Reason #64: Q & A (Part 2)
(Continued from Reason #63)
They question why Sh Ibrahim Yamani’s Nass document (of 1388H) and Sh Abdulhusain Yamani’s diary entry (of 1415H) was not made public in 1432H.
-
In 1432H, after nass, the existence of Sh Abdul Husain’s Diary (of 1415H) was known to the general public, many had a images of the pages as as well. This diary entry referred to the 1388H nass where his father, Sh Ibrahim Yamani and 2 others were informed.
-
The document of of nass prepared by Sh Ibrahim Yamani in 1388H was only revealed recently, as we have just come to know that this document was not kept with Sh Ibrahim Yamani’s other belongings. Rather, (as explained to us by Syedna Mufaddal TUS in the 4 Rabi al Akhar 1435 waaz) it was protected and kept in Saifee Mahal in Syedna Taher Saifuddin’s RA room, in a teak cupboard, along with some other private documents by Syedna Burhanuddin RA himself. We were even informed that this cupboard was kept locked and Moulana RA would tend to it personally.
-
This document was the property of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA and it was his choice whether or not it should be made public.
-
Moulana Burhanuddin RA had done nass on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin in 1432H both in the hospital as well as in public on the day of urs mubarak. There was no need to reveal the document. Moulana RA himself had done nass, who would doubt him?
- It only makes sense that the nass document was revealed now in order to confirm beyond all doubt that Burhanuddin Moula, the 52nd Dai, appointed Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin as the 53rd Dai.
They allege that the Nass document of 1388H by Sh Ibrahim Yamani is a forged document. And add that with today’s technology, it is very easy to forge a document.
-
How can they refute the genuineness of this document, without seeing or assessing it?
-
With the technology available, it is possible to forge a document, but there are ways of verifying it.
-
Just as it is easy to forge a document, it is easier to be delusional and imagine that someone did Nass on you, without any witnesses. You don’t even need technology for that.
-
In the past, Sulaiman did present a forged document. But according to Dawat History, the strongest argument against his false claim is that he accepted the Daiship of Syedna Dawood RA for 3 years, gave Mubarakbadis and even wrote Qasidas in his shaan. This sounds very familiar, as Khuzaima did accept the Nass on Syedna Mufaddal TUS for 3 years as well. (Refer to Reason #8 below).
-
If they would like to draw a parallel with history: Laeen Majdu was delusional and claimed that The Imam had spoken to him directly and secretly. Similarly Khuzaima is delusional to claim that Syedna Burhanuddin RA did Nass on him privately without any witnesses. (Interesting fact: Laeen Majdu made his false claim during the era of the 40th Dai Syedna Hebatullah RA. Syedna Hebatullah’s RA wiladat was on the 16th of Rabi al Awwal 1125H, the same day as Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s RA demise. History does repeat itself. One delusional Majdu, and the second a delusional Khuzaima.)
They allege that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA was being forced and attended many gatherings against his own will.
-
If the Dawat was under ‘siege’, and Syedna RA was being oppressed, as Khuzaima claims, why didn’t he come to the rescue of his Moula? (See Reason #42 for more details). If the entire Dawat has been led to believe that Syedna was doing these acts on his own accord, with his own free will and they were UNAWARE of Moula’s troubles, and Khuzaima and his folk were the only ones who knew otherwise, who knew the TRUTH, that Moula, na’uwzobillah, was being used and hijacked, that he was in pain and discomfort, it was their OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY, not only as an alleged mansoos, but as even a Mumin, to rectify the situation and come to the aid of their Moula no matter what obstacles were in their way and no matter what the perceived consequences on his person or property. What Mumin would knowingly watch what he claims was torture, hijacking, and abuse of their Moula? On top of this, Khuzaima has the audacity to say that it was he who was doing sabr?
-
They refer to this video posted on the FatemiDawat site, trying to prove that Syedna was being forced to do ishara (gesture) of the Shahadat Sajda on Ashura day. This video actually works against their claim. It is evident in the video that Syedna Mufaddal TUS is gently trying to aid Syedna Burhanuddin RA in doing this amal, but as soon as Syedna does ishara with his hand, Syedna Mufaddal TUS stops. This is proof enough that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA was not forced against his own will.
Bazat Tahera and Husain claim that Dawat history is proof that many children and grandchildren of the Imams and Duats have rebelled against the Dawat. For example, during the era of Syedna AbduQadir Najmuddin (47th Dai), there were many munafiqeen that were in certain positions in the Dawat.
-
This is true. There have been many instances like this. A perfect example of an ‘enemy from within’ and rebelling against the Dawat is Khuzaima himself. Just as there have been children who have done fitnat, there have been in many cases brothers as well, example Zayd & Nizar,
- Analysing the case of Syedna Abdul Qadir Najmuddin’s RA time. Undoubtedly, there were munafiqeen from within, but what Tahera Qutbuddin fails to mention is, that during this critical time, Syedna Abdul Qadir Najmuddin’s Mansoos, Syedna Abdul Husain Husamuddin RA and other Mukliseen Hudood were always by his side. Khuzaima and his clan here suggest that EVERY SINGLE LAST PERSON abandoned the Dai, Haqq na saheb? Such an occasion has never happened in the history of Dawat. With Amirul Mumineen, Imam Husain, Syedna Dawood b. Qutubshah, in all of these instances, there were Hudood who remained at the side of Moula, the foremost being the mansoos himself. Haqq na sahib was never alone and his mansoos was at his side. Where was Khuzaima during the last three decades and most importantly, the last three years of Moula’s life?
53 Reasons NOT To Believe Khuzaima Qutbuddin 
aa jadugaro na saanpo ne, ilm ane baraheen ni asaa si je shaan si aap maari ne galib kari rahya cho, ehna waste khuda apne afzalul jaza aape
I had known both our Maula TUS. And the Dawedaar. Very closely. Mufaddal maula TUS was humble compassionate caring loving all mumineen at the tender age of 10. But Dawrdaar was 7 years older was arrogant proud aggressive wanted his way in every thing. And felt that his word was the last word in what ever he said. He was supported by his partner in life fully and even sometimes overruled by hispartner in many decesions he made in life. I gave him a ziafat when he visited pune many years ago. And I interacted with his partner as she was my near cousin. The stories related to me by his partner were indicative that he was the next in line. This was may be 18 years back. But at that time I did not take it seriously. As mass had not been announced openly. But he and his family always believed that he was the next in line. He was definitely misled, influenced, by his own people close to him. But the shocking thing is , how did he believe them. And most importantly why did he keep away from our Maula RA for 30 years. Not caring for his health and well being . the same angel who he admits called him my dear son.