53 Reasons NOT To Believe Khuzaima Qutbuddin

In the first waaz during Ashara 1431 H, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA stated that in following in the footsteps of his esteemed father, “Mamlook e Ale Mohammed has composed this marthiyah (Fulkul Husain), [which I presented] in the khidmat of Imam Hussain during the historic trip to Karbala (1430 H)”.

The following year, during 1432 H Ashara Mubaraka, he referred to the marthiyah he had composed and stated that “….in perpetuating this unbroken line of bukaa’, Mamlook-e-Aale Mohammed did araz in this marthiyah that…..”

The zikr of Imam Hussain ^AS and especially this marthiyah shareefah, encapsulates the one of the greatest legacies of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ^RA – his deep-rooted love for Imam Hussain ^AS and the nurturing of that love in the hearts of Mumineen.

 Khuzaima’s Complete Disregard for this Marthiyah

Yet, this marthiyah, which represents what Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin stood for and all that Imam Hussain meant to him, has been disregarded and dismissed by Khuzaima and his followers.

Not once, in a single bayaan or waaz, not even during the Asharas he conducted after 1430  H did he recite a single verse from this marthiyah – not one. In fact, he and his sons stopped Mumineen from reciting it. If they wanted nothing to do with it, then at least they could have let those who loved their Moula recite Moula’s marthiyah. But they did not.

Past and Present

Khuzaima clings on to the past, not realising that the past only holds meaning when it is understood through the present. He will recite (just as he has done in his most recent video) Ya Syeda al- Shohadaa’, but never Fulkul Hussain. He recites the marthiyah of his father but never the one of Burhanuddin Moula, who called him ‘Al-Walad al-Ahabb’ (most beloved son) three times. Is this how he shows his reverence to his spiritual father?

Due Reverence

Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s every action, gesture and sentence was revered by every mumin. Khuzaima enjoys drawing parallels between himself and the great Mazoon, Syedi Abdulqadir Hakimuddin ^QR. However, does he know what Syedi Hakimuddin would do when receiving any correspondence from the Dai of his time? He would be waiting in earnest, anticipating the arrival of a letter or mithaal. When the letter would arrive, he would stand up in reverence, would kiss the seal of the Dai and lay the handwritten words of the Dai upon his forehead. Did he not take heed from the seerat of the eminent mazoons of the past? Taher Qutbuddin reminds us that Khuzaima would do sajda when Syedna Burhanuddin’s ^RA mithaal would reach him. Why is he respecting Maula’s mithaal mubarak but disrespecting his marthiyah mubarakah?

It seems unfathomable why Khuzaima adamantly refuses to recite this marthiyah. Why is it so difficult for him?

·         Is it because he thinks it is below his stature to recite the marthiyah of the 52nd Dai Mutlaq?

That would mean he sees himself above and beyond the position of Dai Mutlaq.

·       Is it because he believes that the marthiyah is a misrepresentation of Imam Hussain, the events of Karbala and the meaning of bukaa’ and matam?

·         Is he saying that he knows better how to do the zikr of Imam Hussain ^AS, that somehow he is better versed and better equipped for the rithaa’ of Imam Hussain?

If so, then it is a direct assault on the lofty and exalted status of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ^RA. He thinks himself superior to the Dai of his time. He is denying that the Dai is the recipient of the faiz of Panjatan, Aimmat and Duat and says and does things which have no basis in fact.

It is worth keeping in mind that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ^RA composed this marthiyah two years before his stroke, which Khuzaima claims incapacitated Moula. The reality is that even if Moula did not have a stroke and he conferred nass in such a state, it would have made no difference to Khuzaima. He would have still come up with baseless claims that he was mansoos. His rejection of this marthiyah is evidence enough that he rejected everything that Moula said and did.

In the end one can only conclude that given all the facts, Khuzaima’s omission of this marthiyah from all his discourses and gatherings since 1430 H, is further evidence of his deep contempt for Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. Ultimately in doing so, he has denied that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin was the rightful recipient of the nass of Duat Mutlaqeen.

 ‘Fulkul Hussain’ Personified

For forty days after Syedna Burhanuddin’s ^RA passing, this marthiyah mubarakah was recited in Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s ^TUS presence: at the side of Maula’s qabr mubarak, in sadaqallah and then during the majlis. Every single day. He knows that the single greatest eulogy to his father is the recitation of this marthiyah. It is proof of his deep-seated reverence, unflinching loyalty and uncompromising love for Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin – something only a mansoos can have.

INTRODUCTION

The Khawarij were a group of people who ‘abandoned’ Amirul Mumineen SA after the battle of Siffeen and claimed that he erred in permitting men to give judgement in religious affairs. They took up the call of ‘la hukm illa li Allah ’ based off of an ayat mubarakah meaning: there is no judgement for anyone save Allah. Amirul Mumineen SA described this phrase as ‘a statement of haqq (truth) through which baatil (falsehood) is sought’.

KQ and his kins’ repeated statements pertaining to the position of Mazoon are in a similar vein. They wish to describe the lofty maqaam and position of the Mazoon in order to perpetrate the greatest falsehood and baatil: that Mr Khuzaima Qutbuddin is the 53rd Dai. The following posts and reasons will illustrate the manner in which KQ and his kids have exploited Dawat texts and references to the Mazoon, both historically and theologically, to their own ends. As ever, they will highlight how the FatemiDawat site and the latest Q&A YouTube videos of HQ disregard key information from Dawat texts preying on people’s ignorance. Even in their press conference held a couple days ago, five minutes would not go by but they would throw references to the Mazoon’s lofty position in the face of unsuspecting and uninitiated members of the press. Even non-Bohras are victim of KQ’s constant badgering.

I wish to make it clear to Mumineen that my intention is to no way lessen the importance of the position of the Mazoon. In fact, by explaining through the use of historical examples and some references to Dawat texts, I wish to separate Khuzaima and his unruly character from the position of Mazoon in the community’s collective memory so that this position can be perceived in the great maqaam that it is, untarnished by KQ’s lies and treachery.

Post 1 – Every Mazoon is not a Dai

Post 2 – Mazoon in Ehd al-Awliyaa’

Post 3 – Syedna Jalal

Post 4 – Syedi Najam Khan, Falibility & The Concept of Mutlaq

Post 5 – Exemplary Service by Mawaazeen Kiraam AQ

Post 6 – Africa: What Really Happened in 1409H

Post 7 – Africa – Error of Judgement

Post 8 – Africa – A Festering Grievance

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.

It is as plain as day as to what Syedna Mohammed BurhanuddinRA said and clear that the events of Africa did actually happen. He said, (exact words)

 “ek waqt Bhai Qutbuddin ney bhi em

(1)khayal thai gayu, aney em

(2) yaqeen thai gayoo, aney

(3)zehn ma lai leedu key aa saazish….”

 A number of salient points are evident. In whatever transpired in Africa, Khuzaima was misled. He was gullible and impressionable in being led astray by those who were less than trustworthy. In fact these people were referred to as ‘munafeqeen’ by Syedna Mohammed BurhanuddinRA. He lacked good judgement and believed – with wholehearted conviction (yaqeen) – that those who were innocent and wrongly accused were guilty. He lacked the ability to discern between right and wrong, and instead gave into his own emotions.

 Would a Mazoon of the stature and character claimed by the website, have allowed himself to be duped and hoaxed into believing munafeqeen? Would a Mazoon even correspond and communicate and listen to a munafiq? Where are there signs of the attributed ‘wisdom, siyasat, vision, fairness, integrity and balance’ in this bayaan? The words of Syedna Mohammed BurhanuddinRA also beget the question:

How many other instances have there been where Khuzaima has given into temptation, lacked clarity of judgement, been convinced of his own assumptions and communicated with munafeqeen and consequently been mislead?

 The website has furiously spun a tale of solemn virtue for a man whose word was not accepted by Dai al-Zaman. Not only did Syedna Mohammed BurhanuddinRA not accept his version of events, but actually accepted the word of a humble and loyal Mumin. He says,

“I believed Husain bhai and I unequivocally declared that he and his entire family are innocent of these accusations. I accepted his ziyafat, 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 is still in doubt as to 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 judgement and the appropriateness of my actions. This stands true regardless of the rank and station of the person harbouring that doubt.”

There are innumerable accounts of Khuzaima’s shortcomings, mistakes, instances of disrespect for the Dai and moments of questioning his authority. However, rather than list these – which again the Khuzaima camp will dismiss as fabrications – I have merely highlighted what is crystal clear in the bayaan mubarak of Syedna Mohammed BurhanuddinRA. If they wish to refute the above, then doing so is the refutation of the words of Haqq na Saheb, and they are contesting the very institution of Wali ullah. Let them do so at their own peril.

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.”

Mawaazeen (pl. of Mazoon) Kiraam AQ have rendered devoted khidmat to Doat Mutlaqeen RA, and it is no surprise that history, in general, testifies that they have served their Dai and his Dawat with sincerity and distinction. It is surprising, though, when the opposite happens when someone blessed with the high post of Mazoon does not display the expected reverence and service required for his Dai and Dawat. Khuzaima Qutbuddin has provided many examples of such deficiency in service, leading to one especially grave instance when his Dai and Moula, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, was forced to gently show him the error in his ways. (bayan mubarak, Nairobi 1409, see following posts). Therefore, when Husain Qutbuddin cites examples of Mawaazeen Kiraam rendering illustrious khidmat to their Doat and their Dawat, with intent to support his father’s claim, these very examples in fact go against his in demonstrating that Khuzaima Qutbuddin in his half decade of incumbency has not been able to do the same for Syedna Buhanuddin and his Mumineen.

Husain Qutbuddin lists many Mawazeen Kiraam AQ as having served their Moula with distinction. Many of them were the Mansoos as well and went on to become Doat, while some remained at the post of Mazoon. In all instances, one factor unites them all. They all offered exemplary devotion and leadership in the period of the dai that they were mazoon to. They did not just talk about fitnat after its time was over. Under trying circumstances, they refused to leave their Moula’s side, and attempted to protect their moula and Dawat from those that would sow discord and sedition. They were ever-present when their khidmat was most required. For example:

• Syedna Abduttayib Zakiyuddin, while being Mazoon and Mansoos served his Dai, Syedna Shaikh Adam Safiyuddin RA (28th al-Dai al-mutlaq) valiantly during the fitnat that took place in his time.

• The mazoon and mansoos of the 33rd al-Dai al-Multaq Syedna Feer Khan Shuja´uddin RA, Syedna Ismail Badruddin quashed the hopes of the Hujoomiyah faction when they attempted to make him its Dai, which wanted to displace the Dawat of Syedna Shuja´uddin.

• In the tenure of Syedna Hebatullah al-Mu’ayyad fi al-Deen (40th al-Dai al-Multaq), his mazoon and mansoos Syedna Abduttayyib Zakiyuddin RA struggled for his Moula’s cause during the fitnat of Majdoo´, and strengthened the beliefs of Mumineen during this trying time.

• Syedi Hebatullah Jamaluddin AQ attested to the oft repeated nass of his Moula, Syedna Abdulqadir Najmuddin RA (47th al-Dai al-Mutlaq) and proved its veracity to friend and foe alike.

• Through frail with ailments of old age, Syedi Dawood Bhaisaheb AQ publicly offered sajdah to al-Dai al-Ajal Syedna Taher Saifuddin when its practice was discouraged by various elements within the community.

There is a common factor uniting all these examples that Husain Qutbuddin offers. They all were offered to the Moula that they served as Mazoon for, during the period of his tenure as al-Dai al-Mutlaq, when their services were most called for. This then begs the question: what services were rendered by Khuzaima Qutbuddin to his Moula when, as Husain Qutbuddin repeatedly likes to assert, Moula was supposedly embroiled in different aspects of fitnat? (Refer to: Reason #42)

According to the Qutbuddin clan, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA for most of his tenure was:

• Devoid of agency and autonomy in the running of his Dawat
• Facing an onslaught of ‘establishment’ implementations that were against his wishes
• Especially in the last years of his reign, surrounded by individuals who would not obey his wishes in both mundane and religious matters
• Disrespected by those closest to him

History, as Husain points out, has taught to expect most exemplary service from the Mazoon when his Dai was subject to violations and attack. One supposes that the window of opportunity to serve should have been capaitalised on by Khuzaima before the demise of Moula, rather than just talking about it after his death. If what Khuzaima Qutbuddin says is true about this fitnat occurring for decades then he should have been at his Moula’s side doing his best to negate and neutralize it. The ultimate example of khidmat for one’s Moula has been immortalised by Ameerul Mumineen’s SA azeem khidmat and tafaadi for Rasoolullah SA during the battle of Uhad, where though Rasoolullah released him of his obligation, Ameerul Mumineen showed the world what it meant to serve and submit to your Moula, without ever leaving his side, without care for personal safety. What was Khuzaima waiting for?

Khuzaima Qutbuddin should have embellished his name in the history books by quelling wave after wave of this supposed fitnat and allowing his Moula to remain free from worry. He should have been at his Moula’s side doing the best to dispel such unwanted elements from the Dai’s midst. He should have been struggling for his Dai’s wazarat, ensuring that no practices are authorised against his Moula’s wishes. After all, history has shown us that a Mazoon gives no quarter when it comes to defending his Moula.

If he says that he was acquiescing to his Moula’s wishes and not making his opposition public, he could have at the very least stayed at his Moula’s side everywhere he went, offering moral support and solace during this testing time. A devoted Mazoon would consider it his duty to be at his Moula’s side especially when this supposed fitnat was brewing at close quarters to him. It would be hard to claim that Syedna Burhanuddin did not want his devoted Mazoon to be at his side. This devotion could have been shown when Syedna Burhanuddin was in London in 1432 H, or when under impossible circumstances, he returned to Mumbai for his esteemed father’s urus mubarak, and not run away at that instant. A devoted Mazoon would surely not have excuse to leave his Moula’s side, especially when returning in bad health, for their mutual father’s urus mubarak. If excuses could be found for these instances, what about the the last two decades of meeqat’s and travels missed, where stacks of photographs portray the empty space next to Syedna Burhanuddin’s takht or gaadi mubarak.

It is not comprehensible that Khuzaima Qutbuddin was constantly staying away from his Moula, for the better part of two decades when there was a supposed fitnat going on, for Moula’s benefit. A devoted Mazoon who loved his Moula, in an age when travel was easy, would not do so. This is the least that could be done, for it might be argued that a devoted Mazoon should be doing much more to bring Mumineen closer to their Dai, a responsibility of the Mazoon in zuhoor and satr, than just staying by his side in physicality and spirit.

This responsibility was being borne by Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin for decades. His every action brought Mumineen closer to their Moula. Arguably, even the easiest of these responsibilities were too taxing for Khuzaima Qutbuddin. So, as we see, the examples of all the Mawazeen that his son mentions reflect poorly on him, instead of aiding his cause. Husain Qutbuddin likes to remind us of how Syedna Burhanuddin has extolled the virtues of the rutba of Mazoon. It is true that Syedna Burhanuddin said that that a Mazoon is a Dai’s right hand, and is expected to aid him in administering the Dawat of Fatema. However, instead of accolades to be proud of, they were chastisements to Khuzaima for not living up to these attributes. What use is a right hand that is as good as non-existent or never around when you need it? Unlike Khuzaima, not one of the mawaazeen kiraam in Husain’s examples, waited till their Moula has passed away and then reflected on a supposed fitnat with idle talk; they all acted when the actual fitnat was going on, when their words and actions made a difference, not when nothing could be done at all. So by all accounts he failed his Moula if there was a fitnat going on in reality. If on the other hand, there wasn’t any fitnat, well, that doesn’t portray him in good light either.

The truth in fact does set us free.

Illusions of Grandeur

If we continue with how the examples of exemplary service of past Mawaazeen bear poor reflection on Khuzaima Qutbuddin, we see that he lacks in one essential quality which all of them had an abundance of; submission and humility for their Dai al-Zamaan. Khuzaima Qutbuddin prides in himself in citing couplings in Dawat theology and doctrine where the Dai and Mazoon are coupled together. It is also true for each coupling that the superior entity among each coupling (i.e. the Dai) is alike the sky while the lesser entity (the Mazoon) is akin to the earth. Mawazeen Kiraam remembered this difference very well and took great pains to show the vast distance which exists between both stations. Unlike Khuzaima Qutbuddin, they would not try to establish proximity or similitude, favouring instead a humble demeanour to the extent that they would deem themselves devoted servants to their Moula and Dai, rather than espouse their proximity of station to him.

In his letters addressed to the 47th al-Dai al-Mutlaq, Syedna Abdulqadir Najmuddin RA, Syedi Hebatullah Jamaluddin AQ, though his mazoon would portray a vision of humility, supported by his actions. He would beseech his Moula saying that I am your humble servant, your slave, I approach you bowed in prostration. You are my aqa, my moula, my saviour, my mentor, my guide; one who has no equal. Syedi Jamaluddin AQ demonstrated his intent, his humility, his heartfelt veneration and, most importantly, his actions did not contradict his words.

It is well known that Khuzaima would try and mirror every imami gesture and action that Syedna Burhanuddin would make, and lay claim to privileges meant for the Dai al-Zaman. Even if by some distorted right, he would lay claim to the same, would not his love, veneration and devotion for his Moula steer him away from this course: a course that caused unease, unrest and needless controversy within Dawat. He would give salami, accept talaqqi, demand pankha; actions suited to the hadrat imammiyah of Syedna Burhanuddin. The act of demanding Syedna Burhanuddin’s privileges or mirroring his gestures was indication of Qutbuddin as Mazoon wanting to be just like or almost like the Dai al-Zaman Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. He saw himself alike a Dai when there was another Dai present, thinking the difference between both positions to be negligible at best. Most privileges (accorded to Moula) were, it must be noted, not offered to him in a forthcoming manner, unless he or his entourage badgered people to comply. Even if Khuzaima is given the benefit of the doubt, and thought to be only acting out of respect for the station of Mazoon, it was poor choice on his part because displaying humility and earning respect would have stood him far better than demanding it, and achieved greater inroads in people’s hearts regarding the sanctity of the station of Mazoon. The lay man just looked at him and thought that he is too eager to be Moula, instead of being eager to serve him devotedly. Through gestures, mannerism and choices, his intent was obvious to any observer.

(Someone seen doing phanko behind Khuzaima Qutbuddin)

One only has to observe Khuzaima’s polar opposite Syedna Burhanuddin’s mansoos, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin abstaining from privileges due to him in favour of not resembling Moula. Even though people were eager to accord Syedna Saifuddin with every privilege after nass, the extent to which Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin was careful not to mirror Syedna Burhanuddin could be seen in many instances, both prior to nass and after it as well. For example, when Syedna Burhanuddin draped a shawl over his shoulders, and Syedna Saifuddin was in his presence, he would in most instances if not all, be careful to drape his shawl over only one shoulder. It would not have been untoward to drape a shawl as people normally do, but this poignant gesture and concern conveys the veneration he had and continues to have for his Moula RA, and is reflective of the submission and humility a true mansoos would hold for his predecessor.

As with everything else, actions do speak louder than words.

(Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin draping his shawl over only one shoulder.)

 Since there is no parallel to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS in his humility, the Qutbuddin clan have to come up with weak arguments finding fault with even that. Only if you would consider haughtiness or constantly wining about decorum and protocol a virtue, would you consider sincere humility a fault.

KQ likes to believe that he cannot err or lie because he was Mazoon. KQ and kin have presented the Mazoon in a manner that would lead one to assume that the Mazoon is like the Dai: immaculate and infallible. This is not true. This blog has previously referred to al-Moula al-Ajal Syedi Najamkhan QR with reference to this point. Conveniently, the FatemiDawat website Q&A section and HQ ignore addressing this issue and merely respond by saying that: “Dawat dushmano have maligned Syedi Najam Khan in the past and they continue to do so today.” They do not address the issues raised in Syedi Najamkhan’s QR reference because it destroys the very foundation of their claim.

Yes, Syedi Najam Khan QR was a saheb of great maqaam and stature; so much so that Doat Mutlaqeen bow their heads in sajdah near his qabr mubarak. They do so not because he was a mazoon, but because though he was removed from the position of mazoon his ikhlaas and mohabbat were unparalleled.  Position does not determine the reverence afforded to one,only ikhlaas and deeds do. Al-Dai al-Ajal Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA states:

Mumineen, contemplate over the pages of history with the intention of deriving insight. Moulaya Najam Khan, A mazoon of Dawat, one at the zenith of ikhlaas and purity. The Dai of the Panjatan, in order to test him, in order to further raise him in levels of ikhlaas dismissed him from the position of mazoon. The enemies of Dawat always remain in anticipation, and as soon as they learnt of this they wrote to Syedi Najam Khan: ‘For such a minor mistake you were so severely reprimanded? We were stunned when we heard this!’. Following which they wrote — such words that if one was not in possession of ikhlaas and purity, the treasures of imaan, love and mohabbat would have been pillaged — ‘Join us, we will obey you, we will afford you a lofty rank’.

Moulaya Najam Khan — a mountain of faith and conviction, protector of the treasures of mohabbat and love, the knowing — read their letter and gave a firm reply, a response overflowing with ikhlaas and purity:

‘Fools! Imbeciles! Simpletons! These blessings and the position of mazoon were bestowed upon me by my Moula. He has relieved me of it, he is maalik and moula. However, the greatest of His blessings is that he has not taken from me the blessing of imaan. He has kept me as a Mumin. If he were to say ‘You are no longer a Mumin’. If he were to take from me the pearls and rubies of imaan, this string of pearls, where would I go? In the treasures of which worldly monarch will I ever be able to find the pearls of such a blessing?’

(10/05/1416H, Mumbai)

With such fondness and respect did Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA and Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA narrate this incident regarding Syedi Najam Khan QR highlighting to Mumineen that the greatest bounty is that of Imaan and anything above that is obtained with ikhlaas and mohabbat. What it also demonstrates to Mumineen is that a mazoon is not infallible. He can make a mistake, and if the Dai al-Zaman chooses he can remove him from this position. In Muntaza’ al-Akhbar, it is mentioned that Syedi Najam Khan, at one instance, revealed what he was not permitted to do so. Therefore, the Dai removed him from the position of Mazoon. HQ argues, that since the Mazoon is ‘mutlaq’, given complete authority, he can do whatsoever he wishes, including revealing Dawat asraar to those he sees fit. If this was the case, and the Mazoon can do whatever he wants, why would Syedna Ismail Badruddin RA remove an incumbent of the position that comes with ‘unrestricted authority’?  The truth is that the only maqaam that is truly unrestricted is the maqaam of the Dai. The Mazoon is mutlaq, ie authorized only within the sphere defined for him by the Dai. If every Mazoon had complete authority to disseminate knowledge or Dawat secrets at will to whomsoever should he choose, as Qutbuddin would have us believe, why was this disclosure by Syedi Najam Khan a mistake? Furthermore, if every Mazoon wielded unbridled authority, why would Syedi Najam Khan be unable to even stay an adnaa Mumin lest his Dai keep him as such? Like an adnaa Mumin, a Mazoon is dependent on his Dai and Moula to keep him within the parameters of imaan. In this regards, a Mazoon and a Mumin are on a similar platform. Conversely, it is unthinkable that within the Dawat of satr, the same could be said for the Dai. For in satr, he is the epitome of imaan, its embodiment, its benchmark, and its gateway. This very clearly shows that both entities being Mutlaq mean very different things.

HQ argues that if KQ did indeed err or make a mistake, why did Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin leave him in his post? The answer to this is simple. KQ is absolutely nothing like Syedi Najam Khan and each era and situation calls for tailored responses. As a Mumin, what should be clear is that Khuzaima is not infallible and that he’s made many mistakes. As al-Dai al-Mutlaq, Syedna Burhanuddin RA chose to leave him where he was. Just as a Mumin commits sins and, in spite of them, is accommodated within the sphere of imaan, similarly, inspite of Khuzaima’s transgressions, he was benevolently maintained in his position. As Husain Qutbuddin keeps reminding us, the gaadi of the Dai is one of rehmat. One thing is certain, however, the Mazoon is not mutlaq in the same way a Dai is; only the Dai can do anything and everything he sees fit.

Despite HQ repeatedly portraying the mazoon as one who holds complete and unrestricted authority and having the unflinching trust of the Dai Mutlaq, the instance of Syedi Najam Khan shows that in fact this authority is restricted and that this trust can be violated. The Arabic word ‘Dai’ is an active participle (ism al-faa´il) whilst the word mazoon is a passive participle (ism al-maf´uul) meaning one who has been given permission. The Dai defines for the mazoon his responsibilities and limits. A mazoon has always been the subordinate of the Dai Mutlaq and is fallible.

Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA points out that the position of mazoon was taken away from Syedi Najam Khan in order to further raise him in levels of ikhlaas. This proves that by solely being raised to the position of mazoon one does not reach the pinnacle of ikhlaas. All that matters is ikhlaas.  Syedi Abdeali Imaduddin QR states:

‘The rank of ikhlaas is nothing but honourable, respectable and hard to achieve. Whoever wishes may expend all their efforts in attaining it.’

KQ’s enemy in this instance was his self-admiration, evident in the fact that he chose to publish a book commemorating his 50 years as a mazoon instead of publishing, or at the very least helping to compile, one celebrating Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s 50 years as Dai Mutlaq. This trait has seen the downfall of many before him. It lured him with delusions of grandeur and enticed him with notions of position and power, causing him to fail the test brought on upon him, ultimately stripping him of the treasures of imaan. Though, he and his family may adorn themselves with worldly accolades, they remain devoid of the treasure which Syedi Najam Khan considered as the greatest of all blessings, the treasure of Imaan.

HQ continues to mislead his audience by playing on the word mutlaq, which is used as an adjective for both the position of dai and his subordinate the mazoon. Though the word mutlaq is used in both instances, the authorities of both positions vary greatly. For example, the word ‘mumin’ is used in the praise of Allah Ta´ala, to describe the Nabi/Imam/Dai, and is also used to term those who pledge their allegiance to them both (a mumin, believer). The use of the same word does not mean that they all hold the same connotations in each and every context.

Though much celebrated by him and his followers, the fact that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA kept him as mazoon for 50 years is not to be taken as an achievement on KQ’s part but rather as an indication of Syedna Burhanuddin’s sabr and expectation that KQ will rectify his ways. Every act of benevolence, every honour bestowed and every word of prayer and approval uttered was with the hope that he would remain steadfast on Siraat-e-Mustaqeem.

Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA has stated in a naseehat:

‘I am the protector of Dawat

I am the captain of the ship’.

A captain’s decisions and actions are always with the intent of ensuring that the ship along with all those aboard, safely reaches its intended destination. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s decision to keep KQ as his mazoon for 50 years can also be understood by the words of the 41st Dai Mutlaq Syedna Abdultyeb Zakiuddin RA:

“It is possible that circumstances and siyaasat (administrative wisdom) determine that such hudood are retained in their position, even if they are completely or partly inadequate in their aqeedah (belief), knowledge and practice. This could be due to a number of reasons which contribute to the betterment of Dawat Hadiyah or to its collective harmony. The application of such policy has been witnessed in the history of past Imams and Doat, and is apparent for individuals of understanding.”

Risaalah Shareefah ‘Rawdat Daar al-Salaam’, pg.257

Al-Dai al-Ajal Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA states:

Al-Dai al-Ajal Syedna Ja´far bin Mansur al-Yemen RA narrates that the Imam has ordained that the Dai Mutlaq lead the Dawat hierarchy in satr. Moulatona al-Hurrah al-Malekah SA instituted the office of the Dai Mutlaq in satr, as per the instructions of the Imam. She appointed al-Dai al-Ajal Syedna Zoeb RA as al-Dai al-Mutlaq and under his authority instituted the offices of Mazoon and Mukasir. The Mazoon and Mukasir constitute the first amongst the ‘mahdoodeen’ or subordinate hudood, that is, dignitaries of Dawat who obey and yield to the absolute authority of the Dai Mutlaq. These dignitaries, submitting to the Dai, are not independent or autonomous but are limited and confined to their spheres of concern and influence.

Some people questioned the 41st Dai al-Mutlaq Syedna Abduttayyib Zakiyuudin RA about his appointment of dignitaries who they felt did not measure up to the august nature of their offices. He replied drawing an analogy related to the aayaat shareefah of the Quran Majeed:

The Quran encompasses two forms of aayaat shareefah (verses) Aayaat Mohkamaat and Aayaat Mutashaabehaat. Aayaat Mohkamaat refer to those aayaat that are explicit in their meaning, and do not, for the large part, require further clarification and interpretation. On the other hand, Aaayaat Mutashaabehaat denote those aayaat that may be ambiguous in meaning, requiring further explanation or interpretation for their comprehension.

The parallels being drawn are that Aayaat Mohkamaat refer to those hudood who are infallible, incapable of committing error and only include the Dai Mutlaq in the Dawat of satr. He is invested with amr, divine appointment and his entity and actions are pristine and pure. Conversely, all other dignitaries in the Dawat of satr correspond to Aayaat Mutashaabehaat, whose meanings may require clarification to remove doubt. This means that though their appointment may be through the Dai exercising the Imam’s will, their entities and actions may not always correspond to the high station of their offices. All hudood in satr other than the Dai al-Mutlaq are part of this category, but the Dai al-Mutlaq is the only position that always will remain an aayat mohkamah: infallible and absolute.

(Rishalah Shareefah Zahr al Riyaz al Azaliyyah, pg.20)

 

In the period of satr, only the dai is infallible. Whoever is appointed to the esteemed position of Dai Mutlaq is always in each and every aspect worthy of the privilege. This, however, does not hold true for any of the positions, ranks or appointments beneath that of Dai Mutlaq, be it mazoon or be it a wali mullah even though they are with his raza mubarak and benedictions.

Another reason for Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin not dismissing KQ, is one for which there is divine precedence, as stated in the Quran:

‘We grant them respite (mohlat) so that they may add to their sins’ (3:178)

As reported by Syedna al-Qadi al-Noman RA in Kitaab al-Majaalis wa al-Musaayeraat, Imam Mu’izz SA has said the following in response to one who may question the Imam’s appointment of Doat (representatives of the Imam in the zuhoor period) and hudood:

He then said if one, who has listened to our statement regarding the shortcomings of previous Doat, assumes that the Imam, despite knowing the Doat’s inefficiencies and shortcomings, is at fault for having selected them and appointed them to these posts, then he is utterly wrong. By god, never [can an Imam be considered in this way].

The seerat radeeyah of Syedi Najam Khan illuminates the path a mumin is to tread with regards to his acceptance of the Dai Mutlaq’s actions. He epitomizes the condition laid forth in our meethaq:

‘If The Imam and The Imam’s Dai choose to bless an individual yet deny another, elevate the rank of an individual while demoting another, show their pleasure with one and their displeasure with another…will you ever doubt their actions?’

KQ on the other hand epitomizes the very notion of doubting the wishes and actions of Imam and his Dai, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA in regards to his conferring nass upon Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS. He has succumbed to the very outcomes the words of the meethaq warn Mumineen against:

‘Will the enemies of Dawat not succeed in entangling you in a web of doubt and uncertainty?’

May Allah ensure that the tenets of meethaq remain entrenched in our hearts, and not only remain for a few days and then are no more.

In his YouTube bayaan from 4th Rabi al-Akhar, Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Mumineen all across the world should accept him as mansoos of Syedna Burhanuddin RA just because he says so and because he was Mazoon. He believes and claims that mumineen mukhliseen and hudood fodola acted in this way when Syedna Jalal Shamsuddin RA informed them that he was mansoos of Syedna Yusuf Najmuddin RA.  Mumineen who do not accept him, according to him, are not mukhlis nor do they have sincere faith.

The summary of his sermon as found on FatemiDavat is as follows:

…Qutbuddin also asserted that in history, in periods of uncertainty, mumineen have trusted and believed the Mazoon-e-Dawat. He narrated briefly the history of Syedna Jalal Shamsuddin RA who was appointed as successor by his predecessor Syedna Yusuf Najmuddin RA. Syedna Yusuf Najmuddin was in Yemen when he conferred Nass upon his Mazoon Syedna Jalaal, who was in Ahmedabad. Before the messenger reached Ahmedabad, Syedna Jalaal saw a dream in which the Imam informed him that Syedna Yusuf has passed away and had appointed him as his successor. Syedna Jalal, then Mazoon, informed the hudood of his dream. The hudood and mumineen believed Syedna Jalaal and submitted to him. Such was the trust mumineen had in their Mazoon that they acknowledged his position based solely on a vision he had of the Imam.

This historical example, even if when not mutated as above, does not help his cause for FOUR primary reasons. Let us evaluate.

 

1) The Nass.

Syedna Yusuf Najmuddin RA (24th Dai) had explicitly done nass upon Syedna Jalal Shamsuddin RA before witnesses in Yemen, that too on more than one occasion. In fact, Syedna Yusuf’s RA first nass on Syedna Jalal RA was done NINE years prior to his wafaat in which Syedna Yusuf RA made his own son, Syedi Hasan witness as well as a group of other hudood. Syedna Jalal and others had been made aware of this nass (source: Najm e Saaqib). Then, when his wafaat approached, Syedna Yusuf Najmuddin RA re-announced his nass on Syedna Jalal. He gathered ‘a group of his Dawat’s unparalleled hudood’ and made them witness to his nass upon Syedna Jalal once more. One of the hudood who had come from India, said that Syedna Jalal RA was quite ill when they left him and they could not be sure if he was still alive. Syedna Yusuf Najmuddin RA stated that he was alive and that he would not pass from this world until the letter of his nass reached him (Risalah Shareefah Ne´am al-Sibgat al-Ilaahiyyah, p. 321-22).

Dawat texts confirm that Syedna Yusuf RA had done nass upon Syedna Jalal RA multiple times in front of witnesses. There is no proof of any nass being done on Khuzaima and in the one instance he alleges there was, in his own words, he states that there were no witnesses.  The two situations are obviously then quite different.

 2) The Dream.

Syedna Jalal RA had the great honor of the deedar of Imam al-Zaman in his manaam (dream). Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA and Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA have in their bayans repeatedly mentioned the great maqaam of Syedna Jalal RA as being one of the very few Dais to have received this honor. The Imam informed Syedna Jalal RA that Syedna Yusuf RA had passed away and that Syedna Yusuf RA had appointed him as the next Dai. This was on top of the fact that Syedna Jalal RA had already been informed of the first nass and the fact that Syedna Yusuf RA had dispatched a letter from Yemen informing him of his wafaat and his nass upon him. As Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA clearly states, the Imam honored Syedna Jalal with his presence in his manaam not because it was a time of uncertainty, but because Syedna Jalal RA was of such great stature and purity.

Khuzaima can claim no such honor.

3) The Letter.

Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA clarifies that the dream (in which The Imam AS informs Syedna Jalal RA of the nass) occurred ‘before the arrival of the investiture of nass’ (Risalah Shareefah Tazkerat Labeeb, p. 119). Syedna Yusuf Najmuddin RA had sent an official letter in which he explicitly re-declared his nass upon Syedna Jalal RA. In another  risalah shareefah, Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA states that when Syedna Jalal RA received this letter from Syedna Yusuf RA, he began ‘to uphold the cause of Dawat’, ie administer the affairs of Dawat.

Khuzaima has received no such letter from Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, his alleged predecessor, in which he was explicitly appointed his mansoos and the Dai after him.

4) The Witness.

In the risalah shareefah Ne´am al-Sibgat al-Ilaahiyyah, (p. 321-22) Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA narrates the events after Syedna Jalal Shamsuddin RA received word that Syedna Yusuf Najmuddin RA had passed away in Yemen.

Honourable Hudood and respectable Mashaikh came to him (Syedna Jalal RA) and enquired, “how should we establish namaaz (ie leading prayers, etc) since the physical letter regarding the demise [of Syedna Yusuf] has yet not reached us?”  At that point, the man of great stature, Syedna Dawood b. Qutub stood and said, “I give testimony before Allah, and Allah is sufficient as witnesses, that I have heard from the honorable Shaikh, the one who is a verified scholar and dignitary, Miyan Feer b. Hasan that he has stated: “I have heard Syedna Yusuf RA state: The upholder of my cause and the Dai of my era’s Imam after me is Syedna Jalal b. Hasan”.”

Despite the manaam (dream) of the Imam AS, Syedna Dawood b. Qutub RA gave testimony to the fact that Syedna Yusuf RA had appointed Syenda Jalal RA as his mansoos.

Again, Khuzaima has no witnesses to his alleged nass; something that he and his children have repeated over and over again. There is no one that can say that they have heard Syedna Burhanuddin RA appoint Khuzaima as his mansoos. NOT A SINGLE PERSON.

Conclusion

It is clear then, that the Nass, the Letter, the Dream and the Witness all negate any parallels between Syedna Jalal’s RA appointment as Dai and Khuzaima’s false claim to be Dai. Mumineen Mukhliseen and Hudood Fodola accepted Syedna Jalal’s word and submitted to his ta’at not because he was ‘mazoon’ or because of a ‘vision’, but because he was the true mansoos appointed by nass and tawqeef (designation) in the presence of witnesses who gave testimony to the fact. The nass was further verified by the Imam al-Zaman and his Dai, both by manaam and by letter.

I believe then that these two situations are quite different, indeed.

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.

I would like to point out at the outset that I do not intend to judge the sincerity and loyalty of any Dawat hudud, let alone a Mazoon. However, the words and actions of Duat Mutlaqeen lead us to understand that not all Mawaazeen possess the same set of attributes and qualities. I would like to remind readers that the exercise here is not to determine the individual standing of various hudood kiraam SA. It is to merely highlight that these hudood kiram, despite their holding a similar rank of Dawat, have been accorded different reverence and honour posthumously, thereby signifying that while the post may be the same, the stature of the incumbent may vary.

 

During Ashara Mubaraka 1425H, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA narrated that Syedi Shaikh Adam Safiyuddin QR was in the position of mazoon, indeed a very lofty rank: Syedna went on to state:

‘But it is not necessary that every mazoon should become a dai.’

 

The Fatemi Dawat website has repeatedly argued that we should believe Khuzaima solely because he was a mazoon for 50 years. They substantiate this claim by quoting a number of Dawat texts that highlight the important role and characteristics of a mazoon. However, what their argument does not account for is the fact that all mawaazeen (pl. of mazoon) are NOT of equal standing. They may all endeavour to imbibe the noble characteristics and qualities expected of a mazoon, but they all meet with varying degrees of success. These attributes are ideals to which the fallible, including the mazoon, aspire to, but ascent to the post of mazoon does not guarantee their acquisition in part or in entirety.

Firstly, the above words of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA make it clear that not every individual appointed to the post of mazoon possesses all the attributes of a Dai as outlined by Dawat texts. If they did, then it would have always been a foregone conclusion that whoever was appointed mazoon was also the mansoos, since there would be no one in the entire Dawat more suitable than him.

If every mazoon became Dai, then Syedi Shaikh Adam Safiyuddin, who served five Duat Mutlaqeen as mazoon, should have been appointed as the mansoos of Syedna Abdul Tayeb Zakiuddin (41st Dai Mutlaq), who was the Dai that appointed him mazoon. Similary, Syedi Hebatullah Jamaluddin, who served three Duat Mutlaqeen as mazoon, should have been appointed the mansoos of Syedna Tayeb Zainuddin (45th Dai Mutlaq), the first Dai that appointed him mazoon. Syedi Ismail Badruddin, who served three Duat Mutlaqeen as mazoon, should have been appointed as the mansoos of Syedna Abdulhusain Husamuddin (48th Dai Mutlaq). Finally, Syedi Dawood Shehabuddin, who served two Duat Mutlaqeen as mazoon, should have been appointed as the mansoos of Syedna Abdullah Badruddin (50th Dai Mutlaq), rather than Syedna Taher Saifuddin.

All of these mawaazeen were mountains of faith and conviction, purer than the purest of gold in their ikhlaas and sincerity and unwavering in their dedication to the khidmat of their Dai Mutlaq. Yet they were not appointed mansoos. This indicates that being appointed mazoon does not determine that a mazoon is destined to become a Dai.

It also should be pointed out that Syedi Shaikhadam Safiyuddin was mazoon for more than 56 years, and in fact Khuzaima is not the longest serving mazoon. Such blanket statements are propagated by their website and through their use of social media, but many such statements stand incorrect. Aziz Qutbuddin in his recent press conference has stated that he  estimates that 95 percent of the Doat were in the position of mazoon before they went on to become Dai; to be more ‘conservative’ he then retracts his statement and says 90 percent. A true conservative estimate is as follows: Approximately of the 53  incumbents to the office of Dai al-Mutlaq, approximately 27 were previously in the position of mazoon; nearly half WERE NOT. Apparently, Aziz is not as conservative as he needs to be.  Yet another example of the blatant lies and fabrications of the KQ clan.

Secondly, the veneration given to mawaazeen by Duat Mutlaqeen following their demise also indicates that not all of them are equal. The table below displays the veneration accorded by Duat Mutlaqeen to the mawaazeen interred in Surat:

Mawaazeen interred in Surat, India:

This veneration is also seen in the name plates placed upon their respective quboor:

 

For Syedi Dawood bhaisaheb Shehabuddin the inscription reads ‘Fakhr al-Mawaazeen’ (The Pride of all Mawaazeen)

For Syedi Qasimkhan Zainuddin the inscription reads ‘Mazoon al-Dawat al-Gharraa’ (Mazoon of the Radiant Dawat)

For Syedi Ismail bhaisaheb the inscription reads Mazoon Dawat al-Haq al-Mubeen (Mazoon of the Dawat of the Evident Haq)

For Syedi Fazal bhaisaheb Qutbuddin the inscription reads ‘Mazoon al-Dawat’

Thirdly, every morning after fajar namaz Mumineen recite Fateha al-Hudud which lists the names of mawaazeen, mukaasereen, mashaikh kiraam and hudud ´izaam. However, not all the names of mawaazeen are mentioned in it. Further, the duaa’ features the names of certain mukaasereen as well as select hudud kiraam who were neither appointed as mazoon nor mukaasir. If all the mawazeen were equal in their shaan then why would the hafti prepared by the instructions of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA instruct us to recite the names of certain mawazeen, along with  various mukasereen and hudud kiraam, and not all?  Why are the names of those who have neither been appointed as mazoon or mukaasir mentioned? The Dai’s ´amal indicates that certain hudood have fadl and stature over others.

The above three points prove that not all mawaazeen are equal, they all do not possess the same set of qualities and attributes. Therefore, accepting the word of a claimant just because he was a mazoon is a misleading premise, especially a mazoon who succumed to the folly of believing himself to be the mansoos, just by virtue of being appointed mazoon. In the past even if the mansoos was in the position of a mazoon, Duat Mutlaqeen always adhered to the inviolable tenet of tawqeef,-making it known to a third person,when conferring nass upon their mansoos.