Reason # 23: The Letter – And The Notion Of Official Addresses And Titles In Coherence With The Traditions of Da’wat (Part 1)

On his website, Fatemidavat.com, Khuzaima Qutbuddin and his children have provided a letter from Aqa Moula Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS to Khuzaima. They allege that the official addresses and titles which Moula TUS has used for Khuzeima is evidence that he TUS had accepted Khuzeima as Burhanuddin Moula’s RA successor. They write,

“Shahzada Mufaddal Bhaisaheb’s acknowledgement of Syedna Qutbuddin as his Maula and himself as Syedna Qutbuddin’s ghulam (in a letter written by Moulana Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS to Khuzeima in an anonymous year)”

This so called compelling material evidence is quite insignificant when placing and contextualizing it with the history of Da’wat from which we derive our culture, our heritage, and our practices. This allegation, like all the points on Khuzeima and his children’s website, falls short of any actual proof because they are cherry-picked and largely disjointed with the entire history of Da’wat, its traditions, and the ‘Ilm of Aale Mohammed SA in general. Therefore, cherry-picked arguments without proper detailing, sometimes can seem compelling, however, they really point towards the narcissism and disillusioned personality of Khuzeima which has been coming to light in the past few days since he claimed to be what he is not – not just recently but throughout the entire dowr (era) mubarak of Syedna al-Hayy al-Muqaddas. The points below will explain why his argument is once again flawed.

1. The Future Dai and Mansus Is Not Always The First in Tartīb and Certainly Not Always The Sahib Who Is In The Position of Mazoon.

Historically, it has not always been the case that the future Dai has been the first in tartīb after Dai Zaman. In fact, the most eminent and aala tartīb of Da’wat – the Dai – is something that only Khuda Taala and his Imam can award. It is solely from his faḍl and gives to whomever he desires. Rutba, therefore, isn’t something to be claimed, rather it is given by Dai Zaman. Thus, the tartīb of Da’wat, although sacrosanct, does not necessarily delineate that the first person in tartīb after Dai Zaman is going to be his successor. In fact, Da’wat’s history has repeatedly showed us otherwise. The ‘entitlement’ of the rutba is something that Khuzeima Qutbuddin seems to be erroneously and unfortunately fixated on. Moula aape, na aape, tame iraad to nehi lawo?

In fact, the notion that Mansus Alaihi na Sahib is not always the first person in Da’wat’s tartīb after Dai Zaman is an idea which is quite apparent throughout the history of Da’wat. For instance, in the era of the 42nd Dai, Syedna Yusuf Najmuddin RA., Syedi Qutub bhai QS writes in Muntaza‘ ul-Akhbar that in the final days of Syedna Yusuf Najumuddin RA., the tartīb of the hudud kiram was in this order; the first was al-Mazoon al-Ajal Syedi al-Shaykh Adam Safiyuddin. After him was the Mukasir of Da’wat, Syedi al-Shaykh ‘Abdul Qadir Hakimuddin QS, and after him the Ra’as ul Hudood and the most afḍal and ‘aala of them, al-mansus ‘alayhi (the one who has been appointed by Nass) al-Dai al-Amjad Syedna Abdeali Saifuddin RA…” Despite the fact that he was mansus, Moulana Abdeali Saifuddin RA was not first in tartīb, however, according to Syedi Qutub QS he was the highest and most eminent because of the fact that he was mansus. There was no connection between the rutba sharifa of mazoon and mukasir with the rutba of Da’wat – which is continuously alleged by Khuzeima Qutbuddin and his children as proof of his nass. Where did they go wrong?

Thus, we have witnessed this similarity in the zaman of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin al-Hayy al-Muqaddas RA also. Although, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS was not first in Da’wat tartīb, he was the most ‘aala and afḍal hadd – however – because of his true humility, he always respected the higher offices of Da’wat with the utmost dignity and respect. Every Shehzada of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA and Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA will attest to this well-known fact and we have seen to this day how he respects Mukasir Saheb Syedi Husain BS Hussamuddin. Therefore, it comes at no surprise that he would use the same titles, appellations, and terminologies that every one in Da’wat is suppose to use for the Sahib in the position of the Mazoon.

This point should be noted before reading on to part # 2 above. Please continue to part 2 above.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s