Reason #84: (Position of the Mazoon – Post 6) – What Really Happened in 1409H

Their website states:

What happened in Africa in 1409H [1988]? Why did Syedna Burhanuddin RA say in wa’az that Husain Heptullah was not the one who had attempted Qutbuddin Mola’s deportation from Kenya?

In 1409H, Syedna Burhanuddin sent Qutbuddin Mola for Ashara mubaraka waaz to Mombasa. During his stay in Kenya, someone filed a complaint with the Kenya government requesting that Qutbuddin Mola be deported. Kenya government officials sent an official letter to Qutbuddin Mola naming Husain and Saifuddin Heptullah as the people who had filed the complaint against him. In Nairobi, Qutbuddin Mola met with President Moi of Kenya, who also personally named to him the Heptullah brothers as the complaint-filers. Qutbuddin Mola, knowing the Heptullahs’ position in the Dawat administration in Africa, chose NOT to name them in public. But Husain Heptullah went to Burhanuddin Mola in Burhanpur (where the eminent Mazoon Syedi Abdulqadir Hakimuddin is buried) and swore that he and his brother were innocent – before anyone had accused them of anything. Shehzada Mufaddal bhaisaheb immediately accepted their oath—with no other evidence, and without listening to Qutbuddin Mola’s side of the story—with the ‘logic’ that if they had been lying while swearing on Hakimuddin Mola’s qabar “they would have been struck down by lightning.”

Burhanuddin Mola later said to Qutbuddin Mola regarding this attempted deportation, that “such a thing could have only been done by Dawat na dushman”—Burhanuddin Mola thus affirmed that whoever did make the deportation attempt was Dawat no dushman.

Burhanuddin Mola did faislo on that basis, and said he was closing the matter. Qutbuddin Mola accepted Burhanuddin Mola’s decision to close the matter, and has NEVER spoken of it until today, when he has to do so in order to defend Burhanuddin Mola’s Dawat. Despite the evidence he had been presented with, Qutbuddin Mola even went to the Heptullah’s home for ziyafat in Nairobi after the ‘faislo’ was given in Burhanpur—this is sure proof of Qutbuddin Mola’s deep ikhlaas.

Even though he had been the victim in the affair, Qutbuddin Mola was made out by the shehzadas to be the perpetrator. Their best defense was an offense.

Regarding giving false witness, Rasulullah SA has said: If you obtain from me a wrong judgment/faisla in your favor by giving false witness, then know that I am giving you a seat in hellfire (Bayaan from the Rasail Ikhwan us Safa of Imam Ahmad al-Mastoor).

In another example, some people falsely accused a man of stealing, and Rasulullah SA ordered ehna haath kaapwanu, and the punishment was carried out. The accused began to pray salawaat on Rasulullah SA. Jibraeel came to Rasulullah SA and said to him, this man is innocent. Rasulullah called him back and shifa boli, doa kidhi, and mojiza si joined his hands again.

The Africa episode sits as a deep thorn in Khuzaima and his family. It is so deeply imbedded that despite their desperate efforts to erase it from the minds of Mumineen, they have only succeeded in rooting it further.

The following is the accurate account of what transpired, based on the testimonies of those who were present in Africa at the time, Shehzadas, Qasreali Sahebo, khidmatguzars and most significantly, it is based on the unambiguous bayaan mubarak of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA.

The tale of Africa actually begins in 1407H when Khuzaima visited Kenya. When he visited Nairobi, a submission was made by the Amil and Jamaat that there were approximately sixty munafeqeen who now wished to re-enter into misaaq. Those who are familiar with the history of Africa will note that the 1970s and early 1980s saw a period of cleansing for the community, which lead to a clear division between those who believed and those who didn’t. Khuzaima intended to take their misaq. However, Sh Hussain bhai Hebatullah raised the point that the correct procedure – as outlined in the instructions received from Vazarat – for re-accepting such individuals into Dawat, required that these names be submitted to Huzurala RA first and only once they had been approved, could their misaq be taken. Khuzaima interpreted this as an assault on his authority and tore up the list of names.

Consequently the Amil (Dawood bs) and Sh Hussain bhai accompanied Khuzaima in the car. Sh Hussain bhai attempted to clarify his reasons for objecting of the misaq. As the conversation continued, Khuzaima – as witnessed by two witnesses who are still alive today – proceeded to compare and contrast the policies of Syedna Taher Saifuddin and Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. Both the witnesses who participated in this conversation, outline what he said.

He explicitly mentioned that Syedna Taher Saifuddin was far more lenient and tolerant of the dissidents in Dawat, whereas Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin was intolerant and hardlined in the way he handled munafeqeen. He went on to cite examples such as the case of the ‘Naa’ib’ in Yemen, the ‘Manaahis’ in Jamea, the dissidents in Udaipur and the case of ‘Ghorawala’ in Colombo. In all instances, he claimed that when Syedna Taher Saifuddin had let them be, why did Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin expose them and excommunicate them? He then said that Burhanuddin Moula was by nature, unkind and drove people away, rather than bringing them closer. The conversation lasted for over an hour and the witnesses recall being in utter shock at what was being revealed.

In that same year, Moula conducted the shaadi of his youngest son, Shahzada Ammar Bhaisaheb in Surat. Khuzaima was not very keen to go but Sh Hussain bhai was. Despite resistance from Khuzaima to leave Nairobi for Surat, Sh Hussain bhai managed to leave for Surat. It was there that he met with Shahzada Yusuf bhaisaheb Najmuddin and divulged the points of the conversation. He redirected him to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin who reported the case to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. As per the Ilhaam of Imam ul Zaman, Moula decided to not reveal anything.

During this time, Khuzaima had assumed that Sh Hussain bhai had become an ally and had been enticed into his circle. However, as two years passed with no forthcoming communication from Sh Hussain bhai, Khuzaima realised that he had erred in divulging his true guise. As a result, he began a personal vendetta against Sh Hussain bhai.

Khuzaima did lead Ashara in Mombasa in 1409H. As he travelled around East Africa, his entourage which consisted of his family and diwaans, sort to idealise him as the 53rd Dai. Both Sh Mohammed Yamani and Sh Shabbir Yamani who were in his service at the time, attest to this fact. Obviously, this was met with disdain by mumineen mukhleseen but they refrained from openly confronting him.

During this time, a forged document was prepared which carried the Kenyan government’s letterhead which alleged that Sh Hussain Hebatullah was responsible for filing a deportation request for Khuzaima. It was evidently a forged document as all the past correspondence between official authorities and Sh Hussain bhai, addressed him as “HA Hebatullah” whereas this document referred to him as “Sh Hussain Hebatullah”.

There have been a number of suspicions as to who was responsible for this forgery. However, Khuzaima himself has remained the prime suspect as he had motive to frame and defame Sh Hussain bhai.

The website claims that during this time Khuzaima met with the then president of Kenya, President Moi at an official function, and the president personally informed him that Sh Hussain bhai was responsible for filing the deportation request. A senior Kenyan judge who was present at the event, testified that all that Khuzaima got from the president was a muted wave from afar. There was no meeting or conversation that took place in which the president could have said anything to Khuzaima.

A number of things happened, but I just want to focus on the salient events in this narrative. Eventually this matter was presented to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. Sh Hussain bhai travelled to Burhanpur where Moula was at the time and through the intercession of Busaheba, he and his brother were granted an audience with Moula. Sh Hussain bhai pleaded his innocence and humbly stated that he had absolutely no part to play in trying to deport Khuzaima. In fact, in 1409H it was Sh Hussain bhai who had sought to prevent the deportation of Khuzaima from Africa.

The website claims that Sh Hussain went to Burhanpur ‘before anyone had accused them of anything’. This is simply not true. Sh Hussain bhai was ostracised, marginalised and practically excommunicated by Khuzaima. Khuzaima called an audience at Sh Fidaali Hebatullah’s house and announced that “I sit here on the same chair that my father sat in and excommunicated munafaqeen. Today I am excommunicating these people” – and he indicated to Sh Hussain bhai and those with them. Sh Hussain bhai was compelled by the circumstances which Khuzaima had brought about to go to Moula. As Moula said in his 1409H bayaan: “[Sh Hussain] Maara nazdeek shikayat keedi, Haqiqat bayaan keedu, mei shakwa nahi sunu to pachi kon sunse?!”

Moula listened to him for 45 minutes, and through the Ilhaam of Imam ul Zaman, he declared that Sh Hussain bhai was innocent. The website claims that ‘Shehzada Mufaddal bs’ declared him innocent; this is a blatant disregard of Moula’s bayaan. The 52nd Dai Mutlaq, equipped with the powers given to him by Imam ul Zaman, proclaimed Sh Hussain bhai was innocent and exonerated him from any involvement in the matter; no one else.  

Moula had then travelled to London where Khuzaima had brought this forged document to present. However Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin had made it very clear to him that he had already done ‘fasal’ and he would not entertain any further presentations. Khuzaima was infuriated that Moula had dismissed him and as witnesses to this confrontation relate, Khuzaima said that “even if Sh Hussain were to hold the cloth of Baitullah and swear that he had no part to play in this, I will not believe him.” In saying this, Khuzaima essentially does not believe the Dai’s word and does not accept his verdict.

After all that transpired, Moula left for Nairobi and on the Urus of Syedi Abdulqadir Hakimuddin made it very clear in his bayaan mubarak what had transpired, what Khuzaima thought and did and what Moula’s decision, as Dai Mutlaq, was. This bayaan mubarak was relayed to mumineen worldwide several days after Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s wafaat. A translation of the aforementioned bayaan can be referred to at the end of this post.

Transalation of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s bayaan mubarak on Urus of Syedi Abdulqadir Hakimuddin QA in Nairobi in 1409H:

“Jealousy destroys a person, eating him up inside. It is especially abhorrent that a Mumin would be jealous of another brother Mumin. Eventually jealousy will lead to enmity and the jealous finally bear the brunt of their actions and realise that their jealousy harmed them most of all.

An example of this jealousy and enmity in practice was recently witnessed in Kenya. Enemies of Dawat in their jealousy and spite falsely slandered a devoted, honest and innocent Mumin bhai and his family. They falsely accused him in instigating the deportation of Khuzaima and have continuously vilified this Mumin bhai and have not only deeply hurt him but have hurt me in the process as well.

This was indeed a new ploy of Satan and his followers when they saw that all their previous attempts at corrupting Mumineen have failed. Nairobi has proved to be an exemplary jamaat in implementing my directives and fulfilling my wishes. Their adherence to the principles of Shariah, their unity and strength has led them to warrant emulation.

To corrupt Mumineen, to lead them away from the path of the Shariah, to hamper them in following my instructions, to question the validity of my Dawat and my actions, they created an atmosphere of doubt and intrigue so that even Bhai Qutbuddin succumbed to their manoeuvrings, and he believed wholeheartedly that a certain khidmat guzar from the aayaan al-jamaat was acting against him.

When Husain Bhai Hebatullah could no longer bear the weight of these false accusations and constant slander that accompanied them, he journeyed to my hadrat in Burhanpur, and swore before me upon everything sacred, upon the saahib of Burhanpur that he was innocent from any wrongdoing, innocent from any overt or covert attempt to bring about the deportation of Bhai Qutbuddin.

I believed Husain bhai and I unequivocally declared that he and his entire family are innocent of these accusations. I accepted his diyafat, honoured him with a shawl and prayed for his wellbeing.

After having done all this and after all that has transpired till now, if someone still doubts whether Husain bhai may have lied to me and was subsequently pardoned [even though he lied], then it is tantamount to having doubt in my accuracy and the appropriateness of my actions. This stands true regardless of the rank and station of the person harbouring doubt.

A false document was prepared which allegedly involved senior officers of Government.

Regarding aqeedah and the core tenets of our faith, another concurrent assault was launched in Nairobi, Mombasa and Malindi. Personal resolutions were signed which went against our beliefs, and against the nahj of Dawat. Some Mumineen fell prey to this ruse as well and subsequently had to renew their vows, their meethaq.

It should be remembered that hudood, dignitaries of Dawat receive their “faiz” through and only through the auspices of the Dai. He regulates this faiz and distributes it amongst them as he sees fit. In our mithaq we pledge our allegiance to our Dai and affirm that the maazoon and muksasir are below him in rank, submitting to his jurisdiction.

May our faith continuously strengthen by repeatedly voicing na’am, saying yes with conviction in the mithaq, and may the transgressions of those embodying the essence of repentance be forgiven.”

2 comments

  • Mohammed Mulla Saifuddin Rangoonwala

    Hakimuddin Moula was not only a maazoon but a wali, a hakim and a Ha’kim par excellence for whom doaat kiram and even angeles have nothing to do but wonder, Only khuzaima is there to wonder for his own self!!To eulogise one’s own self sounds ridiculous,and theatrical. The ethics of walayat are in a state of shame for such a ‘ba’til parast’ maazoon. He seems to have forgotten what Al Quran says : Qul ja’ahal haqqo wazaheqal ba’telo innal ba’tela kana zahooqa.

  • Amate Sayedna Muffadal Saifuddin TUS

    Even if events were to take place as he said, the fact that Moula RA took Muffadal Moula’s TUS shahadat should speak to the fact of how much Moula RA trusted Muffadal Moula TUS, even over him. (if it happened like he said it did). Even his created story works against him – he says that Moula RA trusted him by appointing him mazoon, but even in his made up story he tells the world that Moula RA trusted Muffadal Moula TUS over him. How ironic.

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