Reason #80: (Position of the Mazoon – Post 2) – Mazoon in Ehd al-Awliyaa’
When speaking of the mazoon’s virtues, the Qutbuddins’ first port of call is to incorrectly emphasise his infallible, unerring stature as substantiated by the meethaq. They claim that since KQ’s name featured in the meethaq, it was an indication of his trustworthiness, his noble character and that a Mumin was bound to his ta’at and obedience.
The text of Ehd al-Awliyaa’ (meethaq) states that:
When the Imam is in seclusion, his dawat continues through three positions. What are these three positions? Dai Mutlaq and subordinate to him (ehna zeyre dast) the Mazoon and the Mukaasir.
The Ehd al-Awliyaa’ is clear that the Imam’s Dawat in satr continues through the existence of these three positions. The Dai Mutlaq is the bearer of all three positions and if he sees fit he may assign the other two positions to whomever he chooses, and relieve them of it as he wishes. To this effect, Syedna Burhanuddin RA has repeatedly emphasised that the Dai’s position encompasses the positions of Mazoon and Mukasir. In one such bayaan in the second majlis of the 1413H Asharah Mubarakah, he states:
How great is his (the Dai) stature! The position of Dai will protect Dawat during the period of satr (seclusion) for 900 years. Rasulullah encompasses this position. Subordinate to and below the Dai are the Mazoon and the Mukasir. The Dai is both Mazoon and Mukasir.
The text of Ehd al-Awliyaa’ further mentions:
…Today in the rutbah of Dawat is….and in the position of mazoon is….and in the position of mukaasir is……Affirm these matters and these three positions and say na’am.
Here, the reciter of the Ehd al-Awliyaa’ informs Mumineen the names of those appointed by the Dai Mutlaq as his Mazoon and Mukasir. He then asks them to affirm these three positions, “to aa sagla umoor no ane teene maratib no iqraar karo ane kaho na’am”. The iqraar and the qasam are for the maratib, the positions. All throughout the remainder of the text, there is no reference to the mazoon or mukasir; it is only to the Imam and his Dai. ‘Imam ane Imam na Dai’.
Khuzaima and his sons (and daughters) equate his name in the meethaq with the notion that the Dai trusted him absolutely and that the Dai ordered Mumineen to do his ta’at and khidmat. Nowhere does the Ehd al-Awliyaa’ state that the persons appointed to the positions of mazoon and mukasir are of unquestionable integrity or that they have the full trust of the Dai Mutlaq, or that they cannot err. Nowhere is it mentioned that Mumineen are to pledge their allegiance to the mazoon or mukasir. A Mumin’s allegiance is only to the Imam and his Dai which is why when we present our hands for safqat as the ultimate seal to the covenant, the phrase that is uttered by the Dai and those with his raza names the Imam and Dai alone, not the mazoon or the mukasir:
You have heard what I have said and have accepted the conditions I have made. I bind you to Allah’s oath and covenant. This oath is for the 21st Imam, Moulana al-Imam al-Tayyib Abul Qasim Amirul Mumineen and for his Dai and representative, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin. Admit to this condition and say na’am. May Allah make it (the oath) permanent and steadfast. By his grace and benevolence, may he ensure that is not temporary.
Surely, if the mazoon was combined in the allegiance proffered to the Dai, his name would feature here as well?
And what of the mukasir? If KQ’s name was present in the meethaq for so many years, and that means he must be obeyed and trusted, the same applies to Syedi Mukasir Saheb Husain Bhaisaheb Husamuddin. It is clear then that the meethaq is an oath of allegiance to the Imam’s Dai, not to anyone else.
Apart from using the context of the meethaq to support their incorrect conclusions, the Qutbuddins resort to validating their beliefs by providing examples of past mawazeen and drawing parallels to their situations and actions. More often than not, these parallels are misrepresentations or half truths at best. The following posts sheds light on some of these instances.