53 Reasons NOT To Believe Khuzaima Qutbuddin

When Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin announced his judgement, he sealed the fate of those who had an issue with it. On the website they clearly state:

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.

The words ‘until today’ are a lie. Many people will testify as to how Khuzaima repeatedly referred to the Africa incident. Khuzaima has been harbouring a deep resentment of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s judgement of 1409H for the past 26 years and has taken every opportunity to express that while he festered in this shadows. It has been eating away at him for decades and this bitterness has spilled over in his claim to the seat of Dawat. As the statements of the website show and in the use of quotations for the word ‘faislo’ which Moula himself used, he has made it amply clear that he has never accepted Moula’s fasal.

A loyal and faithful Mazoon would never have a difference of opinion with the Dai, but he clearly did. He says ‘Shehzada Mufaddal Saifuddin….with no other evidence’ accepted Sh Hussain’s version of events. As clarified above, it was Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin who passed judgement. What they are really saying is that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin:

·         Was misinformed as to the correct version of events

·         Failed to give due consideration to both sides

·         Was gullible and impressionable and therefore biased to one side

·         Accepted the testimony of a ‘false witness’

·         Was too hasty in passing judgement

·         Was flawed in his decision making

Thereby:

·         Claiming to be more astute and knowledgeable than Haq na Saheb

·         Claiming to be persecuted by the Dai Mutlaq

·         Disrespecting and disregarding his supreme authority as designated to him by Imam ul Zaman

·         Questioning his ability to discern between a reliable witness and a ‘false’ one

·         Questioning his ability to effectively adjudicate over all matters of Dawat

·         Questioning his capacity to reason and rationalise

·         Questioning his infallibility (Ismat)

·         Confronting him irrespective of his final decision

·         Ultimately disputing Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin as Dai Mutlaq

The ‘Ibn ul Khuwaisara’ of Our Age

History is replete with instances of those who have questioned the judgement of Haq na Saheb. Khuzaima is one in a string of many. Ibn ul Khuwaisara was one such individual. As Rasulullah SA oversaw the distribution of the battle-loot, he defiantly approached Rasulullah SA and said “You have not done justice”. Rasulullah SA responded in kind and said “If I am not just, then who is?!”

How are Khuzaima’s reservations and objection to Moula’s judgement different from that of Ibn ul Khuwaisara? Did not Moula explicitly state that he had unequivocally passed judgement and if anyone opposed it, it was tantamount to questioning his own authority?

‘False Witness’

Khuzaima claims that a ‘false witness’ was presented to Moula and accordingly Moula passed judgement. As has been the case, he capitalises on the ignorance of those who are not fluent in Arabic and manipulates the meaning of a hadeeth to suit his needs. He says:

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).

This is a gross mistranslation of the hadeeth. The hadeeth is as follows:

مَنْ كَذَبَ عَلَيَّ مُتَعَمِّداً فَلْيَتَبَوَّأْ مَقْعَدَهُ مِنَ النَّارِ

The correct translation reads as:

“The individual who misattributes [something] to me, then tell him to take his seat in [hell] fire”

There is absolutely no mention of a ‘false witness’ anywhere in the hadeeth.

What Khuzaima is actually doing is implying that all those who testified to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA were false witnesses whose testimonies were either incorrect or unverified. Furthermore, he implies that

·         only Khuzaima’s testimony and account of what happened should have been heard by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin and

·         Secondly his version should take precedence and should have outweighed all other accounts.

Questioning the Authority of not just the Dai

Khuzaima also refers to the example of the man who was falsely accused of stealing. Rasulullah ordered the severing of his hands at which point it was revealed by divine intervention to Rasulullah that the man was innocent and through a miracle, Rasulullah rejoined his hands.

Khuzaima has failed to understand the subtext of this case. Instead, he is implying that Rasulullah was prone to errors in judgement. This is a gross and unacceptable understanding of Rasulullah’s exalted position. There is ‘hikmat’ in his every action and decision, just as is the case with every Imam and his Dai.

This can be illustrated by a case recorded by Syedna al-Qadi al-Noman in his Majalis Musa’eraat (a documented record of all his observations of three Imams during sessions and excursions with them). Imam Qaim was presented with a case of an accused individual who was falsely testified against. Consequently Imam ordered the execution. Imam Mansoor (his mansoos) knew that the individual was innocent but was not able to stop the execution in time. He informed Imam Qaim accordingly and Imam Qaim instructed Imam Mansur to convey to the witness that he had, on good authority, proof that he had falsely testified. The witness, instead of admitting that he was wrong, sent a message to Imam Qaim, saying that “the person who informed you that I was wrong, should cease to remain a trusted source”. Imam Qaim was furious at this response and said his second response was even more unforgiveable than the first. As:

·         Firstly, the individual in question made a false statement.

·         Secondly, when he was notified by no other than Imam Qaim that the facts proved he gave a false testimony, he rejected the idea.

·         Thirdly, he went as far as to suggest that the informant of Imam Qaim (in this case, his mansoos Imam Mansur) should not remain a trusted source and instead his account be considered accurate.

·         Finally, he questioned the authority of the Imam as one who received the Ilhaam of Allah.

Syedna al Qadi al Noman clarifies further that the reason for the execution of the accused was not that a false testimony was made. In fact, there was another reason (which Imam Qaim was privy to) which justified his execution.

Khuzaima’s actions bear a strong resemblance to this case. He has rejected the testimony of those who were trusted witnesses as recognised by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. He has gone further and implied Moula was falsely led to pass a faulty judgement.

Let us suppose for arguments sake, that someone did present a false testimony to Moula, does it not behove Khuzaima to understand that Imam ul Zaman would have done Ilhaam accordingly and let Moula know? In the case (which Khuzaima refers to) of the one whose hands were severed on order of Rasulullah, it was because of the Faiz of Allah and the assistance of his angels, that Rasulullah came to know of the accused individual’s innocence. Imam ul Zaman would have immediately let Moula know of the truth of the events.

Khuzaima is still convinced till this very day, that Moula was wrong in accepting the testimony of trusted witnesses. In fact, it is this very conviction that testifies to Khuzaima’s resentment, disrespect and outright rejection of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s status as Dai Mutlaq.

The events of Africa in 1409H are true. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s judgement, decision and unequivocal bayaan are proof enough.

No matter how hard he strives to blanket the truth, light will always shine through the darkness.