Reason #41: Regarding The Mutation Of The Misaaq And Deviation From Haqq
An Anonymous Source
Clever and cunning…two words often used to describe Mua’wiya and his close aide and confidante Amr bin al Aas. Cleverness and cunningness- two words never used to describe how righteousness has been proven in the past. Haq na sahib is divinely assisted and armed with burhan (proof) which slashes deceit like a sword and vanquishes persisting doubts.
The following allegations which mask some deceitful and malicious thoughts need to be analyzed and read critically to comprehend the hidden agenda which seeks to corrupt our most basic tenets and doctrines.
The FatemiDawat site says in regard to the misaaq:
“Mutation of Misaaq and Shari’at to suit personal agenda
Misaaq. Most important point: Very soon after Sh Qaid Joher bhaisaheb announced “Nass” on Shz Mufaddal bhaisaheb, Shz Mufaddal bhaisaheb had his own name inserted into the misaaq following the name of the Dai, adding to and modifying the misaaq text. The misaaq text is inviolable and cannot be tampered with under any circumstances. One who violates this trust cannot be haqq-na-saheb.”
A close reading of the above text unveils the following claims:
1. Shehzada Quaid Johar BS announced Nass.
2. Shehzada Mufaddal BS inserted his own name into the Misaaq following the name of the Dai.
3. This amounts to adding to and modifying the misaaq text.
4. The Misaaq Text is inviolable and cannot be tampered with under any circumstances.
5. One who violates this trust cannot be haqq-na-saheb.
A web spun with threads of deceit isn’t hard to unravel. Since the intention is to clarify matters related to the Misaaq and not the announcement of nass (which anyhow doesn’t need any more clarification although it was previously claimed that the announcement was done by Dr. Moiz BS); let us proceed to the second claim. It is alleged that Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin inserted his own name into the Misaaq.
A specific ibarat (text) was sent by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s Vazarat (office) which functioned under His direction with His permission and blessings containing the proper text to be recited following Syedna Burhanuddin’s name containing the Mansoos’s name in the Misaaq. Any claim to the contrary should be backed with proof since the allegation is very grave and is tantamount to saying that every namaz and religious matter, rite and custom conducted in the last few years was without Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s RA Raza Mubarak and thus invalid. Questioning and doubting the validity of the actions of the al Dai al Mutlaq and the affairs of His Vazarat should not be a mumin’s concern.
The third and fourth claims imply that the Misaaq text literally is as sacred as the Qur’an. It is inviolable and any kind of tampering with the original text would be considered to be a violation of haqq. The fifth claim is very comprehensive and says that anyone (that includes the al Dai al Mutlaq) who violates this trust cannot be haqq na sahib.
First of all it should be understood that the Misaaq is for the Haqq na Sahib of the age and after his appointment and open declaration of his successor, for both Naas (appointer) and His (appointee) Mansoos. Rasulullah’s actions related to Nass on 18th of Zilhajja and the Misaaq taken afterwards and oath of allegiance administered over a period of three consecutive days would otherwise be meaningless if it’s only purpose was to reaffirm public loyalty to the Nabi S.A. The Misaaq was as much for the Wasi as for the Nabi. It has been the practice (which all who take our history ‘zahir’ books seriously know very well) of many Duat Mutlaqeen RA to take a verbal oath and pledge of loyalty and obedience for the Mansoos at the time of Nass from all those present. This is later endorsed in the public Misaaq.
The Misaaq as argued earlier has never been on behalf of the Mazoon and Mukasir. If at the time of recital of the Misaaq text, either or both positions are empty (which might occur and has happened a number of times in the past), no names are taken. The physical presence or absence of appointees to the rank of Mazoon and Mukasir has no bearing on the validity of the Misaaq as will be ascertained by anyone versed in our doctrines and theology. In the recent past, this was the case when Misaaq was administered in the interim period after the demise of the Mukasir, Syedi Saleh Bhaisaheb Safiuddin and before the public appointment of Syedi Husain Bhaisaheb Husamuddin to the same rank.
The declaration that “Shz Mufaddal bhaisaheb had his own name inserted into the misaaq” implies some kind of wrongdoing and mischief making which is absolutely incorrect. According to our tenets and beliefs we only give Misaaq to the Imam and His representative the al Dai al Mutlaq. The Dai and His successor although two separate persons, in theological belief are united by the same office that one occupies and the other submits to through complete ikhlas, piety, devotion and selfless service; both appearing as one light to the eye of the discerning beholder. This is not true for all those who occupy the lesser ranks of Mazoon and Mukasir. As is evident in our times the current Mukasir Syedi Husain Bhaisaheb Husamuddin stands steadfast in His devotion and loyalty to the Mansoos Maula while the Mazoon has deviated from his vows. In this case; if the claim that the Misaaq is for all three maratib is allowed…how can a person be loyal to two opposing sides?
Since our tenets and doctrines establish without doubt that Misaaq is an oath of allegiance taken on behalf of the Dai and His Mansoos (when declared publicly) it stands to reason that their names would be included in the text. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s RA Amal Mubarak in including the name of His Mansoos served to illuminate the past actions of Du’at Mutlaqeen and exposed the hypocrisy of some who refused to give Misaaq since they doubted that the actions of Syedna Burhanuddin RA had been divinely inspired by ilham.
The Misaaq has undergone some variations since it was first institutionalized. Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA himself has mentioned that various forms of Misaaq text were extant during His time. Some were in Arabic from the time of the Fatemid Empire before the seclusion period. Others belonged to the Yemen period and later on in India there were a number of translations from the various Arabic forms. There was some resemblance in the meaning but expressions used were different. It is apparent that the meaning and spirit of the Misaaq has never changed although it might be administered in any language with the permission of the haqq na sahib on whose behalf it admits the faithful to the Dawat. Quite unlike the Qur’an which might not be translated or modified in any way.
Our traditions hold that Maulatuna Hurratul Maleka RA appointed Syedna Zoeb RA as per the instructions of Imam Aamir AS and the Misaaq has been administered for the Dai representing the Imam from that era onwards. The Dai has absolute authority during the seclusion period including the administration of the Misaaq, admittance and exclusion of whomsoever He might choose from the fold of Dawat. Thinking that examples from the past actions of earlier Duat Mutlaqeen have not been recorded in writing and thus cannot be produced as evidence, the present claimant in his hatred and animosity towards the larger than life proof of the Imam, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA himself; has unveiled his own duplicity. By insinuating that even Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA couldn’t add the name of His Mansoos in the Misaaq; the ex-Mazoon has crossed his limits because he is now claiming that he knows the limitations of al Dai al Mutlaq i.e what exactly a Dai can or cannot do.