ENGINEER-ALI-MIRZA-AND-THE-NICK-NAME-ALI-BHAI

1
1819-1850
Why the followers of Engineer “Ali: Mirza:
calls him “Ali: Bhai [Brother “Ali:] and Not
Muhammad “Ali: Bhai or Mirza Bhai.
Historical context
If one research the history of religious leaders one finds a Noun “Mirza: Muh:ammad “Ali:
(1832CE,1937CE). He was the son of Baha:’ullah (1817CE,1892CE) and step brother of “Abdul Baha:
(1844 CE,1921). He was also called Gh:usn e: ‘Akbar by his father. He was from the second wife of
Baha:’ullah, and was the first born son of her. A dispute between him and his brother occurred over the
leadership of of Baha:ism after Baha:’. Hwever he was unsuccessful and the majority followed “Abdul
Baha:’.
He was excommunicated from Baha:’sim by “Abdul Baha:’.
Relation between two nouns
The noun of Engineer Muha:mmad “Ali Mirza: and Mirza: Muh:ammad “Ali: OFJhelum is almost the
same except the word Mirza is commuted. In the noun of t Engineer the word Mirza: is the last one
and in the noun of Son of Baha: it is the first one.
His followers may not know the fact but it I very likely that the Engineer “Ali: Mirza: knows it.
Since his assistants use to inform him of such things and he also try to know such things. So this is
unlikely that he is ignorant of Mirza: Muh:ammad “Ali: , a son of Baha:’ullah.
An other historical figure is Muh:ammad “Ali: Lahori: (1874CE,1951CE), the founder of Lahori Mirza:’I
group of Mirza:’ism.
So it becomes very obvious that the compound noun Muh:ammad “Ali: may cause serious confusions in
the case of a religious preacher.
An other historical character which share some parts of the Proper Noun of “Ali: Mirza: is “Ali:
Muh:ammad Shi:ra:zi: (1819 CE,1850) the founder of Babism. But in sub continent his Noun was
commuted and he was known as Muh:ammad “Ali: Ba:. Even this noun is mensioned in D:arb e: Kali:m.
Due to these reasons any person who preaches and teaches a new interpretation/version of ‘Isla:m
becomes highlighted if he has the noun Muh:ammad “Ali:.
Although it is a common noun and in Non Religious cases this Noun is quite Normal. Say Muh:ammad
“Ali the heavy weight Champion of Boxing [1942CE,2016CE] . Although he reverted to ‘Isla:m he was not
1

2
a religious preacher. An other case is of Maulana Muh:ammad “Ali Jauhar [1878CE,1931CE] .But did not
preached his own version of ‘Isla:m and was a political leader of Muslims. Similarly the same may be said
for other such persons.
An other part of the Noun is Mirza: which needs special discussion.
It is also the part of the Noun of Mirza Muh:ammad “Ali:, Mirza Gh:ulam ‘Ahmad of Q:dia:n, Mirza:
Mah:mu:d , the son of Mirza: of Qa:dian (1885CE,1965CE).
Origin of the word Mirza:
Mirza: is actually the word Mi:rza:
The word Mī:rzā constituted from the Persian term ‘’Ami:r Za:dah which literally means "Son of the ‘Amīr" in Persian.But the
term ‘Ami:rza:dah is constituted of “Arabic word ‘Ami:r and Persian word Zadah.
,The “Arabic word ‘Ami:r means " Head of a community ,a Commander" or a "Prince", and the Persian word–Za:dah, means
"birth" or born one "Son". The letter H-mzah or ‘Alif is some how dropped and the second Semi Vowel Ya: is also dropped
resulting this word.
It was used as a Title bestowed by Persian speaking monarchs to their Loyal Officers. It was approximately equal to the British
Night. The Title of Sir.
Latter it became a surname for a group of families.
When Mirza Gh:ula:m ‘Ah:mad of Qa:dian claimed Prophethood [‘Astagh:farullah] this Noun became a source of doubt in the faith of any one who had this
noun as a part of his Proper Noun.
Even Mirza:s who did not have any faith in Mirza: used this part of their Nouns with care.
Now we come to Muh:ammad “Ali: Mirza:
In his case this word is a suffix and not a prefix. Yet the word is one and the same.
So the followers of this person began to call him “Ali: Bhai instead of Muh:ammad “Ali: Bhai or Mirza: Bhai.
A very cleaver trick indeed. It is most probable if not almost certain that this term with the epithet “Bhai” as a suffix is also
coined by the Engineering mind of the Engineer.
But why the second part of the compound Noun was taken to be used with the epithet.
This may be exposed through a detail discussions.
There are possible cases :=
1] The Epithet could be used as a Suffix to the whole proper noun “ Muh:ammd “Ali: Mirza: “Ali: ” as “ Muh:ammad “Ali:
Mirza: Bhai ” .
2]The Epithet could be used with the First Part of the Noun as a Suffix.
3] The Epithet could be used with the third Part of the Noun as a Suffix.
4] The Epithet could be used with first two parts of the compoiund Proper Noun as “Muh:ammad “Ali: Bhai.
5] The Epithet could be used with the Last two parts of the Noun as “Ali Mirza Bhai.
6] The Epithet could be used with the second Part of the Noun as a Suffix.
The First one was rejected due to following reasons.
1.1] It would be very long .
1.2] In the literate circle it would have reminded Mirza: Muh:ammad “Ali: Son of Bahaullah [For details see above].
1.3] In the literate circle it would have reminded Muh:ammad “Ali: Ba:b (as known in Subcontinent) with the Noun Ba:b
replaced by Bhai.
2

3
2] The Noun Muh:ammad is a Holy Noun and it cannot be used by any other person in the point of view
of General Public. Using this noun with the Epithet would have caused unexpected problems for the
Engineer.
3] The third part of the compound Noun Mirza: would have inclined a normal person to consider him as
a Mirza:’i: [Follower of Mirza: Gh:ula:m ‘Ahmad of Qa:diyan]. So he could not use this partial noun for
this reason.
4] The First Two Nouns with the Epithet would have reminded Muh:ammad “Ali: La:ho:ri:of La:ho:ri: cult of Miza:’ism. The
Epithet Lahori changed by Bhai it could be very problematic for a religious lecturer and sermoner like the Engineer of Jhelum.
So it would also cause confusions.
5] The Epithet with the Suffix Bhai with the last two parts would have caused a confusion similar to the one discussed in 3.
6.1] This leaves the only choice to select the second part of the noun to be used with the Epithet .
6.2] But the conspiracy is not skin deep as it appears to be. There are some other reasons which are investigated and
researched.
It is as deep as the centre of the earth.
Actually this is borrowed from the technique invented by Mirza: Mah:mu:d son of Mirza: Gh:la:m ‘Ahmad of Qa:dian.
The Borrowed Scheme
History of the Scheme.
Noun of the founder of Mirza:’ism is Mirza: Gh:ula:m ‘Ah:mad . A proper noun with three components.
The third Part was ‘Ah:mad.
As this compound Noun was the Proper Noun of the person None of the Components was a Proper Noun of him.
But his son Mirza: Mah:mu:d picked the third part of the noun that was ‘Ah:mad and claimed that his noun was ‘Ah:mad.
Then based on this wrong supposition he proceeded to apply a Holy Verse (61,6)(1) on his father. [Na”udh:ubillah Va
‘Astagh:farullah].
(See :’Anva:rul”ulu:m, a collection of works of Bahi:ruddi:n Mah:mu:d ,Vol-iii)
He was constantly refuted by scholars that if a compound Nouns consisting of several parts is a Proper Noun of a Person then
No component of the Noun can be the Proper Noun of the person. But he did not listen.
Borrowing of the Scheme with Modifications.
Engineer of Jhelum borrowed this technique and used the very same technique . He selected the second part of his
compound Noun and then epithetized it by thE WORD Bhai .
3

4
The technique invented by Mirza: Mah:mu:d was borrowed with some modifications.
Aims and Objectives may be Different.
Although the scheme is the same but the aim and objectives may not be the same.
In the case of Mirza: Mah:mu:d his aim was to apply a verse( which is ONLY about Holy Prophet Muh:ammad since ‘Ah:mad
is also his Proper Noun) , to his father [Na”u:dh:ubillah].
But in this case the aim is different.
The Engineer wants to attract a sect which consider Saiyiduna “Ali: as its First ‘Ima:m and Caliph. So he used this noun to
attract the followers of the sect toward himself.
One Technique and different aims.
Although the technique is the same that to pick a component of o compound noun which is a proper noun of a person and
consider the chosen component as a Proper Noun, yet the aims and objectives of using this technique is the same.
The only apparent modification is that while Mirza: Mah:mu:d selected the third component, Engineer of Jhelum selected
the second. But this modification is minute and subtle.
As Mirza: Mah:mu:d died in1965 CE TWELVE years before the conception of the Engineer , this implies that it is impossible
that Mirza: Mah:mu:d son of Mirza: of Qa:dian would have borrowed from him. On the contrary the only case which
becomes certain is that it is Mirza: of Jhelum who have borrowed from Mirza Mah:mu:d of Qa:dian.
SOME POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND THEIR COUNTER RESPONSES.
1] It may be said that Mirza: of Jhelum did not invented this term but his followers began to use this term with out his
permission.
2] It may be said that it is a custom to use a component of noun as a noun.
3]It may be said that as the technique is slightly modified it is not borrowed as it was. Hence it is not borrowed at all.
4] It may be said that Engineer “Ali: Mirza: never tried to use a verse or a H:adi:th to apply on him or his followers as done by
Mirza: Mah:mu:d and Mas”u:d ‘Ah:mad BSc. of Jama:”atul Muslimi:n [Ta: Tavi:lah].
Answers:=
A1] Engineer “Ali: Mirza: does borrow techniques from others and it is proved . So this is most probable that he has
borrowed this one as well. But let it be supposed that it is the original work of his followers who independent of every thing
invented this technique. But Engineer “Ali: Mirza: did not prevent them from using this Partial Noun and Epithet amalgam.
So it cannot be accepted. If he accepted it after all then it is almost equivalent to the case he invented it.
Even this argument is not original and is used by the Qa:dya:ni Mirza:’is that the followers of the Mirza: Of Qa:diyan used
this argument. They say that although ‘Ah:mad was not the Noun of Mirza: Of Qa:diya:n, but when some followers used this
noun for him he did not stop them, this means that he accepted it as his noun [‘Ism].
The answer is that such a way cannot prove a noun as a proper noun of any person whether he be Mirza: of Qa:diya:n or
else.
2] It may be a custom yet even this custom cannot prove a noun as the proper noun.
4

5
3] To modify after borrowing does not negate the act of borrowing. In this case the modifying is just choosing the second
component of the compound proper noun instead of the third. It is very subtle one.
4] We have said initially that the aim and objective may differ but the technique is principly the same.
ARGUMENTAGAINST BOTH MIRZA:S
If A,B,C are three components of a Compound Proper Noun of a person [Rational Suppositum] who so ever he may be then
Neither A is the Proper noun of the person, not B is the proper Noun Of the Person , not C is the Proper Noun of the Person,
This can be generalized to a compound noun of any number of components what so ever, whether 4 of 5 and so on.
With such powerful refutations , it has become very clear that the compound noun “Ali: Bhai” is not a proper noun of the
Mirza: of Jhelum. One can never discard the possibility that this alleged nick name/noun is invented by the Mirza: of Jhelum
himself and he motivated his followers to use it or compelled them to use it for him. This is not only Possible but also
probable since the Mirza: of Jhelum is uses to coin new term using old words. So it is very likely that he has coined a Nick
Name for him to be used as his proper noun in his circle of a small radius.
It may be said that Engineer “Ali: Mirza: often use his Original Proper Noun “ Muh:ammad “Ali: Mirza: ” in his site “
‘Ahlesunntpak ” .
But this cannot falsify our research. Since Mirza:is of Qa:dian often use the full compound noun instead of a component of
noun of Mirza: ” of Qa:diy:an. But still the use the component [short name] for their heretic aim.
COMMENTS
The Pseudo Noun “Ali: Bhai is used for him in his circle for some specific reasons. These reasons are apparently multiple , but
the technique to invent a Pseudo Noun is borrowed on as investigated above.
We have seen that this technique was developed in Subcontinent United India by Mirza: Mah:mu:d son of Mirza: Qa:diya:ni
for an apostate purpose. The Mirza: of Jhelum who is a great borrower of such Anti ‘Isla:mic techniques , and uses such Anti
‘Isla:mic Techniques with slight modification engineered by him once again did the very same thing, this time indirectly.
It is possible that some deeply hidden purposes are yet to be discovered, yet the technique is identified and once it is
identified his hidden purposes which are not identified yet may not useful to him and cease to be productive. This enucleate
and elucidate the hidden and buried fact that what the Mirza: of Jhelum does do with the ‘Ah:adi:th: ‘Ass:ah:i:yah is similar
to what Mirza:s of Qa:diyan did with the ‘A:ya:t of Holy Qur’a:n. One may just see the distorted meanings of ‘A:ya:t in their
different works and almost a similar things are done by Mirza: of Jhelum with ‘Ah:a:di:th: when he requires distortions.
Only those followers who have become ‘Akhva:n ‘Al Mubtadi: may like to continue to call him as “Ali: Bhai , other wise no
sensible person after studying the source of his technique is supposed to use this Pseudo Noun for him.
TO THOSE WHO STILL FOLLOW THE MIRZA: OF JHELUM AND CONSIDER HIM AS THE PREACHER AND TEACHER OF TRUE
‘ISLA:M [‘ASTAGH:FARULLAH]
If you are still not convinced then we request you to consult great scholars of ‘Isla:m. You shall now the truth. For example
you may consult Maula:na: ‘Irsha:d ‘Al H:aqq ‘Ath:ari: and his students etc.
A SIMPLE CRITERIA
The Mirza: of Jhelum purports to represent ‘Isla:m free of sects , and purports that he is the correct representative of ‘Islam.
But it may be seen that any one who comment on him or accuse him is declared as a False speaker and his allegation as false
5

6
one. If all the Muslim Scholars throughout the glob consider him as heretic inspite of all their diference this is a proof that a
single person who oppose all others is a heretic, innovator, deviant and heterodox.
If you still need any evidence then you may see that Engineer “Ali: Mirza: is opposed by every Scholar who comes to know
some how about him and thus it implies an ‘Ijma:” of Muslims against him. The validity of ‘Ijma:” is recognized even be the
Mirza: of Jhelum. As this establishes an ‘Ijma:” of Muslims against the Mirza: of Jhelum , this implies that he is a Heretic
beyond the shadow of doubts.
Do you still need some proofs on the heresy of Mirza: of Jhelum.
Mirza:s throughout the world has a long history of heresies and we have witness one of them.
For the sake of ‘ALLAH THE ONLY ‘ILAH, please drift away from is circle. If you are still cot convinced then the final request in
this regard is to study yourself and then critically analyze the lectures of the heretic lecturer of Jhelum .
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’”””””’’’’’’’’
Foot Note:
(1) “ And when Iesous [“I:sa:] son of Merium [Maryam] said: O Children of Israel (‘Isra:’i:l)! Varily! I am the
Messenger [Rasu:l]of ‘Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and
bringing Good Tidings of a Messenger who cometh after me, whose Proper Noun is the ‘Ah:mad. Yet
when He hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say: This is mere sorcery. ”(61:6)
The word ‘Ism is generally used as a Proper Noun when it is used for a person unless and other wise there is an
indicator which implies that is is not a proper noun but an adjective or an Attributive noun.
Prophet Muhammad's prophetic Name, "Ahmed", was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it was
mentioned precisely in the Glorious Quran for the Prophet to be foretold by this very Name, Ahmed…
6

7
‘Ah:mad=Ahmed.
[Note : We never use the Gospel of Barnaba since we do consider it is a false book
written by some one who founded his own religion in the Holy Noun of ‘Isla:m , and
contradicted ‘Isla:m at some places in his book. Although Maulana Maudu:di:
supported this book but he some times commit great mistake in regard to the
matter of history.]
http://www.answering-christianity.com/predict.htm
7