Reason # 12 – The Inherent Contradictions In Khuzaimas Reference to Syedna Hatim’s RA Zikr
From Khuzaima’s website:
“The Mazoon in every day and age should be considered, after the Dai, the highest authority).”
“The zikar of the 3rd Dai Syedna Hatim also supports the point that nass signifies that the mansoos has attained the highest shaan. When Syedna Hatim expressed his intention to perform nass on his Mazoon (and later 5th Dai) Syedna Ali bin Mohammad, Syedna Ali bin Mohammad did araz to Syedna Hatim to appoint Syedna Ali bin Hatim, and based on his araz Syedna Hatim decided to place Syedna Ali bin Hatim ahead. Nowhere do the bayaans say that Syedna Hatim revoked nass of Syedna Ali bin Mohammad. In fact, Syedna Hatim describes him as “arba ala l-mala’ika,” higher in station than the celestial angels.” Syedna Hatim did nass on Syedna Ali bin Mohammad to show that he had reached the high station that a saheb must have in order to be appointed Dai. Similarly, when Syedna Burhanuddin did Nass on Syedna Qutbuddin fifty years ago, it was because Syedna Qutbuddin had reached the high station that a saheb must have in order to be appointed Dai.”
The website continues to misinterpret and misrepresent the facts of history to substantiate his fallacious claims. In fact, his erroneous conclusions are evident in the garbled line of argument he presents. What he presents is self contradictory. On the one hand he says that “The Mazoon in every day and age should be considered, after the Dai, the highest authority”. On the other hand, he refers to the zikr of the 5th Dai Syedna Ali b Mohammed b Walid, where he submitted that Syedna Hatim’s son was more worthy of becoming mansoos than he was. Syedna Hatim did appoint his son, Syedna Ali b Hatim as his mansoos and by definition, by the very institution which is that of Mansoos, Syedna Ali’s position took precedence over that of the mazoon of the time. Therefore Khuzaima’s claim that the mazoon in every day and age should be considered, after the Dai, the highest authority, is undermined by the very point he’s presented to support it.
His claim is further subverted by this particular incident. He claims that “nowhere do the bayaans say that Syedna Hatim revoked nass of Syedna Ali bin Mohammed”. That maybe true, but nowhere is there any mention that Syedna Hatim mentioned that Syedna Ali b Mohammed is Dai after Syedna Ali b Hatim either. This is unlike the case of the 25th Dai, Syedna Jalal who conferred nass on both the 26th Dai Syedna Dawood b Ajab and the 27th Dai Syedna Dawood b Qutub. Syedna Jalal clearly indicated to the former that “I have saved you the trouble of appointing your mansoos, for I have already prepared him – he is Dawood b Qutub.” (Muntaza ul Akhbar, Vol 2, pg 119)
The repetitive use of the word ‘revoked’ is used to mislead. It doesn’t matter whether it was ‘revoked’ or ‘retracted’ or any other word he may care to use. The fact remains that the instant when Syedna Hatim conferred nass on Syedna Ali b Hatim, Syedna Ali b Hatim became mansoos and after Syedna Hatim, became Dai. There is not an inch of doubt that he was. It was Syedna Ali b Hatim’s prerogative that he appoints his Mansoos and that’s exactly what he did.
This is mirrored in the actions of Syedna Ibrahim Wajihuddin. The 38th Dai, Syedna Ismail Badruddin documented the conferring of Nass on his son, Syedi Al-Shaikh Adam in an official letter addressed to the 39th Dai Syedna Ibrahim Wajihuddin which was prepared on 16th Zilqada in the year 1149H. Syedna Taher Saifuddin has referred to it in his risaala sharifa, Ashe’at-ul-Faiz-il-Azali, 1376H (page 326). The text reads as follows:
“I am notifying you, my brother, that I have entrusted the responsibility of your Dawat after your passing, to my son Shaikh Adam bin Syedna Nuruddin.”
Syedna Ibrahim Wajihuddin did not appoint Syedi Al-Shaikh Adam his mansoos as per the wasiyat of his predecessor, but rather appointed Syedna Hebatullah. This again highlights how each Dai has the sole responsibility and sole authority to appoint his mansoos. Whether or not he implements the wishes of his predecessor, is subject to the Ilhaam and Ta’eed which the present Dai receives from Imam ul-Zaman.
In addition, he claims that Syedna Hatim conferred nass on Syedna Ali b Hatim “based on his araz”. Again, this is a distortion. Is he claiming that Syedna Hatim did not act out of his own volition which is guided by none other than the Ilhaam of Imam ul Zaman? Syedna Hatim is al-Dal al-Mutlaq whose actions and thoughts are independent of the influence of any other individual. To believe in anything other than that, would be tantamount to blasphemy.
This is evident in what Syedna Taher Saifuddin says in relation to this zikr (Risala Sharifa, Balaag ul Duat al Fatemiyeen 1375H, pg205) He quotes Syedna Hatim, saying:
“This Dai Ali b Mohammed indicated to me that I should put forward my son who is his student by way of Nass on him and the assigning of Dawat to him.”
Immediately Syedna Taher Saifuddin clearly states the following:
“Syedna Hatim always remained the recipient of Ilham from Allah in all that he saw and observed. In fact, all his actions were founded on what Allah had pronounced and according to what he had destined”
Syedna Ali b Mohammed may have indicated to Syedna Hatim, but it was Syedna Hatim who made the decision based on Ilham. The decision was his as Dai, and the decision of Imam ul Zaman and Allah Taala.
The araz of Syedna Ali b Mohammed is a testimony to his humility and sincerity of khidmat to the Dai of his age. The website has repeatedly, through its own references, plainly revealed its complete and utter disregard of the shaan and maqaam of the Al Dai Al Mutlaq. How can anyone who has such blatant disregard for the Dai, ever contemplate to hold that exalted office, let alone make claim to it?
The events of history should be read as facts and not as a fictitious retelling of reality.