#59: No Comparison

(In reply to Husain Qutbuddin’s Youtube video)

All throughout his banter, Husain Qutbuddin would not have us reflect on fundamentals and have us focus instead on incorrect historical analogies and skewed character analysis. Lets look at a couple of examples.

He states:

What’s happening right now is similar to Rasoolullah’s initial establishment of Islam. Only three individuals were with him at its inception, so only a few Mumineen today is acceptable. Majority is not a proof of haqq. The Quran has chastised the majority in many instances. Isn’t this analogy logical etc etc?

Why this is false? First of all, even if any parallels were allowed between Rasoolullah SA and Khuzaima, all the premises and analogies drawn by Husain are proven inappropriate upon reflection.

Early Islam

Rasoolullah SA was establishing a whole new religion amongst a community of polytheists (mushrekeen). He was asking them to leave idols they had worshipped for centuries if not millennia. Is Khuzaima establishing a new religion different from what his predecessor espoused? Are we being asked to convert to an entirely different religion? It is understandable that at the onset of Islam conversion would take place gradually. This has been the case with all previous Anbiyaa Kiraam SA that introduced a new shari’ah, Musa Nabi SA and Eesa Nabi SA, for example. Therefore, the analogy of Khuzaima’s clan resembling followers of early Islam is misleading, as is the analogy that Mumineen believing in Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS resemble those Mushrekeen who would not even listen to the Quran Majeed. The messages of the Quran Majeed might have been new to Mushrekeen but the parameters of a valid nass have been known to Mumineen for over 1400 years. They know that nass should be attested by witnesses in private or should be publicly proclaimed, and, hence, have no reason to pay heed to a claimant that has not even a shred of proof for his appointment, apart from his word. Even if his word was above question, which it is not, it is not nearly enough to hold credence. Therefore, Mumineen are justified in refusing to hear Khuzaima’s banter on the basis of their knowledge and the virtue of their righteousness.

Ameerul Mumineen after Rasoolullah SA

Husain would also like us believe that Khuzaima’s clan today resembles the followers of Ameerul Mumineen after Rasoolullah’s demise. This is not true because, around that time, a clear distinction was being formed between being Muslim and being Mumin, which was not so apparent in Rasoolullah’s time. After his demise, there was a repetition of what had taken place in the period of every wasi, prior to Ameerul Mumineen. Every ummat would disobey their nabi’s instruction of staying true to his wasi, and only Mumineen, the privileged and chosen few, would follow him. The majority of the nabi’s ummat would betray his wasi and therefore bore the brunt of Allah Ta’ala’s disdain as stated in the Quran Majeed, which criticises and chastises this majority of disbelievers.

However, Mumineen in satr are already within the haram (sanctuary) of emaan. Since Ameerul Mumineen’s time we have always been a minority within the larger Muslim majority. However, this does not mean that being a minority itself is proof of haqq as Husain would have us believe. Over 1400 years there have been many splinter groups within Mumineen who were minorities in respect to the majority of Mumineen. This does make them righteous. Aligning to haqq has never been a competition of who has the smallest group of people supporting him. It might be poor reflection on the efforts of all our Hodaat Kiraam SA over a period of 1400 years if suddenly overnight only 70 odd individuals stayed true to haqq from a community of several hundred thousand. If being a majority is by itself not proof of haqq then neither is being a minority proof of such. This false premise leads to these false analogies: Rasoolullah SA had few supporters. Imam Husain SA has 72 shohada and so on. Because of such comparisons, a weak mind might be duped into thinking that being few in number, on its own, is a sign of righteousness.


  • Husain qutbuddin claims that minority is proof of haq and the majority is batil, justifying his claims by examples of Rasulullah’s SAW and Amirul Mumineen’s zaman. If that was always the case then here are a few examples of haq and batil according to his logic.

    1) During the era of Syedna Fir Khan Shujauddin RA (33rd Dai), a certain yusuf started claiming that Syedna’s actions were not appropriate and he started a fitnat and created his own firqo. A small number of people who were previously mumineen joined him and their firqo later became known as hujumiya. However, the majority of mumineen did not flinch in their belief in Syedna Shujauddin RA.

    If husain qutbuddin actually believes what he keeps on saying, then he believes that yusuf and hujumiya are on haq since they are the minority, while Syedna Fir Khan Shujauddin RA is not since he has the majority.

    2) During the era of Syedna Hebatullah al Moayyad fid Deen RA (40th Dai), majdoo LA started a fitnat and did dawo against Syedna. A minority of former mumineen including many olama started following him, and he created his own firqo. The fitnat was great but the majority of mumineen kept steadfast in their belief in Syedna al Moayyad RA.

    Once again husain qutbuddin should believe that majdoo is ‘haq na saheb’ because he has the minority and Syedna al Moyyad RA is not since he has the majority.

    • M Mustafa Sk Burhanuddin Taskeen

      As far as my understanding of minority and majority goes, it should be related to quality rather than quantity because if you only determine visible numbers then you will have to swith the criterion time and again. For example, sometimes there will be less people with haq as were in the beginning of islam and when dai abi abdullah RA started tamheed for imam mehdi’s AS zuhur while sometimes there will be less people with batil that is whenever a fitnat starts as mentioned by taher bhai. If counting the numbers is the only parameter then at times haq will become batil and vice versa!

      Therefore we have to look for a very concrete formula which should not change with the ever fluctuating nature of history. A very humble insight follows.

      Rasulullah SA authoritatively said “my ummat shall split into 72 factions of which only ONE will attain salvation while OTHERS shall go in hell fire”. This statement of wahy is self explanatory if analysed closely. Rasulullah SA appointed Maulana Ali AS as ONE and only haq na saheb therefore asserting the status of people following him as “najiya” and people who shall follow OTHER than Maulana Ali AS as “in hell fire”. Same pattern follows till date that the ONE and only haq na saheb confers nas upon another ONE and only saheb whose iqraar and following validates us as minority because we are with ONE.

      If someone breaks away and forms a firqa then he by default becomes a part of that majority, that OTHERS, who in past broke away from ONE. Thus, khuzaima and his followers, by leaving the ONE have gone towards that majority of people who in thier respective eras had left the ONE. So we with ONE and only Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS are a minority and they with Khuzaima Qutbuddin are a majority!

      It can be deduced that only after isbaat of nas is it appropriate to talk about majority and minority as nas proves the saheb to be ONE and failing to validate nas makes the muddai belong to OTHERS. So my demand to Husain Qutbuddin is, first prove the nas, then talk about minority! Kindly give us (no dawat text references allowed as you and I can interpret it differently)

      1. Witnesses 2. Document of nas

      then talk about MINORITY!!!!!!!!!

  • if majority and minority is base for haq and batil then according to them rasulullah s.a was on haq in initial stage of islam because of minority,but in later stage islam turned to batil(nauzubillah) because there was majority of muslims and minority of mushrekeen.

    husain qutbuddin’s comparision of maulana ali s.a’s era with dawedaar is wrong in a way he himself said in his video in starting “rasulullah s.a yeh to ali par jahran nas kidi” , and according to them burhanuddin maula r.a yeh to jahran nas na farmavi then how can he compare dawedaar with maulana ali’s s.a era, agar rasulullah s.a maulana ali par jahran nas na farmaute ane logo maulana ali s.a ne na mante to logo ni bhul na kehwate kem ke khabaraj nathi ke kona par nas thai to kone maane
    HQ’s comparision of maulana Ali’s era with Dawedaar is right in this way that-
    1) As awwal sani and their followers gathered in saqifa while Maulana ali was preparing for rasulullah’s ghusul and dafan,KQ and his followers gathered in saqifa when Mufaddal maula tus was preparing for ghusul and dafan of Burhanuddin maula r.a
    2) As awwal sani told rasulullah has not done nass on anyone(though he has done) but he has done ishara by saying “al imamato fi quraish”,KQ told his followers that Syedna Mohammed burhanuddin r.a has not done nass openly but done isharas towards him.
    3) As awwal sani told that rasulullah has not appointed anyone and we need someone,by saying this they claimed that rasullullah s.a has not put things correctly and we need to correct them,similarly KQ told that he was waiting that maula r.a will get shifa and put things correctly as stated on their website ” He(means KQ) waited for two years hoping that Syedna’s health would improve, so that Syedna Burhanuddin himself would put things in order” but unfortunately maula r.a demised and now he needs to correct what is incorrect.
    By all ways KQ resembles awwal and sani,Mufaddal maula tus is maulana Ali’s Dai whose nass KQ denies

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s