This Principle Of Ta’li:q Bil Muh:a:l is not only wrongly used by Mirza: of Jhelum to defend his own
Cufr but deliberately used to make a great fallacy.

As his listeners are not aware of such discussions he is saying that he is using this Principle, with the
surety that his students shall not study the subject in proper detail.

Page 22 of 25
 Page 23 of 25

As for us , we say that if Mah:mudites cease to believe in all Cufrs and accept ‘Isla:m only then they shall
become Muslim. Whether it is Impossible or Contingent that they shall do it or not.

It is an independent matter.

Mirza: Jhelumi: is to cleaver to suggest dependency between independents as well and this shall be
discussed in an independent article.

Preliminary 4

A person must believe in the Necessaries of a religion id he belongs to it.

For example a Hindu must believe in Vedas . If a man claims to be a Hindu and disbelieve in Vedas then
his claim that a Hindu: is incorrect , even according to Non-Hindu:s.

Similarly if a Jew disbelieve in Torah of Tanakh he ceases to be a Jew. If he still claims so his claim is
incorrect.

An other example is of Sikhs . If a Sikh disbelieves in Na:nac he ceases to be a Sikh.

Now there are some Necessaries of Mah:mu:dites.

If a Person disbelieves in the Mah:mu:di belief that “Mirza: Qadiani is a prophet [‘Astagh:farullah]”

He cease to be a Mah:mu:di:.

So what is impossible that a person is a Mah:mu:di: Mirza:’i: and disbelieve in this Necessary Mah:mu:di:
Mirza:’I belief. But this belief is Cufr according to ‘Isla:m.

So we declare them as Ca:fir on the basis of this belief.

So if it is Impossible by Supposition that a person remains a Mah:mu:di and denies the claim of Mirza:
Qa:diani, it does not mean that this belief that “Mirza: Qa:diani: is a prophet [‘Astaghfarullah]” is not
Cufr.

So what Mirza: Jhelumi ought to do but he did not was to say clearly that he shall cease to declare
Mah:mudites as Ca:fir if they cease to believe that Mirza: Qa:diani: is a prophet regardless of
Impossibility or Contingency of the cessation of belief in Mirza: Qa:diani: .

Even this was problematic since this is not the Only Cufr of Mirza: Jhelumi: .

There are others.

We have provided the example of Laho:ri: Mirza:’is that they disbelieve that Mirza: is a prophet, yet
other Cufrs are present in them, So they are declared as Ca:fir by Muslims.

Preliminary 4

Page 23 of 25
 Page 24 of 25

There are atleast two beliefs of Cufr which are believed by Ma:mu:di: Mirza:’i:s .

1] The First belief is “ Mirza: Qa:dia:ni: is a Prophet” . [Na’:udh:ubillah]

2] The second belief is “All those who do not believe that Mirza: Qa:dinani: is a Prophet are Ca:fir”.

The negation of the latter belief implies the negation of the first belief.

That is if those who deny that Mirza: Qa:diani: is a Prophet are Not Ca:fir then it is implied that Mirza:
Qa:dinani: is NOT a Prophet.

This means that it is impossible “Mirza: is a Prophet and those who deny him as a Prophet are Not Ca:fir.

This implies that it is Impossible that “Mirza: is a Prophet and those who deny him as a Prophet are
Muslim/Muslims.

Mirza: Jhelumi: deliberately hinges [Ta’:li:q] the negation of second belief of Mah:mudi: Mirzai: on the
first Impossibility or Second Impossibility or both.

If the act of hinging is correct then this means that it is Impossible that Mah:mu:di: Mirza:’i: shall cease
to declare Muslims as Ca:fir.

So Mirza: Jhelumi: is declaring that it is Impossible that the Mah:mu:di: Mirza:’is quit their second belief.

But he is not declaring them as Ca:fir on their First Belief. Rather he is trying to use their First Belief in
the first and second Impossibilities .

Since if for sake of an argument , it is assumed that Mirza: Qa:diani is a prophet [May ALL-H Forbid For
writing these words] and if the deniers of Mirza: are Muslim then it is an Impossibility . But to be an
Impossibility or a part of Impossibility is one thing and to be a Cufr is another thing. So it means that
Mirza: Jhelumi: is not declaring Mah:mu:di: Mirza:’is as Ca:fir due to their First Belief ,but due to their
Second Belief and is using their First Belief in an Impossibility.

On the Other hand all the Muslims say that if Mah:mu:di: Mirza:’is cease to declare all those who do not
believe in the claim of Prophethood Of Mirza: Qa:diani: as Ca:fir, even then Mh:mu:di: Mirza:’is are
Ca:fir since they Deny the Finality and Lasthood of the Holy Prophet [571CE-632 CE] .

So Mirza: Jhelumi:’s defense by using the Principle of Suspension with Impossible does not save Mirza:
Jhelumi: from the Cufr for not declaring Mah:mu:di: Mirza:’is as Ca:fir on denying the Finality and
Lasthood of Holy Prophet, and for believing Mirza: as a prophet.

Conclusion

If a person or a group of people believe in more than one beliefs of Cufr then it is Cufr for declaring
them as Ca:fir on ONLY one belief of Cufr and using all the other beliefs of Cufr to prove the
Impossibility of Cessation of the chosen Cufr.

Page 24 of 25
 Page 25 of 25

This means that the person considers only one of the several beliefs of Cufr as Cufr and does not
condider the rest of them as Cufr. This proves that this person is also a Ca:fir.

One must declare such persons or a groups on each and every belief of Cufr in which they do believe.

It is hoped that even the followers of Mirza: Jhelumi: shall understand the Cufr of Mirza: Jhelumi:.
INSHA:’ALL-H

Slaves of G-d and Servants of Prophet are always there to defend ‘Isla:m from Apostates like Mirzas of
Qa:dian and Jhelum etc.

Part 4

An other type of Muha:l is Religious Impossible . [Al Muha:al Ash’Shar’:i]

But we condider that Absolute Impossible can be Religious Impossible . For example it Shari:c Al Ba:ri: is

Absolutely Impossible as well as Religious Impossible.

Some questions shall be asked seperately

Page 25 of 25