Reason #57: Rhetoric Is Not Substance

(In reply to Husain Qutbuddin’s Youtube video)

This brief overview is aimed to highlight the underhand tactics which he has used to misdirect and misinform viewers, as well as the general tone and style of his talks.

Firstly, he expresses emotion when he talks about Moula’s wafaat. If he was genuinely affected by the wafaat of Moula, would he not have come to pay his last respects? Would he not have walked with the janaza? Would he not have attended the burial? One can’t help but be doubtful of his sincerity, since Husain, his brothers and followers could have very easily merged themselves with the sea of people at Syedna Burhanuddin’s RA funeral without anyone being the wiser, but they chose not to.

Secondly, most of the content is anecdotal with no real basis on which it can be believed. He improvises on the lack of accurate referencing by using rhetoric. Despite his claims to using ‘intellect’, he shows a surprising lack of intellectual rigour in any of his comments. He merely references riwayats or points as bayaan aayu che. For example he says that in order for nass to be conferred, a ‘ring’ must be given. Where exactly is this bayaan? The 30th Dai Syedna Ali Shamsuddin conferred Nass on 31st Dai Syedna Qasim Khan, whilst the former was in Yemen and the latter was in India. There is no record of him giving him a ring. Infact, there are many Sahebo and Mumineen today who have also been given rings by Syedna Burhanuddin RA, should they all claim to be the Dai?

What is really bewildering is that a Haafiz wouldn’t have said what he suggested in the beginning. He claims that Khuzaima entered the ghurfa mubaraka of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, while the Quran Majeed was being recited. He claims that as he entered the 81st Ayat of the 17th Sura was heard and as Khuzaima did sajdo, the 40th Ayat of the 50th Sura was heard. Firstly, the Quran Majeed being recited was from an audio recording. Secondly, keeping in mind the playback time of this recital, it would have taken approximately 4 hours to reach the second ayat – did Khuzaima spend four hours between entering the ghurfa and doing sajdo?! If he was a Haafiz he would have realised where each ayat in the Quran was. If he was truthful, he would never have mentioned the alleged hearing of these ayats in the first place. His lack of credibility brings into disrepute everything he says. If one can so blatantly lie about the Quran, there is nothing to prevent him from mentioning other untruths.

He repeats innumerable times ‘daleel che’. Just because one states that evidence exists, doesn’t mean that it is a foregone conclusion that such evidence exists. Whatever ‘evidence’ he refers to is at best, flimsy, vague, and distorted. What concrete evidence has he presented? Anyone can offer a skewed subjective interpretation of what has occurred in the past. For example he refers to what happened after Rasullah’s passing. A minority of Muslims remained loyal to Amirul Mumineen. He implies that the dwindling numbers of those who follow Khuzaima are like the loyalists of Ali.

He also draws parallels between the 72 shohada of Imam Hussain and the Qutbi followers, which erroneously implies that they were the only individuals in Imam Husain’s Dawat. This was not the case, because Imam Husain’s followers were present in Makka, Madina and elsewhere at the time. Further, this is blatant disregard for what Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin has repeatedly stated in waaz mubarak, that the Duat are of no less stature than those who sacrificed themselves for Imam Hussain in Kerbala. Just as he dismisses the argument of majority as proof of truth, we reject his argument of minority as proof of Khuzaima’s validity. For if being in the minority was evidence of righteousness, every splinter faction from Dawat would be upon Haqq and the majority would by default be destined to hell.

Furthermore, his lack of specific details begs the viewer to question the authenticity of all his references. He keeps saying ‘ghani zikaro che’. This is nothing but a disclaimer to absolve himself of his lack of knowledge in a number of areas. What may or may not have occurred in Misr ‘around the year 1409H’ is very difficult to authenticate. Vague and ambiguous references to events which may or may not have happened are characteristic of his style.

He exudes confidence by inviting those with questions to engage with him, even summoning ‘the other side’ to a face-to-face debate. This is just a false sense of confidence. He implies that he and his side encourage questions, whereas those on this side of the fence are ‘jhooni’ (delirious) and are just forced to accept without questioning, i.e blind faith. He forgets that the first principle of Islam is ‘sallim’ meaning to accept and then ‘sal lim’ which means to ask ‘why’? Neither Islam nor Dawat have ever propagated blind faith. Question by all means. However, knowledge does not equate to acceptance and for this reason, Hudaat Kiram have established a code and protocol on how knowledge can be acquired.

 All throughout his videos, we cannot but help conclude that rhetoric is a poor substitute to substance.

3 comments

  • Sh AbdulQadir M Taiyebali

    On his website Khuzaima and his son Husain tried to put up the argument that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA gifted him the ruby ring which was gifted to him by Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA and claimed that it was ishara for nass on him.It has been sighted many a times that Khuzaima used to embrace that ruby ring and used to make his children embrace it but alas! he forgot that the actual precious ruby from the treasure of Imam Al Zaman SA is Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA himself as Syedna Aali Qadar Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS stated in one of his sadaqallah ‘s ibarat that
    وفي يد الدعوة الهادية الفاطمية من الياقوت خاتما
    (Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA was the precious ruby ring in the hands of Dawat e hadiyah) and he stated in another SadaqAllah
    ويالهفتا و ياحسرتاه و يا لهفتاه على غياب شخصه الأمين وذهاب فص الخاتم الثمين
    (What a pity on absence of this valuable gem as he is no more amongst us!!)
    Hence, what is the procurement and availment of someone who merely kisses the piece of jewel or gemstone BUT puts aside the actual symbolic and significant meaning and virtues!!! Khuzaima and his sons are unfortunate and doomed to take barakaat from this real and high esteemed ruby of Imam al Zamaan SA by doing zyarat of Moulana Mohammed Burhauddin RA in Raudat Tahera and approaching in Hazrat Nooraniyah of Aqeeq Al Yemen Maulana Mufaddal Saifuddin Aqa Tus who is the true successor and sole owner of AlHayyul Muqaddas Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ‘s ring of ruby and he himself is his unmatched eminent ruby !!!!

    • It’s quite akin to the actions of Ha**fi in the times of Imam Jafar AS — when the Imam AS expressed disgust at the actions of Ha**fi kissing the stick of Rasullalah SAW. Imam stated “You believe that this is the stick of Rasulullah SAW, yet doubt the blood and flesh that was born out of his progeny”.

      The sons and followers of KQ are repeating the actions of Ha**fi.

    • M Mustafa Sk Burhanuddin Taskeen

      Very well said janab.

      I have a question regarding this ring incident. Does the giving of ring only signifies nas? Because we hear in maulana aliakbar as shahadat zikr that imam husain as gave a ring which obviously indicates towards his maqam but certainly not towards nas. I understand that the circumstance is different but khuzaima is laying over emphasis on this ring which somehow seems unnecessary. I don’t know, I am seeking clarification.

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