Reason # 10 : Lack of Comprehension of Dawat Books & Discrediting others

(Also see refutation #2 below)

This is in reply to today’s addition of point No. 6 (Is a khaangi/private nass valid?) from the FatemiDawat website:

Parents often warn their children about the dangers and consequences of lying. One of them is that, inevitably, lies breed more lies. Under scrutiny, a lie told once usually has to be supported by further lying. Not stellar upbringing from the self- proclaimed “mother of Mumineen”.

This is once again deliberate twisting of the facts and selective reading by Khuzaimas to suite their own agenda.

On page 144 Syedna Taher Saifuddin addresses the mumineen saying: “you are well aware of certain Nass that have been made public and mash’hoor  (clear/well known to all). And it is also possible that some Nass are not made public, rather, they are done in private. You are all aware of many mash’hoor Nass that have taken place during the era of the Imams. We will now talk about the makhfi & mastoor nass.”

The Nass of Ghadeer e Khum  amongst 70,000 people would be considered a mash’hoor Nass. A Makhfi Nass, although private, according to Dawat doctrine (Daim ul Islam), must have witnesses. Syedna is simply clarifying that along with witnesses, both private and public Nass  are possible.

Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA goes on to say what Syedi Ameenjee bil Jalal relates. (See refutation #2 below).

Khuzaima’s sole justification for his alleged nass rests on his selective interpretation of a Risaalah text which he alleges allows nass to be conferred without witnesses.  This claim is wrong for the following reasons:

Reason #1

There were witnesses to the nass of the 8th Dai Syedna Husain RA. A linguistic analysis of the text proves this. In actuality, one word within the following sentence is enough evidence.

“Fa ma ash’hada al shohadaa’aa zaaheran.

The sentence WITHOUT the word ‘zaaheran’ (openly, publicly) at the end would offer the meaning that Khuzaima futilely wishes it does. It would read that:

‘Syedna Ahmed RA did not engage or seek witnesses to the nass.’

However, the complete sentence is:

“Fa ma ash’hada al shohadaa’aa zaaheran.”

The word “zaaheran” adds to the sentence and changes it to read:

‘Witnesses were not engaged to testify ‘openly’.’

Their testimony was not requested or called for publicly. If there had been no witnesses, there would be no need for this additional word. Syedi Ameenji bin Jalal QR would have sufficed with simple “Fa ma ash’hada al shohadaa’aa”.

Reason #2

Many books of Dawat (Daim ul Islam amongst them) make it clear that nass cannot take place without attestation and designation. Witnesses, whether they be overt or covert, are mandatory.

Reason #3

The greatest truth is that Kitaab Muntaza al-Akhbar openly states that the seventh Dai, Syedna Ahmed RA conferred nass on Syedna Husain RA in the presence of witnesses who were trusted dignitaries of Dawat.


Now, this where noses start to lengthen. The FatemiDawat site recently updated the following:

Until Syedna Taher Saifuddin wrote about it openly in his Risalat, Syedna Ahmed’s private nass on Syedna Husain was not revealed in zahir history kitaabs. This explains the difference in the version of the zahir history Kitab Muntazaul Akhbar of Shaikh Qutubbhai Burhanpuri, which says Syedna Ahmed performed nass on Syedna Husain in the presence of hudood mukhliseen and mumineen muqineen (i.e. a standard, public nass in front of hudood and mumineen).

How can Khuzaima deny this authentic historical account from a Dawat Kitaab, and make his whole argument invalid? How can he reject a bayaan from a kitaab placed in the course of Al Jamea-tus-Saifiyah by his own father Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA. In not one of his more devious ruses, he simply claims that the information in Muntaza is either incorrect or fabricated!

There can be only two conclusions drawn.

1. Either the history provided in the book is not reliable because the nass in question was not witnessed.

2. Or the author knowingly chose to fabricate.

Khuzaima’s scorn for this azeem kitaab and its revered author could not be more apparent. Classifying it just as a zaahir kitab, he makes it seem as its content is less than pristine, doubtful and of subordinate value. The disdain that he shows for its author is obvious in the way he states his name: “Shaikh Qutub bhai Burhanpuri”, as if his standing is one that could be overlooked. On the other hand this Syedna Taher Saifuddin’s RA risaalah shareefah refers to him as al-Hadd al-Aalim al-Misqaa’ al-Faadil al-Radi (A dignitary of Dawat who is learned, knowledgeable, superior and acclaimed). Khuzaima’s discreditation and disdain is proven incorrect in light of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s RA attestation to the book’s reverence and its author’s standing by referring to the author as “Syedi al Shaikh Qutub Bhai” (6th Moharram 1426).

This book has been authored, disseminated and taught with the permission of Syedna Abdeali Saifuddin RA. Subsequent Doat Mutlaqeen RA have not only made use of it but have ensured that it be taught to generations of students. Doat Mutlaqeen RA were privy to Syedi Aminjee’s QR bayan. It would not have been so difficult to modify the text of the book so that it would correct this alleged irregularity, had it been as claimed. Furthermore, Syedi al Shaikh Qutub bhai QR compiled this work nearly 200 years after Syedi Aminjee bin Jalal QR, and had attained a very high rutba in ilm. It is very likely that he would have come across the works of Syedi Aminjee bin Jalal QR including the subject caption, thus documenting the history of the 7th Dai accordingly.

This is the trouble with lies. It sucks you in deeper than you had originally wished to go. Today, Dawat books are being discredited. For Khuzaima Qutbuddin, maybe its better if tomorrow never comes.


Daim ul Islam states that along with Nass, there must be Tawqeef (to inform others). Privately or publicy.

The text of Risalah of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA and Kitab Muntaza al Akhbar go hand in hand, rather they support each other.

The 7th Dai did Nass on the 8th Dai amoungst witnesses (Kitab Muntaza al Akhbar). These witnesses were not made public (Risalah of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA).

Khuzaima’s claim of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin TUS doing nass on him without any witnesses is totally false.

On the other hand, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA has done nass on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS privately and publicly, according to Dawat doctrines, on:

  • 11 Zil Q 1388 Hijri – 3 Witnesses (Privately)
  • 12 Jam Ula 1415 Hijri – 1 Witness (Privately)
  • 1426 Hijri – 2 Witnes (Privately)
  • 3 Rajab 1432 – 6 Witness (Privately)
  • 19 Rajab 1432 – (Publicly)

One comment

  • manipulating kutub al dawat for his own desires. So i would say for khuzaima taking barakat from what Rasulallah SA has stated من فسر القرآن برأيه فليتبوأ مقعده من النار

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s