53 Reasons NOT To Believe Khuzaima Qutbuddin

I will be the first to say that Husain Qutbuddin (HQ) and his siblings are intelligent. This is why their ignorance of select aspects of Dawat texts is all the more striking. Despite claims of Ilme Aale Mohammed ^SA and worldly knowledge, they fail to understand the most fundamental of Dawat principles, to recognise relevant precedents in Dawat history, and to comprehend simple reasoning and logic. This indicates that their abandoning of haqq has in turn led to Dawat texts and intellect abandoning them.

Like much of the ‘philosophy’ page of the FatemiDawat.com site, HQ’s accusations are plagiarised from the forums of those that call themselves ‘Progressives’. That HQ and a group of people who have spent their lives ridiculing and loathing the Dai and Dawat would see eye to eye is of little surprise. Inspired by them, (in reference to Syedna Mufaddal’s nass bayaan) HQ claims that omitting the specific date in which an important event occurred is evidence that the event is fabricated. He in turn indicates that the historical document referred to in this event is also false; fallacious thinking indeed. Let us highlight the immaturity and lack of understanding such an accusation reflects:

• Previous Doat Mutlaqeen ^RA have described the instances of nass upon them in a similar manner without explicitly mentioning a date. Syedna Tayyib Zainuddin ^RA has described the nass conferred upon him by Syedna Mohammed Ezzuddin ^RA in his own words. He speaks of a letter, one in which Syedna appoints him as his mansoos. This letter was written during the time of one of the plagues that afflicted Surat. He says:

Wa lamma kaana fi b´ad al-layaali. And one night, Syedna’s (Syedna Mohammed Ezzuddin ^RA) lofty health changed [for the worse]. He was afflicted so severely that he was unable to sleep the entire night. In the morning, however, he felt slightly better. He called me to his side and spoke of his illness and the night’s happenings. He then said, “A life that can be counted by [the number of] breaths is something that the intelligent should not hold faith in.”

Syedna Mohammed Ezzuddin ^RA then goes on to inform Syedna Tayyib Zainuddin ^RA that he has authored a document in which he has named him as his mansoos and has placed this document in a basket which he then pointed towards. Syedna Mohammed Ezzuddin ^RA then began speaking about something else.

This is the manner by which Syedna Tayyib Zainuddin ^RA describes the incident in which he first learns of the nass upon him: ‘and one night’.

If HQ believes that the narration of nass communicated by Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin ^TUS is susceptible to doubt, then he also doubts the nass narration given by Syedna Zainuddin ^RA.

• In this same letter, Syedna Tayyib Zainuddin ^RA describes the second incident in which Syedna Mohammed Ezzuddin ^RA informs him that he has appointed him as his mansoos. He states:

And on the 15th of Shehrullah, Friday, Syedna Mohammed Ezzuddin ^RA called me to his honourable presence. I arrived, and sat before him as instructed. He picked up a document in front of him, and after looking through it for a while and moving his lips as if saying something, he handed it to me. He then said, “I by the ilhaam of Allah and the ilhaam of His Wali, upon him salaam, am giving you this document; read it.”

Syedna Zainuddin ^RA goes on to describe how this kitaab was the kitaab of nass upon him. It is interesting, nay providential, to mark that the manner by which Syedna Ezzuddin ^RA informs Syedna Zainuddin ^RA of his nass upon him, mirrors the manner in which Syedna Burhanuddin ^RA informed Syedna Saifuddin ^TUS of the same.

• If the evidence regarding the nass upon Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin ^TUS was fabricated, or as HQ states, made up only a few days before it was released, it would only be logical that a date be included. Contrary to what HQ claims, there would have been no way for anyone to verify whether or not a private conversation took place between Syedna Burhanuddin ^RA and one of his sons on a specific date, following verification that Syedna al-Muqaddas ^RA was in Mumbai on the said date. HQ should know this; his father’s entire claim to the mantle of Dawat rests on a ‘private conversation’.
• If an individual was asked where he was and what he was doing on a random date, like July 27th, 2012, more than likely he would have difficulty remembering. However, if he was asked what he was doing on the day of the opening ceremony of the London Olympics, there is a better chance that he would be able to recall his location and actions. Events are normally described and recollected more through context then dates.

Syedna Saifuddin ^TUS helped his audience contextualize this significant event by providing the following details: (1) This event took place 4 or 5 years ago, (2) Moulana Burhanuddin ^RA na mizaaj mubarak par giraani thi, (3) work was being carried out in the khazaanah, (4) the document was kept in Saifee Mahal in Syedna Taher Saifuddin’s ^RA room, in a teak cupboard, along with other private possessions and (5) only Syedna Burhanuddin ^RA could access it.

The above contextualisation would place this event as having taken place in either 1430 H or 1431 H. However, out of these two years Maula na mizaaj mubarak par giraani was in 1430 H, which was the one year in which he did not make a public appearance on the occasion of his Milad Mubarak. Reference to the khazaanah (Moula’s personal library) narrows down the period in question to the couple of months when work was going on in the khazaanah in Saify Mahal.

• Questioning the event during which someone learns of the existence of an historical document does not negate the existence of said document. The fact remains, that the document exists and its age and authenticity can be ascertained very easily. HQ’s attempt to deny the fact that this event ever took place by insisting upon a date indicates the desperate levels to which they have fallen to in their attempts to cast doubt on the authenticity of a document they never knew existed, and have now dismissed without examination.
• Caught off-guard by the existence of the nass document, KQ on the 4th of Rabi al-Akhar adds to his fabrications by claiming that Syedna Burhanuddin ^RA reiterated nass upon him multiple times even after 1388 H. He says “ehna pachi to mane Moulana ye haji kitni waar farmayu che ke mara waaris tame cho’’ (Moulana has repeatedly told me [after 1388] that I am his successor.

It is strange that in all of his official statements and bayaans he never mentions these other incidents of nass, until he learned of the existence of this nass document. If he remembers his so-called nass from 50 years ago so well, why hasn’t he shared these other instances with the community which would have occurred in more recent memory? Isn’t he concerned about strengthening our conviction regarding his claim?

• HQ should not get too caught up in dates. In his 4th Rabi al-Akhar YouTube bayaan, his father insists that it has been 21 days since the wafaat of Syedna Burhanuddin ^RA and parades this as being a ‘blessed coincidence’. In actuality, there had been only 19 days between the wafaat of Syedna Burhanuddin ^RA and Imam al-Zaman’s ^AS Milad Mubarak. KQ either believes he was telling the truth or that he was lying. If he believes it was the truth, then he and his children, despite their PhDs, cannot do simple arithmetic. If he was lying, then as HQ clearly states, a liar cannot be Dai.