Reason #24: The Letter – And The Notion Of Official Addresses And Titles In Coherence With The Traditions of Da’wat (Part 2)
In continuation of 23’s argument against Muddai Khuzeima’s claims that
“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) is proof of nass”
2. Historically, the Appointed Offices of Da’wat Are Always Respected In Their Hierarchical Order Despite The Reality Of The Hidden Rutbas
This concept, despite the wordy heading, is really not that hard to understand because Aqa Moula Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin al-Hayy al-Muqaddas RA has simplified it for us in his previous bayan mubarak. In fact, all the true arguments against Khuzeima’s fitnat can directly be taken from Aqa Moula al-Hayy al-Muqaddas’s RA bayaan Mubaraka. It is unfortunate that the children of Khuzeima did not regularly attend Ashara Mubarak with Maghnatis Ilahi (Magnet) Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA – they might have not gone astray.
Therefore, regarding the letter that Moulana Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS wrote to Khuzeima Qutbuddin when he occupied the esteemed rutba of Mazoon, it is representative of Moulana Mufaddal Saifuddin’s TUS humilty, khuḍu‘, and respect for the marātib of Da’wat. He begins the letter with official language of Da’wat which is awarded to a Mazoon by Dai Zaman’s grace – not by his own accord and that is the khitābo of Molaya and Syedi as well as al-Mawla al-Ajal. Every mumin knows there is a difference between these titles of Moula and the one used for Dai -even madrasa children. These titles do not mean nass theyu che- rather they are the traditional appellations attached to the title of the Mazoon. Furthermore, by expressing himself as ghulām, as the letter shows, it should be read more closely. Clearly, Aqa Moula Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS distinguishes his relationship with Aqa Moula Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin TUS as عبد سيدناط ع and for Khuzeima غلامك (your servant). Mumineen never write غلام سيدنا ط ع when they sign their letters, rather only مملوك سيدنا ط ع or عبد سيدنا ط ع as used by Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS for Aqa Moula Mohammed Burhanuddin TUS in this letter and NOT for Khuzeima. This distinction is very important because Mumineen’s sole pride sprouts from being the عبد of Moula TUS and no one else – it isn’t a shared commodity. You can only be the عبد of one person.
Secondly, if Khuzeima was suppose to keep the nass quiet as was allegedly instructed to him – then how would Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS even know about it since he was quite far back in the hudood ni tartīb if we are to argue for the sake of Khuzema’s claims? Surely, the use of غلام here in this letter clearly appears as a sign of humility and respect – which any true ‘Abd of Moula TUS would do to give acknowledgement of the rutba of Mazoon which Dai Zaman had bestowed. We did it for all these years despite the absence of Khuzeima from most Da’wat functions. We taught our children in madrasa the same thing while tolerating his deviance. We did it because our Bawa Shafiq Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, Dai al-Haq, instructed us to – not because Khuzeima was deserving of the respect. Furthermore, we often tell Shehzadas that we are their humble servants. There is a significant terminology difference in Da’wat’s official language between ‘abd and ghulām and they are not completely synonymous in Arabic nor are they always used interchangeably. عبد renders the meaning of slave – which in turn denotes a relationship between master (Moula) and slave while غلام is traditionally not used as such as you will see below.
Another point to be noted is the date of this letter is unknown, however, Nass on Moulana Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS had not been made public until recently and therefore, it was hidden at the time this letter was written. Therefore, Moulana Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS acted as Da’wat’s history and tradition has emphasized. All hudood offer the utmost respect to those in a higher position than themselves according to the tartīb of Da’wat (see previous point). Therefore, it makes more sense that we read Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s TUS actions in the letter and the use of غلام as that which any hadd would do in respect of the position of Mazoon. Tradition would require to write his letter as such – hiding his position. It is an iqrar of the rutba shareefa of mazoon and not of some alleged nass. It has always been part of Da’wat’s tradition to respect the hierarchy of hudood – this is and always has been sacrosanct.
An example of this is evident in a letter from Imam Mansoor SA to Ustaadh Juzer QS. In a letter written to Ustaaz Juzer, Imam Mansur asks him to release several palace pages (غلمان the plural of غلام) that he had locked up and punished for an ill-deed that they had done. From the window of their confinement, these pages saw Imam Mansur SA pass by and they asked him to intervene and request Juzer to release them. Imam Mansur SA was the mansus at that time and Ustaadh Juzer was aware of this fact, however, nass was hidden publicly at the time. So, after hearing what the pages had said, he said nothing and walked on. He had every right to release them, but protocol was observed as is the tradition of Da’wat. After returning to the palace he wrote a letter to Ustaadh Juzer. Following the protocol required for the azamat of the hierarchy of the stratified order of Da’wat, Imam Mansur wrote a letter to Juzer. The english translation is as such:
May Allah be forgive you. May he be benevolent towards you and complete his grace to you. Allah knows that I avoid things and I loathe speaking about any matter. However, when I remembered your righteousness, your affection, and my closeness to you, I considered that endearment erases bashfulness and requires that I be not stingy with you in giving sincere advice…. (Trans. Hamid Haji)
This letter was further interpreted and its pearls of wisdom were bestowed upon us by the grace of Aqa Moula al-Hayy al-Muqaddas RA in Ashara Mubaraka 1420 Fifth Majlis. In reference to these lines, Aqa Moula RA said,
Juzer, this letter of mine is not official. You are well aware of how removed I am from the matters of the state. Imam Qa’im (present Imam) runs the state in the manner in which he pleases. I am completely removed; I stay separate from all these things. I am writing this letter, however don’t think it is because I am asserting a certain right of rule, or because I am the hujjat (mansus) and that is why I am writing it to you. Rather there is an affection between you and I and I know your disposition that is why I am writing to you….
Despite being the hidden Mansus, the Hujjat of Imam Qa’im, a secret that Juzer was well aware, Imam Mansur wrote a polite request to Ustaadh Juzer asking him release the pages. He had the right to tell Juzer to do it immediately and Juzer would have complied as he was a loyal servant to four Imams. However, even though Imam Mansur was in the most ‘Aala and Afḍal rutba after Imam Qa’im, these are the words and etiquette that he used when writing to Juzer. He had to hide his rutba, he could not manifest it openly, even with Juzer who was privy to its knowledge. Is this not the same traditional and age old etiquette and character that we see in the letter from Moulana TUS to Khuzeima! Although- please do not make an association of Molaya Ustaadh Juzer QS with Khuzeima. Moula Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS was using the titles and descriptions that were awarded to Khuzeima by Dai Allah il Ameen Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin al-Hayy al-Muqaddas RA. Again, these rutbas, titles, and addresses are the grace of Dai Zaman Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA were never Khuzeima’s property as he continuously purports.
Unfortunately, the personality of Khuzeima Qutbuddin seems to demand these rights and for some reason attribute them as his own property deserved through his own merit i.e. “I am the first Mazoon to do khidmat of Da’wat for fifty years…” – I ask, didn’t Iblis also do khidmat for several thousand years – however, due to his mistake of failing to believe in Adam – he is now damned for eternity. Why is Khuzeima and his children following this role in history and leading others astray with them? The truth and haq is so obvious. May his deceived followers see the truth which is as bright as the sun and join back with their brothers and sisters as is the Khushi of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS.
So in conclusion, we must remember the zikr of Syedna Zoeb RA, the first Dai. Moulana al-Hayy al-Muqaddas RA often compared his accession to the Rutba of Da’wat to the zikr of Khuda’s tajalli on Tur Pahar. All the higher mountains wished that Khuda do tajalli on them, however, Khuda Taala chose Toor Pahar (Toor Mountain) on the account of its humility. Likewise, there seemed to be many hudood holding higher rutbas than Syedna Zoeb RA in Yemen when Imam went into satr. Imamuz Zaman SA chose Syedna Zoeb SA because of his khushu‘ , khuḍu‘, and true humility. This is the only true fact that I see when I read this letter from Moulana Mufaddal TUS to Khuzeima and it shows no proof that Aqa Moula Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS acknowledged nass on the muddai.