Reason # 58: Husain Qutbuddin’s Intellect: To See or not to See
(In reply to Husain Qutbuddin’s Youtube video)
Husain constantly appeals to intellect and reason assuming that the several hundred thousand followers of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS are not doing the same. Now that their lifeline of whimsical evidence is proving deficient, they have resorted to smoke and mirrors. Husain tries to purport the use of intellect and reason as a red-herring and diversion from the truth. He has brought out the age-old dusty suit of the ‘the place of intellect in religion.’ However, his mistake is he assumes that members of the Dawoodi Bohra community do not adhere to logic, reason, and intellect in their own individual understanding of religion.
The bulk of his argument suggests that his listeners should use their intellect and draw conclusions solely based on the information he has provided for them as the premise.
Thus, finding the flaw in his proposition is not difficult. The primary flaw, or deception if you like, lies in his premise and the options that he sets for his listeners. He gives his listeners a limited amount of information and then tells them to now connect the dots based on the fragmented evidence he has provided. Drawing lines between four dots can only make a quadrilateral. Therefore, what requires more intelligence and true use of intellect is questioning why the dots are placed this way in the first place. Who placed them there? Why should one connect them from left to right rather than right to left?
By exploiting the gaps of information provided, it would appear that Husain does not want his listeners to engage in such reflection because he realizes that his arguments lack merit under any actual scrutiny. This is mainly due to the fact that neither himself or his entire family have provided a shred of evidence why all of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s TUS multiple conferrals of nass are not valid. He aims to cast doubt on some while hoping that one might forget about the recurring other instances of nass. He is playing the game of ‘fit the historical analogy in its right slot’, or ‘lets choose which character analysis we like best’. Repeated witnessed historical events can’t be taken out of the equation. So, instead I ask Husain whether he has an attested document, or witnesses, or a mere public proclamation in favour of Khuzaima’s claim. Do any one of his examples equal up to those that clearly place Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS as the 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq?
Guidance from Dawat Texts
Let us turn to the Books of Dawat, as any reasonable person would do, to find proof. For an appointment by nass, the books of Dawat only provide two possible accounts: A witnessed private appointment with or without documentation and a public proclamation. Both accounts stand true and have occurred more than once for Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS. (See Reason #56).
Husain knows this and wishes that we will forget that although the intellect is a powerful tool given to us by the Almighty, in regards to choosing haq na sahib, Moula, we are not meant to use our intellect as a proof of his maqam and nass. Syedna Hamiduddeen RA , in Kitab al-Masaabeeh written in the era of Imam Hakim, relates many arguments which disallow the umma (the religious community) to choose a rasool or an imam with their intellect. Firstly, we are lacking in all the knowledge needed by an imam to ascend to the maqam of imamat. If we do not have that capability ourselves, how can we appoint someone to this post? If we do not have authority to appoint individuals to lesser posts like judges etc, then how could we claim to appoint someone to a post greater than that; the imamate? Moreover, the imam must be maasoom, and since being maasoom is not a physical distinction that would make the masoom sahib known, it would lead to follow that only Allah or another masoom sahib, his predecessor, should be able to do so.
There are many more such arguments like this one in various other Dawat texts. Therefore, the call to reason and intellect to acknowledge haq na sahib, is not something that can be argued from a true Fatimi theological or philosophical point of view. While reason and intellect are our utmost important tools, they still can’t be utilised in determining haq na sahib. That determination must be done by the predecessor of the successor and this is the main reason that nass is conferred among witnesses and publicly proclaimed as well – solely for the fact that our human reasoning and intellect are not universal and they are subject to change due to exterior circumstances – such as cosmography. There is no sidestepping this fact. Husain either has forgotten this or knows but he would rather his audience be ignorant of these fundamentals and focus instead on incorrect historical analogies and skewed character analysis.