Sh Hamza Bhai built Qutbi Hall Jamat Khaza in Colombo, Sri Lanka.
At this time, Sh Hamza Bhai did araz that he was struggling financially. Inspite of this, Mr K instructed him to build a Jamat Hall for Niyaaz e Husain AS. By obeying his “farman” Sh Hamza Bhai was blessed with immense wealth, to the extent that on the very next day, someone handed him a huge cheque which summed up to the amount he needed.
This was the solely due to the “barakat” and “Mojiza” of Mr K.
As a family member, Director of the company and a witness, I would like to clarify the falsehood in the above statements.
I do not deny that Mr K initiated the building of the Qutbi Hall.
The Qutbi Hall was not built by Sh Hamza Bhai alone, rather it was funded by the entire company, M.S. Hebtulabhoy & Co, Ltd, and Sh Hamza Bhai played an important role in this khidmat.
At the time, M.S. Hebtulabhoy & Co, Ltd was definitely not struggling financially, they were extremely successful, more so, I can vouch, that with the enormous wealth they had at the time, if they wanted to, they could have built 10 ‘Qutbi Halls’ at the blink of an eye.
The alleged “mojiza of the cheque” is nothing but fabricated lies. Neither he, nor the company received any such large amounted cheque.
For arguments sake, IF this Mojiza was true, as mentioned in the article, the hall was built to feed mumineen in the name of Imam Husain AS. How can Mr K claim that this was his Mojiza? When in fact his belief and ikhlaas (if he had any) deems he should have immediately attributed it to the shaan of Imam Husain’s Dai, or at least Imam Husain AS himself, instead of basking in the glory of his own ego.
It is the belief and tradition of any khidmat guzaar, to always attribute (mansoob) any of his successful endeavours in khidmat or life to his Moula, and be grateful to have been given a chance, if not worthy of his khidmat. This is the tasawwur of an adna mumin. It is sad to see that Mr K having been in the lofty position of the Mazoon failed to understand this.
On another note, if Mr K is very eager to be a part of our success story, then he must take part in its tragedy as well, because a few years later, the company suffered a massive loss and went bankrupt.
It seems that Mr K is getting desperate to win the hearts of the people that he has resulted in making up stories wishing that his falsehood will not be exposed.
This is just one example that I am personally aware of, thus, it is possible that many of the stories posted on their site are fabricated as well.
Khuzaima Qubtuddin is worried. He is worried that the truth regarding his animosity and disregard of Syedna Burhanuddin RA is becoming clearer and clearer as each day goes by. His ‘official’ dawat site, FatemiDawat.com created a page of the so-called ‘nazaraat’ of Syedna Burhanuddin RA upon him is evidence of this fear and damage control for the truth that is spreading throughout the community.
First of all, that a Dai’s mazoon would have to give evidence that the Dai did indeed bless him with nazaraat is odd. Such a thing should not require videos and photographs; it should be obvious to all Mumineen. Secondly, the evidence that they have provided so far of the Dai’s nazaraat upon the Mazoon is something that many other sahebo, not to mention normal Mumineen, can boast as well. The so-called special nazaraat upon him can be categorized as: ziyafats, appreciation shown by the Dai in public discourse, and a mu’anaqah (to embrace) sharaf after the 100mi Milad Mubarak wa’az.
Syedna Burhanuddin RA, like his father Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA, had given countless Mumineen the sharaf of ziyafat. Yes, this is indeed a great honor that the Dai bestows upon Mumineen. But that is the point; a ziyafat sharaf is not limited to those who are destined to become the Dai and is an honor that all Mumineen share. The FatemiDawat site attempts to highlight Khuzaima’s ziyafat in 1402 as being unique because of his efforts in bringing a boat to Saifee Mahal as a part of the decorations. When being honored with the ziyafat of the Dai al-Zaman, there is nothing remarkable about a Mumin going to great lengths for the ziyafat tazyeen; it is expected. The site also highlights his efforts in composing qasidahs and delivering a speech both of which are not unique to his ziyafat.
In his alleged nass evidence section, KQ indicates that him being the only individual blessed with a ziyafat during the 100mi Milad Mubarak is indicative of nass upon him. There are a couple of obvious problems with this assumption:
Firstly, his ziyafat was not ‘on Syedna’s 100th Milad’. It was not even during the same week as Milad; in fact, it was not even during the same month. Moulana Burhanddin RA gave KQ the honor of ziyafat 14 days after milad mubarak on the 4th of Jumadil Ula, 1432H. This ziyafat took place in Saifee Mahal once Moula had returned from his stay at his residence adjacent to Saifee Masjid during the days of the 100mi Milad Mubarak celebrations.
Secondly, his was not the ‘only individual ziyafat’. Six days later, on the day of Moulatona Fatema’s shahaadat (a day that can be argued as much more auspicious than the 4th of Jumadil Ula), another Mumin bhai was granted individual ziyafat sharaf by Syedna Buhanuddin RA. How does KQ consider his ziyafat on the 100th Milad occasion and not this Mumin Bhai’s?
What’s most telling of the manipulation, decontextualization and selective reading of the KQ site is the latest video they have posted in the nazaraat section. I find it almost amusing that they would use the video of the mu’anaqah sharaf KQ received as an example of Syedna Burhanuddin’s RA makhsoos nazaraat upon him. First of all, Syedna Burhanuddin RA gave sharaf of mu’anqah to ALL the shahzadahs present that day in the wa’az mubarak. The way the FatemiDawat site refers to this event, it is as if they wish to inform their readers that it was only KQ who received this honor.
Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS doing Mua’naqah after the 100mi Milad Waaz 1432H.
Secondly, they misquote Syedna Burhanuddin RA. With quotation marks indicating this to be an exact statement, they claim that Moula said ‘Tamne sagla ne mein Muʿanaqo karu chhu’ (‘I embrace each and every one of you’). Moula’s actual words were:
Today, it is my niyyat (intent), that I may do mu’anaqah of each you, it is my wish that I may embrace all Mumineen.
Some may argue that it is the same sentiment and this line of argument is trivial. They miss the the point. The point is that they freely attribute words and statements to Moula without verifying their accuracy. Not only is that unethical, but when it comes to Moula, such an act is a sin. If KQ and his kin can blatantly misquote Moula and portray to their readers that KQ’s sajdah and reaction to Moula’s statement resulted in Moula singling out KQ and honoring him with mu’anaqah, then how can anything else they claim or say be trusted? If they can misquote Moula’s words from a wa’az mubarak delivered only three years ago whose entire text is publicly available, how can anyone trust what they claim Moula said to KQ in private, 50 years ago with no witnesses. If they are willing to narrate only selective moments, purposefully disregarding others, from an event that was televised globally and witnessed by every single Mumin only a few years ago, how can anyone believe that their narrations of events from Dawat’s history or even KQ’s own history are complete, accurate and the ‘whole’ truth? KQ and his kin have at every stage manipulated Dawat texts, Dawat history, and even the words and actions of Syedna Burhanuddin in order to support their concocted narrative. This video gives evidence of this truth; not of any special nazaraat.
The Dai’s nazaraat reach Mumin and foe alike. His nazaraat towards Mumineen bless them with prosperity in both deen and dunya. His nazaraat upon his foes and those that would wish Mumineen harm, render their schemes and plans to create fasaad among mumineen futile and ineffective. Syedna Ali b. Moula Mohammed al-Waleed RA states:
By the benevolence of Allah Ta’ala, the nazaraat of [Dawat] dignitaries (hudood) erase the evil designs carried out by the hands of enemies [of Dawat].
Yes, Syedna Burhanuddin RA did have nazaraat upon KQ; nazaraat that rendered futile all of KQ’s attempts to sow seeds of enmity for Dawat and Dai in the hearts of Mumineen
Many people are receiving emails from the following two email addresses requesting Mumineen to visit their sites.
These domains then automatically redirect the viewer to this site, (http://BelieveSyednaQutbuddin.com), also known as the “53 Reasons site”.
Although I am truly grateful to these individuals for their aid in increasing the viewers and spreading the message of this site, I wish to clarify that my site is a personal initiative and has no connection with these other sites or any official institution.
Please continue to visit this site (directly, or through their domain).
On hearing the shocking news of sudden the demise of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, mumineen from around the world instantly flocked to Mumbai in the thousands. Business owners, Employees, Doctors, Teachers and other professionals dropped everything at a blink of an eye. Elderly people, and those suffering from various illnesses ignored their own selves for that instant. They were driven by the love of The Late Syedna RA, and with a fervent hope of participating in the funeral, janazah namaaz, dafan and Taziyat, come what may.
Amoungst those who made it were those from Syedna’s RA own family. Many were in England and USA at the time and made it to Mumbai in a few hours.
The news of Syedna’s demise spread around 12pm IST on Friday 17th January 2014. Many from the USA booked tickets and traveled instantly catching random connecting flights, and reached Mumbai within 24 hours (some even missed the burial). Khuzaima Qutbuddin made his statement public within 24 hours, around Saturday 18th January 2014. He sent a letter to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS and Syedi Mukasir Bhai Saheb stating his demands.
It is interesting to note that Khuzaima Qutbuddin’s own children including his learned daughter Bazat Tahera Qutbuddin and Taher Qutbuddin, whom were both in USA at the time, did not travel to Mumbai.
Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin lead the Namaz around 24 hours later, surely they couldn’t have known what the future held for them. If they hoped their father’s demands would be met they should have at least started their journey from USA to Mumbai as soon as they received the sad news. Even if they knew they would be ‘deprived’ of their ‘rights’, they could have been in Mumbai and continuously tried their best to make it happen. As a father and supposed Mansoos, Khuzaima Qutbuddin should have forced his children to be present at this heart breaking time. Did he not think it was necessary? Did they not love Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA enough? Is this what a ‘mother’ wishes at their ‘father’s’ funeral? Were they not drawn by the love and memory of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, just like others from Syedna’s family were? Did they not wish to be present at the namaaz and dafan? Even if they couldn’t reach in time, did they not at least want to do ziyarat of their beloved Moula RA, and participate in taziyat and Khatm al Quran majaalis (as many who were aware they would miss the Janazahtravelled despite knowing this)?
This is the least a family member would do let alone one who claims that his/her own father is the heir and successor. What could be their excuse? Surely it would not be financial constraints.
Furthermore, a MS Word document named “White Paper Talking Points-1” was made viral through emails. This document was written by Tahera Qutbuddin in favour of Khuzaima Qutbuddin’s claim. From the below screen shot of the document’s properties, it is clear that Tahera Qutbuddin created this document on 17 January 2014 at 12:55pm (it is most probably 12:55pm in USA; Time Zone unknown) and completed it on the 18th of January 2014.
She was more busy in writing this document and spread her fitnat, than traveling to Mumbai to attend the funeral. What is the point of writing Marasiyas of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA when you never loved him or were there for him? Was this just a marketing stunt?
The only obvious conclusion to their absence is:
Just as they were never there for Syedna RA during His lifetime, they ignored him and continue to do so after his demise. More so, by being present in USA, they were more concerned on spreading their fitnat and consolidating their weak power. This is the only reason they, and most of their followers never traveled to Mumbai.
Khuzaima Qutbuddin and his son, Husain Qutbuddin claim that behurmati was done to Janazah Mubarakah of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, and his absence during the Janazah namaaz and dafan was justified.
I have discussed and refuted each of these points in multiple posts. Please view them from the following links.
The Janazah Mubarak of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA
Post 9 – The janazah mubarakah reached Saifee Masjid.
KQ claims that he could not have attended the janazah mubarakah namaz because it was his right to lead namaaz. If he wanted he could have even managed to do that.
Would a hungama have occurred if he had stood in the first saff in Saifee Masjid, amongst Shahzada sahebo and prayed his own namaz? Who would have known? At least, an important sunnat would have been upheld? The wajib would have been honoured, albeit in imperfect circumstances. In hindsight, this would have been the ideal excuse to delay his claim.
Would a hungama have occurred if he and/or a few of his supporters had prayed on the street? There were thousands gathered in the lanes of Bhindi Bazar. People were praying as far as the main road.
Would a hungama have occurred, if in case the above was not possible, if he had offered janazah namaz on his own in the vicinity? He could have shown the great love he allegedly has for Moula by doing away with all decorum and praying on some street corner to uphold this sunnat (refer to reason 6)? After all, his son has incorrectly claimed that a sunnat cannot be left for safety reasons, come what may.
Would a hungama have occurred if he had conveniently arrived late at the masjid, only to make it to the dafan (burial)? He could have been blessed with ziyaarat of his beloved Moula’a qabr mubarak, instead of attempting ziyaarat from a vantage point far away?
All this could have been achieved without harming his claim in the least. In retrospect being part of the janazah mubarakah procession would have appeared to have strengthened it. If a Mumin can think of this, how could he, with his divine insight, claim otherwise? Not even one of his learned sons thought of seeing to one of these provisions.
Love finds a way to achieve the impossible. All of the above provisions, at the very least, one of them was achievable. When Mumineen in Mumbai were displaying their love, what did Khuzaima display? Love conquers fear, and Khuzaima was fearful; fearful that his enmity, disdain and disregard for Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA should not be known. But what is in our hearts is displayed in our actions. When mohabbat and tawfeeq are absent, even the achievable eludes our grasp. No one who loved Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, and was in Mumbai at the time, missed the events listed above (apart from those who were with Khuzaima at the time, and subsequently realised their error). Even those who did not follow Moula’s directives were pulled towards their Moula seeking his forgiveness for their disobedience, because though disobedient, their mohabbat was pure which ensured their share of tawfeeq. How can a person denied such basic tawfeeq claim to be a recipient of taa’eed?
Mumineen taking barakat from the janazah mubarakah of their beloved, departed Moula RA.
The Janazah Mubarak of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA
Post 8 – Imam Husain SA and the janazah mubarakah of Imam Hasan SA
Imam Hasan SA had instructed his brother Imam Husain SA to bury him next to his revered grandfather Rasulullah SA. He had also said, that if there was resistance or if this were to bring about an ill or unfavourable situation, he should bury him besides his mother, Moulatona Fatemah SA. When Imam Hasan SA passed away, Aishah and Banu Umayyah came to know about Hasan Imam’s SA instructions and they took up arms and set out to deny Hasan Imam SA burial at Rasulullah’s SA side. When Husain Imam SA learnt of their intentions to deny him, he gathered his companions and they, too, took up their weapons and set out with the janazah mubarakah. When they met for janazah namaz, Husain Imam SA shoved Sa’eed b. ‘Aas, the Umayyad governor of Madinah, towards the front and said, “If it were not for the Sunnat, I would not have asked you to lead [namaz]”. Shari’at has mandated that if the ruler of the physical kingdom is present, or someone appointed by him, then he has the right over the janazah namaz. After namaz, Banu Umayyah came forward, their weapons at their sides. At this point, Abdullah b. Ja’far took hold of the janazah mubarakah and began moving it towards Baqi, towards Moulatona Fatemah SA. Imam Husain SA asked him where he was going. Abdullah b. Ja’far reminded Imam Husain SA of the instructions given by Imam Hasan SA that no ill should come about and requested him to give raza so that the janazah mubarakah could be taken to Baqee. Imam Husain SA then agreed, and Imam Hasan SA was buried next to his mother (Kitab al-Manaqib wal-Mathaalib).
This riwayat is important because it gives us a critical understanding of the role of the Imam and/or Dai in upholding the wishes of his predecessor and fulfilling his obligations towards his final rites. Let us consider the following:
Leading janazah namaz. This riwaayat, and other Dawat texts (Da’aim al-Islam, Mukhtasar, etc.) clearly indicate that despite the presence of haqq na saheb and zamaan na imam, the one who rules and his sovereignty has haqq or right over leading the janazah namaz of the previous zamaan na saheb. Since KQ and HQ claim that the janazah mubarakah was seized and surrounded by those who had taken control over the ‘physical’ Dawat, this rule could have applied to them. If they had actually wanted to, they could have come and prayed namaz behind someone else without it impeding their claim. Wasn’t KQ present for Shz Hatim Bhaisaheb’s janazah namaz? Did he not pray behind then? According to him Dawat had been hijacked so the namaz was not led with Syedna Burhanuddin’s RA raza mubarak, and being the alleged true mansoos, he could not pray behind anyone, so why did he? If he did then, he could have now? Even Imam Husain SA allowed Sa’eed b. Aas to lead namaz and go ahead of him. KQ didn’t come for the janazah namaz because he did not want to. As simple as that.
To do whatever it takes. Husain Qutbuddin likes to draw imaginary parallels between his father abandoning Moula’s janazah mubarakah and Imam Husain SA leaving Baytullah in the middle of Hajj so that there would be no behurmati. Here, when Husain Imam SA learns that dushmano will be bringing arms to his brother’s janazah mubarakah he does not stay home and allow someone else to handle the proceedings of the janazah. Instead, he, too, takes up arms and heads for confrontation. The comparison of the Ka’bah to the janazah of Moula is illogical. The different responses of Imam Husain SA to the Ka’bah and janazah situations, which HQ claims are similar, are proof that they are not the same. The janazah requires care and someone to handle the final rites; the Ka’bah does not. If Husain Imam SA left the Ka’bah to ensure that there would be no behurmati, it would have made sense for him not to take up arms during the situation with his brother’s janazah. If behurmati was the concern, then a more passive approach would have been less likely to result in unpleasant outcome. There is no one who has greater hurmat and respect for the janazah mubarakah of Hasan Imam SA than his brother Husain Imam SA. Yet, still, Husain Imam SA prepares himself for confrontation. It is only after the janazah namaz and during the final stages of the funeral that Husain Imam SA accepts his brother’s second wasiyat and decides to lay him to rest in Baqee. He did not sit at home with the fear that something would happen to the janazah. If KQ was the haqq na saheb, nothing would have stopped him from coming to the janazah of Syedna Burhanuddin RA and he would have acted in such a way that he would ensure there would be no behurmati as did Husain Imam SA. KQ simply put did not want anything to do with Moula Burhanuddin’s RA janazah mubarakah. His insistence that the janazah was allegedly mishandled and there was behurmati is evidence that behurmati was something he was hoping for so that he could claim it was a result of his absence and bolster his false claims.
Haqq na saheb has never abandoned his predecessors’ janazah. It has always been the way in the Duat’s history that the mansoos Dai handles the affairs of the janazah mubarakah of his naas, predecessor, if he is present. Even those Duat who have been absent at the time of wafaat, have moved mountains and oceans to partake in the janazah mubarakah of their predecessors. When the 17th Dai Syedna al-Hasan Badruddin RA passed away in Zamarmar (near Sana’a) in 821H, his mansoos, Syedna Ali Shamsuddin RA was in Shibaam, the Duat mountain fort in Haraaz. When he received news of his wafaat, he descended to Shijjah (near present day Manakhah) and left there just before dawn and arrived at the base of Zamarmar mountain before sunset. He travelled a distance of over 100 km (as the crow flies) of mountainous terrain, with a cumulative elevation drop and rise of over 5000m, which would normally take 1 to 2 days (see here) in a little over 12 hours.
There has been no nass on KQ. A fact that he hides behind ‘progressive’ policies, misinterpretations of Dawat texts and weekly YouTube updates. That he is no mansoos of Syedna Burhanuddin RA is evident foremost in his absence during Moula’s janazah and namaz.There are no comparisons here to be made with Husain Imam SA and his noble actions. There were, however, lessons, which KQ and his kin failed to understand or heed. At the end of the day, Husain Imam SA tow Husain Imam SA che.
The Janazah Mubarak of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA
Post 7 – Please Excuse Me!
Khuzaima attempts to excuse and absolve himself of all his duties in regards to the janazah mubarakah of al-Dai Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. In a weak attempt at veiling his failures, he claims that had he tried to fulfil any of his duties, a “hungama” (riot) would have ensued leading to the behurmati (disrespect) of the janazah mubarakah.
This is not true.
There are many ways he could have been by his Moula’s side had he wished to do so without any hungama or behurmati taking place. In fact, in hindsight, he did more damage to his claim, and his supporters, in the eyes of the world by not attending to his responsibilities.
He could have been part of all the events, mentioned below, without doing any harm to his alleged position if he had just delayed his claim. Far from being tarnished, his claim would have been enhanced by his participation. The truth is that his false claim, at the time, had not even reached most Mumineen who were too immersed in rites of grief to be reading his emails. Nothing would have happened because his ill timed claim was unknown to most when these events were in motion.
Would a hungama have occurred if he had quietly stayed by his Moula’s side the night Mumineen were clamouring to get a last glimpse of their Moula. His position as Mazoon would have ensured that he could have spent the whole night by his Moula’s side, as others from Moula’s household were so privileged.
Would a hungama have occurred if he had quietly witnessed the last respects the State Government, on behalf of the Indian nation, paid to this great leader? Nothing inappropriate would have occurred during that time when security was at its peak.
Would a hungama have ensued if he had chosen to walk behind the janazah mubarakah of his Moula as it left Saify Mahal? If he felt that arrangements were not adequate, he could have suggested how ideal arrangements could have been made for the janazah procession. Such suggestion would have lent support to his false claim. Is that not what he continues to remind everyone about with regards to the janazah mubarakah of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA?
Would a hungama have occurred if he had ordered his believers to walk behind the janazah mubarakah of their Moula? In retrospect they would have respected him more for it. His son gives reasons for why Khuzaima himself did not attend, but what of the others that he instructed to come to Thane? Even after having listened to his bayaan, they could have still left in time to reach for the janazah mubarakah, walk behind it, see it from afar, participate in the janazah namaz. Why were they not told to go for the janazah mubarakah of their Moula, one which Husain very emotionally describes as being every Mumin’s ultimate desire?
Would a hungama have occurred if he had told his sons (even just one) to walk behind the janazah on his behalf? This was his practice during asharah, why not here?
Would a hungama have occurred if he was the last person walking behind the janazah procession at the outermost fringes of the procession, alone or with a few others?
Would a hungama have occurred if he had come to at least witness the janazah mubarakah procession? Did his self-claimed immense love for Moula not even tell him to do that? Who would have known if he had come to get a glimpse of his Moula, waiting at some obscure corner or standing atop the roof of a building overlooking the route?
Would a hungama have occurred if he had taken part in the Janazah Namaz, by at least standing in the last and final saff (row) in the lanes of Bhendi Bazaar amoungst thousands of mumineen; where he may have even gone un-noticed? After all, the last saff in a Janazah Namaz is the most afdhal (Daim ul Islam).
NOTHING would have happened.
Everyone knows the answer to all these questions. What’s worse is that he knows it as well. If he had managed to do any of the above actions it would have earned him kudos, rather than the opposite. His claim would not have been damaged in the least.
So despite the understanding that attending the janazah mubarakah would have given him much needed legitimacy, why did he not muster the strength to come? In the manner that mohabbat attracts, enmity repels. He always harboured disdain for Moula, and on the day of Moula’s janazah, this disdain and animosity became all too apparent.
The Janazah Mubarak of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA
Post 6 – Syedna Burhanuddin RA is Syedna Saifuddin TUS
All throughout his life KQ disregarded the acts and directives of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, however, Syedna Burhanuddin’s RA ‘amal mubarak during the janazah mubarakah of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA is something he continually reminds us of. He wishes to point out the differences between the janazah mubarakah of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA and Syedna Burhanuddin’s RA janazah mubarakah today. He fails to understand, however, that if he was the true mansoos, the greatest discrepancy between then and now would be the fact that he, the alleged Dai, did not even show up. Further, many elders insist that Khuzaima was hard to find during Syedna Taher Saifuddin’s RA janazah mubarakah. His children insist that he was ‘occupied’ in making arrangements but in their narration of Burhanuddin Moula’s ‘amal mubarak and how Moula walked barefoot behind the janazah mubarakah, they are careful to never say that he walked as well. The truth is, he didn’t walk behind Syedna Taher Saifuddin’s janazah and Allah ensured that he would not gain the barakat of walking behind Syedna Burhanuddin’s, either.
Syedna Burhanuddin RA and other members of Syedna Taher Saifuddin’s RA family
The janazah mubarakah and a vehicle in front of it
The KQ clan claims that things should have been done just as they were 50 years ago without any considerations for the differences in the situation between these two events. Let us consider the following points (this list is by no means conclusive):
Community growth. There are today approximately 19,350 Mumineen households in Mumbai and its suburbs. With a very conservative average of four people per household, that puts the Dawoodi Bohra population of Mumbai today at roughly 77,400. Using the national Indian growth rate (which is generally less than the growth rate of Muslim communities in India), if we were to back calculate to 1965, the year of Syedna Taher Saifuddin’s RA wafaat, we could estimate the Dawoodi Bohra population of Mumbai at roughly 30,604. This does not take into consideration urban migration which has been huge on population growth in Indian metropolises, specifically in trading communities such as the Dawoodi Bohras. Calculating for urban migration would easily reduce this number by half to approximately 15,000. Simply put, the Dawoodi Bohra population of Mumbai today is exponentially larger than what it was half a century ago. This is one of the reasons why there were more people at Syedna Burhanuddin’s janazah mubarakah than his respected father’s.
The world is smaller. News of Syedna Taher Saifuddin’s RA wafaat was announced on All India Radio the morning after he passed away. The jism mubarak was brought to Mumbai by train and car and the following day, after ghusl and takfeen, it was brought to Saifee Masjid whereafter it was laid to rest in Rawdat Taherah. The difficulties in transportation make it hard to imagine that more than a couple thousand Mumineen from outside of Mumbai would have arrived in time to participate in the janazah mubarakah. Word of Moula Burhanuddin’s RA wafaat was instantaneous. People from as far as London and Dar al-Salaam arrived in time to do deedar of Burhanuddin Moula RA at Saifee Mahal that very night. Thousands more arrived from international destinations in time for the janazah mubarakah which left the next morning. The highways leading into Mumbai from other Indian cities as night fell were packed with Mumineen vehicles. Train stations were full of Dawoodi Bohras. Literally, thousands upon thousands arrived to Mumbai by air, road and rail within 20 hours of Moula’s wafaat, in time to attend the janazah and namaaz.
Flowering seeds of love. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA often stated in his wa’az mubaraks that he was reaping the seeds of love that his father had tirelessly sowed during his tenure as Dai. This statement indicates that the amount of love and devotion Mumineen had for Syedna Burhanuddin RA was greater than that which was for his father. Not only were the numbers of Mumineen greater, but the love and affection Mumineen had in their hearts, too, was greater.
The images from the janazah mubarakahs of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA and Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA clearly illustrate these three points. However, instead of claiming that the janazahs were different, I would affirm that they were the same. Syedna Taher Saifuddin’s RA wafaat and its impact on the community was like no other Dai’s in the history of Dawat. In the same way, as anaa’ na saheb, sharing the glories of his father, the same can be said of Syedna Burhanuddin’sRA wafaat and janazah mubarakah: it was unprecedented and its impact on the community is unparalleled.
Janazah Mubarakah of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA at Sukh Sagar near Chowpatty Beach, 1965
Janazah Mubarakah of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA at Sukh Sagar near Chowpatty Beach, 2014 (Instagram user: riteshuttamchandani)
Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS behind the janazah mubarakah of Syedna Burhanuddin RA near Chowpatty Beach. The seeds of love and devotion now in full bloom.
In the face of these kinds of numbers, and this devotion, any course of action apart from what was chosen by Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUSwould have resulted in harm of Mumineen and behurmati of the janazah mubarakah. This is besides the many other hikmats in his actions. There was no better, or more shari’at-preferred course of action than this. It does not take ilhaam or taaeed to understand this, just tawfeeq and mohabbat. That nothing else would suffice in this type of a crowd is obvious for those that were blessed to bear witness to this historic occasion. For those that were sitting at home uploading YouTube videos or searching for WordPress templates, that this is not obvious, that it cannot be understood, comprehended or seen, is of no wonder.