Syedi Qutub b. Suleiman does the zikr of a major finat which occured in the zaman of Syedna Dawud B. Qutub Shah RA in the Kitab Muntaza‘ ul Akhbar. The dushman, Suleiman Laeen b. Syedi Hasan, did baghawat in the era of Syedna Dawud b. Qutub Shah RA in which Moula RA and Mumineen underwent an immense mehnat. After this event, a schism occurred in Da’wat which is present until this day (Suleimani Bohras). In this zikr, Syedi Qutub writes that it is very astonishing that Suleiman did iqrar of (accepted) the nass of Syedna Dawud b. Qutub RA for three years. Proof is found in his actions as well as several letters that he wrote to him. It wasn’t until after three years after accepting nass and the position of Syedna Dawud b. Qutub Shah RA that he proclaimed himself the ‘muddai.’
This fitnat, which is only briefly referred to here, is quite reminiscent to the video included above of the son of Khuzaima, Abdeali. This video was taken in Ujjain in 1433H during the Ashara waaz. Shehzada Qaid Johar BS also confirmed in his letter to the Hindustan Times in April 2013, that Khuzaima himself had congratulated Syedna Mufaddal TUS on becoming Mansoosof Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. On Khuzaimas previous site, http://www.Tahiyaat.com, in the events section there was news that Khuzaima himself had presided over the Majlis of the Urus of Syedna Noor Mohammed Nooruddin on 4th Rajab 1432 (the day after the London Nass was made public), where the bayaan of Shehzada Qaid Johar BS regarding the Nass was relayed. Khuzaimas team have now removed that site and forwarded the domain to their current site, thus destroying all evidence. There are also many instances when Khuzaima has talked about the Nass on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS after 1432H (when the nass was made public) and done dua for him. The mumineen of America, Canada and Secundrabad are witness to this.
Khuzaima sitting below Syedna Mufaddal at Shz Hatim BS Sadaqallah
Inkaar after doing Iqraar.
History repeats itself.
UPDATED ON FEBRUARY 26 2014
Below is an old screen shot of a page from Khuzaima Qutbuddin’s official website http://www.Tahiyaat.com. In the news section it mentions that Khuzaima did sit over the Majlis in which the Nass recording was relayed from London. The site accepts the Nass, and refers to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS as “al Mawlal Ajal Syedi Ali Qadr Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS”.
As expected, this site has now been deactivated, and all evidence has been destroyed by Khuzaima’s team. This screen shot was saved 3 years ago, and sent to me recently by a viewer of this page.
No matter how much how one tries to conceal facts, the Truth will prevail.
Is this not inkaar after iqraar?
UPDATED ON MARCH 02 2014
The following testimony from a Yemeni Khidmat Guzaar confirms that Khuzaima Qutbuddin was aware and accepted the Nass on Syedna Mufaddal. He did inkaar after iqraar (accepting the Nass)
For many people the question might arise that how could Khuzaima Qutbuddin have remained in his position for so long and never been removed. In fact, this is one of the claims that he and his children have purported on their website, Fatimidawat.com, “On 17th Shaban 1434H Syedna Qutbuddin became the only Mazoon in the history of Dawat to serve a single Dai for fifty years. Despite many attempts by those exploiting Syedna’s trust over the years – especially Shehzada Mufaddal bhaisaheb – Syedna Burhanuddin maintained without fail, in every misaq and every majlis, that Syedna Qutbuddin was his Mazoon.”
This might seem compelling if one did not keep the history of Da’wat in mind. Aqa Moula al-Hayy al-Muqaddas Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA always read the zikr of Rasullullah’s SAW zaman in his Mawa’iz Nuraniyya (bayaano). Even at that time there were certain figures whom we all know seemed very close to Rasullullah SAW. Rasullullah SAW did not explicitly remove them from Da’wat, rather he kept them close and in their positions. This might be a very difficult concept to understand, however, it is by no means an isolated event in Da’wat’s history. Awliyaullah AS have followed this policy, one that is focused on the prosperity and of Da’wat and the preservation of the nufus of mumineen.
For instance, Aqa Moula al-Hayy al-Muqaddas RA has done bayan in his Risala Sharifa, Rawḍ Dār al-Salām, about the 41st Dai Syedna Abduttayyib Zakiuddin RA and his organization of the tartib of the hudood when he ascended to ‘Arsh ud Da’wat (pgs. 257-258). In this event, Syedna Zakiuddin RA kept some of the hudood in their positions despite their insufficiencies, either completely or partly, in knowledge (‘ilm), deeds (‘amal), and walayat, because the time at hand required the political step to do so. This was done for a reason and matter keeping in mind the the ultimate welfare of the Da’wat and the conformity and harmony of the community at large.
Therefore, it shouldn’t be that surprising that this policy, one with spiritual benefits in mind, also took place in this zaman. Aqa Moula Syenda Muhammed Burhanuddin RA always kept the well-being of mumineen in mind and emphasized the forces that united us rather than pay attention to the lurking darkness that might divide us. Therefore, this might explain why Khuzaima waited until Moula al-Hayy al-Muqaddass RA closed his eyes for eternal rest to deploy what he has been scheming for fifty years.
In one of Syedna Taher Saifuddins RA Risalah Shareefah “Khazaain Imam al Muttaqeen” (page 275), referring to the demise of the 28th Dai, Syedna Shaikh Adam Safiyuddin RA, he states:
“On the demise of Syedna Shaik Adam Safiyuddin RA, his Mansoos Syedna Abdut Taiyeb Zakiuddin RA performed the Janaza namaaz. This has been the “Sunnat of Dawat”, and this has been tradition followed till date; that the Mansoos must perform Janaza Namaaz on the Dai. Unless if the Mansoos is not present in the area the Dai passed away in.”
Khuzaima Qutbuddin was in Mumbai on the death of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, furthermore, he had even visited Saify Mahal before he left for Thane Dar us Saqifa (Sakina).
The Risalah Shareefah clearly states that this action (Mansoos praying Janaza Namaz on the Dai) is the Sunnat of Dawat. And the Quran repeatedly says that the Sunnat of Allah cannot be changed.
If Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims to be the True Mansoos of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, why didn’t he uphold and fight for the Sunnat of Dawat, which is clearly the biggest responsibility of a Dai?
Why did he only decide to send a PDF letter via email to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS, and Syedi Mukasir Saheb claiming his right? (He even forgot to insert the “Bismillah” in the letter to Mukasir Saheb, which was removed from their site!). Why did he run-away to Thane and focus on recording videos and designing websites? Just like after the death of RasulullahSAW, while the True Syedna was involved in Ghusul, Kafan & Dafan, Khuzaima was busy in his Dar us Saqifa (Sakina)launching the fithnat he had been planning many years in advance.
In his video, he claims that he didn’t want bloodshed, thus refrained from attending the funeral. Why didn’t he exercise his political, legal and media clout (which he clearly has at his disposal) to make this a reality? Surely he could have done this for the 52nd Dai, for whom he claims to be his most loyal and beloved successor. Furthermore, he had almost 24 hours to make it happen. The Sunnat of Dawat must be upheld at all costs. Why didn’t he assert his rights? In my opinion he should have stayed in Mumbai and exhausted all possible means to complete this amal, had he been the lawful person for this rite. If we read history, Rasulullah SAW was stopped from entering Makkah during the Umrah al Hudaibiyah, but he still made an effort to leave Madina and traveled the entire distance to Makkah to enforce his right, and then camped out of Makkah negotiating with the Mushrekeen of Makkah, and then was later refused to enter, after entering into a pact. Khuzaima Qutbuddin didn’t even get up from his seat from which he made his video statement. The truth is, he didn’t even care about Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA & the Sunnat of Dawat, let alone come to his Janaza.
Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS, though away at the time of Syedna’s demise, moved heaven and earth to be by his father and Naas’s side, in a very short time. Such is the power of the magnet of true love, where distance has no boundaries.
Quoting the true words of a Mumin Muklis:
“He who does not come to my fathers Janaza, I refuse to call him my friend. He who does not attend my Moulas Janaza, how can I consider him my leader?”
The true Mansoos of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA by his Janaza
(Author un-known: Message forwarded on Social Media)
A video of the Nass e Jali on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS on 19th Rajab 1432H has been posted on Khuzaima Qutbuddin’s website. The video is meant to underpin Khuzaima Qutbuddin’s allegations that this Nass was orchestrated by Shahzadas and others and that:
“No one heard Syedna Burhanuddin utter the Nass”
“Syedna Burhanuddin did not recognise Mufaddal bs standing 2 feet in front of him”.
“No one heard or understood anything from Syedna’s lips”
“All anyone heard was Dr Moiz Bhaisaheb reading from a prepared script”
“Others hijacked the person of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin and also his name”
A close inspection and analysis of the aforementioned video as posted on their website, provides evidence to the contrary.
As the video begins, in the very first few seconds, (0.05 on timeline) we can see that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin has arrived in Rawdat Tahera. He is being carried in a miyaana and can be seen clearly responding to the thousands who had gathered by giving salaami with his right hand. The right hand is not just stationery (0.21 on timeline) but is being moved by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin as he has always done. Just before he enters the qubba, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin looks towards his right, in the direction of mumineen (1.14 on timeline).
The video moves to next scene which shows Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin seated next to the qabr mubarak of Syedna Taher Saifuddin. The viewer can easily see that he is using his left hand to rest on the marble perimeter which runs along the length and breadth of the qabr mubarak (1.26 in timeline). Furthermore during the course of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin being seated, he is constantly seen adjusting his clothes, specifically his dupatta with both hands (1.54 and 2.02 on timeline). We can also see him giving salaami to the Shahzadas seated on his right hand side (2.20 on timeline). He is also seen moving and adjusting his feet as he is seated on a chair (3.22 on timeline). Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin can be observed to be moving towards the qabr mubarak and bending down to do ziyarat of his own volition (3.38 on timeline). As Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin stands up and performs tawaaf of the qabr mubarak, he is assisted by Dr Moiz Bhaisaheb and Shahzadas and we can see that he himself is walking and taking his own steps without any assistance as he goes round the qabr mubarak (5.05 on timeline).
We can see that Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin is affixing the bismillah on the marble wall in the corner of the qubba and Abdulqadir bs is seen presenting Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin with the next piece of bismillah. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin can be seen placing his hand on this piece and placing his hand back on his lap (7.50 on timeline).
As the video moves to the majlis which was held outside the qubba, Syedi Mukasir Saheb is seen taking Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s hand and doing talaqqi. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is seen looking towards Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin and then moving his right hand from a stationary position on his lap to gesturing and granting raza to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin (9.47 on timeline) as well as Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin moving his head to look towards Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin.
Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin comes forward to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, and Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin leans forward as his mansoos approaches, visibly recognising him (10.01 on timeline). The proximity of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, enables him to see him clearly (10.19 on timeline) and as a result, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin places his right hand on the shoulder of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin (10.24 on timeline).
Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin bends down to do qadambosi and then does sajdo and Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin gestures with his right hand again, and Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin returns (10.44 on timeline). A few moments later after Dr Moiz Bhaisaheb is kneeling next to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin turned again to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin and indicated with a very noticable gesture of his right hand, that Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin should be seated (11.35 on timeline). From that moment uptil 12.23 on the timeline, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin keeps his right hand in the position of giving raza until Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin was seated and once he was seated, only then did Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin turn to speak with Dr Moiz Bhaisaheb, and we can see that he is perfectly capable of communicating and being understood.
At 12.38 on the timeline, Dr Moiz Bhaisaheb places a microphone in front of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin and almost immediately Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin holds the mike in his right hand. He then gestures to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin to come and kneel in front of him and again holds the mike. We don’t see anyone thrusting the microphone in front of him or coercing him to say or do anything (12.58 on timeline). As Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin speaks, Dr Moiz Bhaisaheb on hearing and understanding what he is saying, repeats what he has said for the benefit of those gathered. Anyone viewing this video can plainly see that there is no ‘script’ which is being read by Dr Moiz Bhaisaheb as the claimant has alleged. He is repeating what Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is verbally conveying (13.30 on timeline).
After Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin finishes his araz, he proceeds to do qadambosi of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin and we can immediately see the almost instant response of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin where he opens his fingers so that Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin can do salaam (17.12 on timeline) and at 17.25, we can see Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin taking the najwa envelope from Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin and handing it to Sh Kauser bhai Yamani.
The claimant was not even present during this historic and auspicious event, even though it was also the Urus of his own father, Syedna Taher Saifuddin. Again, it is a exaggerated claim that not a single individual heard or understood Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s words or that he was incapacitated or that he was hijacked, when he himself was not there in person to witness the events which took place. Instead he has relied on a video of the event and misconstrued the reality of what occurred to serve his own purpose.
We can see at 21.20 on the timeline that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin calls for the microphone and Dr Moiz Bhaisaheb signals everyone to remain silent. At 21.59 when Dr Moiz Bhaisaheb pulls the mike away, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin again calls for it and even at 22.30, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin can be seen taking hold of the mike. After matam starts, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin recalls Dr Moiz Bhaisaheb by gesturing with his right hand and lowers it as soon as he has seen that Dr Moiz Bhaisaheb has responded (23.20 on timeline).
During Shehzada Qaidjohar Bhaisaheb’s araz, there is no doubt that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin lifts both his hands to adjust his paaghri (31.30 on timeline). Furthermore, it is incontestably evident that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is attentively listening to his araz which is relatively lengthy, in which Shahzada Qaidjohar Bhaisaheb mentions in detail the Nass on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin. Is the claimant alleging that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin can hear what Shahzada Qaidjohar Bhaisaheb is saying, but is helpless to respond or prevent what Shahzada Saheb is referring to? At 32.51, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is accepting the najwa envelope in the same fashion in which he has always done in every majlis, bethak and ziyafat. Is the claim that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is unaware of why the najwa is being presented? If so, why would he accept it? Can anyone prove that he is being coerced to do so?
Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin looks up at 27.44 and sees that Syedi Mukasir Saheb and Shahzada Qaidjoher Bhaisaheb are waiting to with a shawl for Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin. He then motions for them to proceed. At 27.51 we can see Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin grasp the end of the shawl in order to drape the shawl on his mansoos.
A notable question which arises is that if Nass was not conferred during this event, then what justified the draping of a shawl on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin? Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin was not hosting a ziyafat that would explain the giving of a shawl, nor was any other member of the congregation accorded this sharaf. In light of all the above, including the clearly recorded words audible in the audio files, the only explicable justification for this sharaf is that Nass was renewed on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin.
We then also see at 33.45 that Syedi Mukasir Saheb performs the wadhawanu rasam to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin and he uses the same thaali to do so, which was used for Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin.
There is no confusion that, aside from Dai al-Zaman and his Mansoos, there were no individuals present in that congregation who ranked higher than Syedi Mukasir Saheb. However it was Syedi Mukasir Saheb who (i) did talaqqi of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, (ii) performed wadhaawanu rasam to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin and (iii) assisted in draping the shawl on him as well. In all three instances, it is evident that Syedi Mukasir Saheb accepted the previous news of Nass on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin in London, as well as understood, comprehended and accepted the conferring of Nass on 19th Rajab 1432H. If not, then what is the justification of a significantly higher ranking Hadd to interact with a Shahzada in this manner? Is the claimant also suggesting that Syedi Mukasir Saheb too is incapacitated or being coerced?
UPDATED 15 FEB 2014
In the un-edited version of the video uploaded by the Fatemi Dawat site, at exactly (26:53 to 26:57) Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin says “Mufaddal Bhai ne Nass nu Taaj“. We can also clearly hear Moula stating “Khuda Barakat Aape” (32.40 – 32.43). This statement of Moula is in response to Shz Qaid Johar Bhaisaheb’s Araz. Although most of the other words are a bit muffled, these statements are very clearly heard. Please view this link for the video:
Khuzaima Qutbuddin Dismisses the Testimony of Shahzadas.
The Definition of a Witness in Da’aim al-Islam is as follows:
Syedna al-Qadi al-Noman RA in his argument against those who deny the occurrence of nass on Moulana Ali AS, claiming that they did not see or hear anything themselves, provides the definition of a witness:
“A witness is one who verifies and confirms something that has happened.” In addressing those Muslims who reject the nass upon Moulana Ali, he says, “You claim that Rasulullah SAW failed to appoint a single individual to succeed him or appoint an Imam who would lead his Ummah, yet you were never privy to witness anything (from that time). You dismiss and deny that which you have no knowledge [nor were you present to see]. Whereas the testimony of one who actually witnesses that particularevent is in a greater position to be accepted… A witness who has seen and heard an event is the witness whose word should be taken and whose testimony should be accepted. The one who has not heard or seen anything cannot be considered a witness, nor can his word be used against the one who stands witness by both sight and hearing.” (Zikr al-Bayan bi al-Tawqeef ‘ala al-A’imma Min Aale Mohammed SA)
On Fatemidawat.com Khuzaima Qutbuddin and his children have allegedly brought doubt upon the sequence of events of the nass proclaimed by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. They argue how things that have actually transpired are improbable. They propound that their doubts regarding the transpiring of an event that they were not present for should outweigh the testimonies of the eyewitnesses of that same event. Syedna al-Qadi al-Noman’s RA words above help identify the fallacy of their argument.
On the Fatemidawat.com website and especially in the media Khuzaima Qutbuddin and his sons question how the “second-in-command” can rebel against the Dawat.
Unfortunately, once again the claims that Khuzaima Qutbuddin and his children have made are not correct. Again we turn to the Kitab – Muntazaa ul Akhbar where the zikr of the 29th Da’i Syedna Abduttayyib Zakiuddin RA clearly shows that this has happened in history. Syedi Shaikh Qutub b. Suleiman does zikr that Ali b. Ibrahim had initially accepted Syedna Abduttayyib Zakiuddin RA (29th Dai) as Dai al Multaq, he went against him. (Note: We do understand that certain communities outside of Dawoodi Bohras do not hold this view point and we do not mean to offend them in any way. This is the history of Ali b. Ibrahim which appears in the book that we have quoted and may not reflect the personal viewpoints and ideas about this historical figure by other religious communities). Some time later, he came to seek forgiveness from Syedna Abduttayyib Zakiuddin RA who acknowledged his repentance and appointed him in “al Mahal al Thaani” “second in command.” However, after thirty-three months he regressed to his former disposition and openly rebelled against Syedna Abduttayyib Zakiuddin RA declaring that he was the Dai.
Syedi Shaikh Qutub b. Suleiman writes in Muntaza al-Akhbar that:
“Ali b. Ibrahim, though second in command, led himself to be tempted and seduced by material gain. He lay claim to the position of the Dai as he had done so before. He desired his Maula’s respected position for himself. He bragged about the wealth he had accumulated through improper means. He claimed that he was more deserving of being a Dai than Syedna Abduttayyib Zakiuddin RA…he transgressed all limits in his attempt to secure this position. He thought that with the help of his Shaitans– a builder and a diver- he would fulfill his desire. But what happened was the opposite; The house was protected by its lord. He began to corrupt the people of Da’wat, instigate Mumineen against the Dai, bind them using spells of Haroot and Maaroot, he misled them with fabricated narrations of Taim and Adee, and entice people through their inclinations. He created a great deal of disorder in Da’wat. When Syedna Zakiuddin heard about his actions he removed him and three others from the hierarchy of hudud.”
On the website, Fatemidawat.com, Khuzaima Qutbuddin and his family have alleged that nass conveyed in private in the absence of any witnesses (shahhids) is permissible and well established in Da’wat.Assuming that their readers are uninformed, they gave the historical precedence of the nass of Syedna Ahmad RA on Syedna Hussein RA. Using Syedna Taher Saifuddin Aqa RA’s Risala Sharifa, Mashrabat -Tasneem-e-Noor as proof, they take the sentence “fa ma ash’hada ash shohada zahiran” to mean that there were no witnesses present at the time of nass and the nass was done in private.
However, here we must take a closer look at the philology of the sentence. Ash’hada is in Form IV of the Arabic verb forms which is usually renders a causative meaning to form I. What this means is that sha-hi-da (to bear witness or give testimony) is made causative, so it means to make someone be a witness for something, or to give someone the knowledge about something to bear witness or behold it. It can also mean to make someone present. However, in the this particular sentence the most suitable meaning is read – … he did not make the witnesses public (ẓāhiran). By reading the meaning in this way, it does not preclude the presence of shahhido during the nass; it just emphasizes the fact that they weren’t made public, and rather the nass was done in private, however, among shahhido (witnesses).
What reinforces this interpretation is another Da’wat kitab that Khuzaima Qutbuddin website failed to mention perhaps intentionally or because of their lack of knowledge of Da’wat’s full corpus of works. That is the kitab, Muntaza ul-Akhbar, a book written in Syedna Abde Ali Saifuddin Aqa RA’s zaman and which includes the history of the Du’at Mutlaqeen RA.
While talking about the same nass ni zikr between Syedna Ahmad RA and Syedna Husain RA, Syedi Sh. Qutub b. Salmanjee clearly states that the nass between Syedna Ahmed RA and Syedna Husein RA occurred among “Hudood, Mukhliseen, Mu’qineen, and Mu’mineen.” The nass here was indeed private and kept secret, however Muntaza clearly states that it was done in the presence of shahhids and not in the way portrayed on the Fatemidawat website. Only by interpreting the nass in the way mentioned here can the congruent meanings of both Da’wat kitabo, Syedna Taher Saifuddin’s RA Risala Shareefa and Muntaza, line up. Therefore, there hasn’t been any nass done in the ear of someone or in private without any witnesses besides the person themselves as is claimed by Khuzaima Qutbuddin.
Da’im ul-Islam also gives further evidence supporting this idea. Syedna Qadi Noman RA clearly states that there must be “Tawqeef” (informing) along with the Nass. Therefore, if nass is conveyed in private it can only be done so in the presence of shahhido (witnesses). For example, the 49th Dai Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA did Nass on Syedna Abdullah Badruddin RA in the presence of four witnesses on the 11th of Zilhaj 1323. They were told to keep this private until his death, upon which it was revealed.
This is the history of Da’wat in plain site. I feel that what is portrayed by the Fatemidawat website is unfortunately a delusional twisting of historical fact to serve political needs in the hopes that the readers are uninformed.
The idea of the position of the spiritual father and mother of Mumineen is something that cannot be refuted. Da’wat kitabo have provided the bayan that Rasullullah SAW has said to Ameer al-Mumineen SA “Oh Ali, you and I are the parents of the Mumineen.” Rasullullah SAW assumed the position of the spiritual father of the faithful while Ameerul Mumineen, the wasi, was the spiritual mother. According to the bayan mubarak of the third Dai, Syedna Hatim b. Ibrahim RA in his book, Tanbih al-Ghafileen, the same parental relationship is said of Dai and Mazoon in the zaman of satr. Aqa Moula Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin al-Hayy al-Muqaddas RA made this clear in many of his bayaano. He often said, “Mumineen mein tamara bawa choo ane maa bhi choo.” However, Aqa Moula Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA never explicitly stated that anyone else besides himself was the spiritual mother of Mumineen. He assumed both roles. Dai al-Zaman is probably the most important source for Da’wat’s theology. Yes, Dawat na kitabo are very important, however, the main kitab is the Dai. He is the source of all knowledge and Dai al-Hayy al-Muqaddas, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA never explicitly said or even implied that Khuzaima Qutbuddin was Mumineen’s spiritual mother.
Therefore, to further understand this claim we must look at the role of a mother in relation to Da’wat. The role of a spiritual mother is to perform the act of spiritual tarbiyyat (upbringing) of mumineen. This would mean that along with receiving the guidance of a spiritual father, like Aqa Moula al-Hayy al-Muqaddas, we should have had spiritual tarbiyyat and motherly protection from whoever would be in the position of the spiritual mother of Da’wat. In this respect as well, Khuzaima Qutbuddin was hardly ever present in the numerous journeys and voyages that Aqa Moula al-Hayy al-Muqaddas performed to the cities of mumineen to perform our tarbiyyat. In fact, personally, I only remember seeing him in a handful of occasions. Since the 80’s he hasn’t been able to clearly articulate bayano which has made it difficult to attribute any spiritual tarbiyat on his part. In fact, it can be obviously stated that one of the major sources of Mumineen’s tarbiyat was Ashara Mubaraka in Aqa Moula Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s al-Hayy al-Muqaddas’s zaman. In the last thirty years there has only been a few asharas in which Khuzaima Qutbuddin was present. Unfortunately he was never there to do our tarbiyat – which according to his website was his duty. Why would that be the case?
Therefore, we must look at Khuzaima Qutbuddin’s tarbiyat of his own children. Recently, in the chaos of Burhanuddin Moula al-Hayy al-Muqaddas’s tragic demise, his daughters Arwa and Fatima released a video of their children proclaiming that Khuzaima Qutbuddin was the next Da’i. There is no doubt they did this to hurt their spouses and their father in laws, Syedna Mufaddal Bhaisaheb Saifuddin TUS and Syedi Qa’id Johar Bs Izzuddin. How can the exploitation of vulnerable children and making their homemade videos go viral in order to put salt on an open wound be a form of good tarbiyat in any form or manner? In fact, it displays sheer tastelessness and a lack of class. On the other side, we look at the fathers of these children, Syedi Taha Bs and Ibrahim Bs, who have stood by Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS and not said anything about the horrible acts of the daughters of Khuzaima Qutbuddin. They have demonstrated exemplary tarbiyat.
Lastly, if Khuzaima Qutbuddin was really the spiritual mother of Mumineen, I would like to personally ask him, “what kind of mother abandons their children at the demise of their father?” His actions do not display any form of true motherhood. At the loss of our spiritual father, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin al-Hayy al-Muqaddas we needed consoling, prayer, comfort. Instead, within hours of Aqa Moula al-Hayy al-Muqaddas’s passing he didn’t stay and attend the kafan or dafan. Instead, he went to Darus Saqifa (Sakeena) to proclaim himself the next Da’i. That is completely against the sirat of Ameerul Mumineen, who remained busy in Rasullullah’s kafan dafan and did not bother with what dushmano were doing at the time. This act was because it was more important to be the Ruhani mother of mumineen and the respect of Rasullullah’s SAW kafan dafan outweighed any public proclamation of successorship. Khuzaima Qutbuddin did completely the opposite. If he truly was the the spiritual mother of Mumineen – his actions and the actions of his children display otherwise.
History often shows us the way in times of trouble. We can look back at the actions of our predecessors and take an example of what they did to find light in dark times. These blogs are compilations of the significant events of Da’wat’s history and how they relate to the present situation as hand. We can use them as a tool to see the truth of the matter of nass. There will be fifty-three entries in total, which I believe help prove the matter of nass and clarify the doubts that are lingering around in people’s minds.
53 Reasons NOT To Believe Khuzaima Qutbuddin 