Reason #40: The Lack of Understanding
(Submitted via email)
Syedi Abdeali Imaduddin QR has taught us, ‘je kahe ya kare, Haqq che saraasar’. Whatever Moula says or does, is unquestionably and unequivocally Haqq (true and right). Even our littlest madrasah-going children understand this. Khuzaima and his children do not.
Syedna Mu’ayyad al-Shirazi’s RA qaseedah mubarakah, ‘Ya Sabah al-Khamees Ahlan wa Sahlan’ is recited regularly in Dawat majaalis and oft-quoted by Syedna Burhanuddin RA during his wa’az mubarak. In one such bayaan mubarak, Syenda Burhanuddin RA explains a particular bayt from the qaseedah:
Now, he illustrates his own merit and stature. Syedna Mu’ayyad describes his own self, “Who am I, this is Moula, and who am I?”
انا رضوانُ عَبدُ عَبدِ معدٍّ * لستُ عن طاعتي له اتخلا
[He says] that, “I am Ridwaan”, which is the name of Jannat’s keeper and guardian. Ridwaan is an angel. “I am Ridwaan, I am “‘abdo ‘abde Ma’ad”. I am the servant of the servant of my Moula Ma’ad (Imam Mu’izz). [Which means] I am the servant of His son, the Wali al-´Ahd (mansoos and Crown Prince). After him, I am in the next rutbah [in the hierarchy of Dawat]. Lasto ‘an ta’atee lahu atakhalla. My obedience is for my Imam; a day will never come in which I will be absent of this obedience. Before him, I will always bow my head. (Moharram al-Haraam, 1420H/2000)
This is the definition and reading of the bayt as established by Syedna Burhanuddin RA. However, Bazat Tahera (BT), daughter of Khuzaima, blatantly disregards this understanding in her 2005 publication regarding the poetry of Syedna Mu’ayyad al-Shirazi RA. With reference to this bayt, she says:
I have read the second ´ – b- d (ع ب د) as ‘ubd (عُبد) in the plural (cf. Lane), meaning the best servant, or the most lowly servant… for I could not understand the meaning of the sentence when reading this word as ‘abd (sing., “servant”), which is the reading in the Tayyibi oral tradition.
BT acknowledges that the Tayyibi oral tradition, the tradition of the Doat Mutlaqeen RA, Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA included, reads the verse in a particular manner, yet she defies it opting to use her own logic and understanding instead. In this very publication, she describes Burhanuddin Moula RA as “a living exponent of poetry in al-Muayyad’s Fatimid da’wa tradition” (p. 330). Would he not, in your own words then, be in a better position to explain the meanings of Syedna Mu’ayyad’s RA verse? This publication went into print after Syedna Burhanuddin’s RA above bayaan in which he explicitly defines the verse and explains the meaning, leaving no room for misunderstanding. What was it that she was unable to understand then?
Unfortunately, this is not her only transgression on the maqaam of the Dai al-Mutlaq in this publication. Elsewhere, she claims that Syedna Idris Imaduddin RA erred in the historical placement of a letter sent to Syedna al-Mu’ayyad RA and has the audacity to say that it would have been “better placed”(p. 95) in the time period that she suggests. No doubt, BT and her siblings will be able to fill pages of journal articles with verbose academic prose and complicated arguments justifying their actions (she provides five reasons for why it would be better placed). This post is not about modern academia or the quality of their scholarship; it is about highlighting their inappropriate beliefs and ´aqeedah given to them by KQ. Regardless of a Mumin’s profession and occupation, he or she would never accept, let alone propagate and publish, something that is antithetical to his or her belief or contradictory to Moula’s bayaan. The fact is, one that is obvious to the most adnaa Mumin Mukhlis, that KQ and his children did not accept the authority of the Haqq na Dai and therefore were not willing to accept his words and actions.
Their disregard goes to the extent that BT does not even spell Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s RA name correctly, even when claiming to dedicate an entire publication to him. Surely, this cannot be a typo? (It’s not because this spelling is consistent in this publication and the one above.) Surely, she would be able to catch such a glaring mistake, especially when it’s the only name on the entire page? Or do they think they understand how to spell Moula’s RA name better than him?
Do not see these as insignificant details for these breadcrumbs lead to Khuzaima’s treachery. They indicate that from the very beginning, Khuzaima has raised and nurtured his children with a complete disregard for Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. KQ illegitimately authorized the use of Dawat texts so that they could make a name for themselves in the niche Ismaili field. It is ironic that they would make their claim to fame with the works of the very Doat RA that they have the audacity to correct and criticize. And during this time, their father Khuzaima led them further and further away from Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA: the true source of ALL knowledge. The FateliDawat site states that KQ encourages his children ‘to publish their research on Aal-e-Muhammad in acclaimed university presses, in order to make the eminence of our mawali known to all the world’. I’m no Harvard graduate, but proposing ulterior meanings than those provided by the Dai and suggesting that Syedna Idris RA could have ‘better placed’ historical incidents doesn’t seem to be celebrating their ‘eminence’.
And so despite their many degrees, doctorates and dissertations, in spite of all of their academic publications, illegitimate access to Dawat kotub aaliyah and ‘Skype’ sabaqs—they were not able to understand the most fundamental Fatimi Tayyibi principle: that Dai ‘je kahe ya kare haq che saraasar’.
Syedi Abdeali Imaduddin’s QR chorus then is a fitting conclusion to this post.
Samjhu to samjho, na samjhu na samjho.
Those with understanding—understand. Those who lack it—do not.
UPDATE ON 8 Feb 2014
In his recent YouTube videos, Husain Qutbuddin proudly states that Moulana Burhanuddin RA, when granting him raza mubarak for further higher education at Cambridge, stated ‘haqq ni waat thaabit karjo’: that he should establish Haqq, what is True and Right. He claims that he and his siblings have been doing just that throughout their careers in Western academia.
So they claim legitimacy for their academic endeavors through Moula’s RA raza. Surely, when Moula RA said ‘haqq ni waat thaabit karjo’, he didn’t mean for you folk to go to these fancy universities and offer ‘better’ meanings for Dawat texts than those given by Moula RA? That doesn’t reflect ‘haqq ni waat thaabit karjo’, does it? Isn’t Moula’s RA own being, his very zaat, Haqq? Then anything or anyone who opposes him, whether it be in the meanings of a single verse or the clothes that they wear, is Baatil. They defied him in his life, and today defy his memory and his legacy.