Reason #70: (Janazah-Post 5) – Lack of tawfeeq

The Janazah Mubarak of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA

Post 5 – Lack of tawfeeq

Husain Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Burhanuddin’s janazah mubarakah ‘ma faraq parhi gayo’; that it did not happen as it should have, because KQ, the haqq na saheb, was not allowed to be there. This does not make sense. Why would Allah Ta’ala demonstrate his anger at people for abandoning KQ, the alleged haqq na saheb, by allowing disrespect and behurmati of another haqq na saheb? How could a mansoos even think that not accepting him as the true mansoos would result in the behurmati of his naas’ janazah, the very person who appointed him to that position? If anything, Allah’s anger would befall those who did not accept Syedna Burhanuddin’s wishes in his successor, not Syedna Burhanuddin himself! How is that justice? Why would Allah Ta’ala do that?

 Further, if KQ stayed away from the janazah in fear of behurmati, in all his wisdom and insight, why did he not realize that his absence was inexcusable according to our basic tenets?

 The truth, then, is that there was no behurmati or faraq (compromise) in the janazah mubarakah of Syedna Burhanuddin. Allah’s anger did befall those who did not accept Syedna Burhanuddin’s true mansoos. He distanced them for His mercy, the very being of the Dai, and did not give them the tawfeeq, strength or understanding to attend his janazah mubarakah. And He, through His ilhaam and the ilhaam of His Wali to his Dai Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS, ensured that Syedna Burhanuddin’s RA janazah mubarakah would be carried to his final resting place like no other Dai in the history of Dawat cementing in the eyes of all true believers his true maqaam and demonstrating for all the unparalleled love in the hearts of his sincere followers. Let us recall this historic day:

 Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s RA janazah mubarakah, the janazah mubarakah upon which heavenly barakaat and grace was constantly showered, and the manner by which it was carried and brought to its final resting place are indications of his great maqaam and the nazaraat of Imam al-Zaman upon his Dai. Firstly, generations of Mumineen benefitted with the final deedar of the chehra mubarak of Syedna Burhanuddin RA: a barakat that they will cherish and take blessings from for the rest of their lives and even after they die. Which child would not wish to see their father’s radiant, beaming face once more before it was taken from their sight for the remainder of their lives?

 After ghusl and takfeen, Syedna Burhanuddin’s RA janazah mubarakah was carried on the shoulders of his son and successor, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS and other members of his family and Mumineen from Taheri masjid to the Saifee Mahal portico. There, the Indian state paid its final respects to Syedna Burhanuddin RA with a 21-gun salute. Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS, barefoot, followed closely behind the janazah mubarakah until Syedna Burhanuddin RA left the gates of Saifee Mahal for the very last time on the shoulders of his beloved children. Despite the police barriers, uniformed officers and military presence, thousands of Mumineen had managed to reach the restricted area outside the gates of Saifee Mahal. Despite having just left Saifee Mahal, the janazah mubarakah could not move forward in the huge crowd of Mumineen.

Outside Saify Mahal

Outside Saify Mahal

With great effort and care, it was placed on a vehicle specially prepared to carry Moula’s janazah mubarakah. Syedna Saifuddin TUS boarded the carriage and sat behind the janazah mubarakah. As it made its way in the sea of thousands and thousands of Mumineen, the sheer numbers of people that had gathered was astonishing. Ultimately, the janazah mubarakah reached Saifee Masjid. There, throngs of Mumineen, in the masjid, and the streets surrounding it partook in the janazah namaz of the 52nd Dai. An event they never imagined could happen; an event they gave lakho shukr na sajadaat to have participated in. After the namaz, they saw his shahzadahs and children give ta’ziyat to his successor and tears poured from Mumineen’s eyes at this heart-breaking sight. And finally, as Moula’s mubarak janazah made its way to the splendid, mausoleum he built for his father to take his place at his side for eternity, Mumineen gazed upon their Dai for the very last time.

Mumineen gaze upon the janazah mubarakah for the last time

Mumineen gaze upon the janazah mubarakah for the last time

KQ’s accusations of acting against the sunnat and not knowing the ahkaam of shari’at are all baseless. They are meant to be a smokescreen that would hide the truth: the fact that Khuzaima did not come to Syedna Burhanuddin’s janazah. If anything is to be taken as indication of lack of tawfeeq, lack of mohabbat, lack of ‘ilm it is this: history will give testament to the undisputable fact that Khuzaima Qutbuddin, his kin and his followers failed to come to the janazah mubarakah of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA.

Reason #69: (Janazah-Post 4) – Following the Janazah

The Janazah Mubarak of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA

Post 4 – Following the Janazah

Dawat texts have indicated the importance, protocol and etiquette of following a janazah either on its way for janazah namaz or towards the graveyard for burial. In this regard, Kitaab al-Hawashi, a Dawat text that is a compilation of queries made by the Hudood Kiram RA of India to the Doat Mutlaqeen RA of Yemen and their corresponding responses, contains the following:

The question: What do you say in regards to what shari’at has prescribed regarding walking behind janazahs; does one who walks in front of a janazah err or sin in doing so?

The answer: It is mentioned in Kitab al-Akhbar (Al-Akhbaar fi al-Fiqh by Syedna al-Qadi al-Noman RA) that walking in front of a janazah is discouraged when the janazah is that of an enemy [of Dawat] because of the presence of angels of anger. As for a Mumin, there is no concern as to where you walk in relation to the janazah because the angels of mercy engulf it. Walking behind it, however, is preferred.

The thousands of Mumineen who partook in Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s RA janazah, even if standing hundreds of meters away were truly showered by the mercy and rehmat of Allah Ta’ala and his firishtah. Those, however, who despite being in Mumbai, failed to come, failed to even catch a single glimpse of this noorani manzar, or at Masajids/Halls where there was Live AV relay, they are indeed mehroom.

Providing more evidence of his ignorance of Dawat texts, Husain Qutbuddin attempts to further disgrace Syedna Burhanuddin’s RA janazah procession and his memory by claiming that sitting in a vehicle was against shari’at. Syedna al-Qadi al-Noman RA states in Kitab al-Muntakhabah, an important compilation of shari’at ahkaam (important aspects of Fatemi jurisprudence) uniquely composed in verse form:

And walking behind a janazah is preferred, and walking barefoot holds complete reward.

Yet, walking with shoes and riding a mount, when following a janazah, is also permissible.

Syedna al-Qadi al-Noman RA has stated that when accompanying or following a janazah it is permissible to ride upon a mount instead of walking behind it. How can Husain Qutbuddin claim that ‘basic hukm ma faraq parhi gayo when he himself is unaware of this basic hukm?

Reason #68: (Janazah-Post 3) – The Carrying of the Janazah

The Janazah Mubarak of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA

Post 3 – The Carrying of the Janazah

Da’aim al-Islam has clearly established that carrying a janazah by foot, upon the shoulders of men is Sunnat and the preferred means. Yet, this is not all that Da’aim states. It is ironic that Husain Qutbuddin, who attempts to criticize someone given charge of a Mumin’s janazah for not referring to Da’aim, is himself unaware of Da’aim as well as other Dawat texts. In the very same paragraph in Da’a’im where it is mentioned that the janazah should be carried, it is explained that a janazah can also be taken upon an animal (i.e. camel or other riding animal) if the situation calls for it. In fact, that is how the narration begins. The text from Da’aim is as follows:

[Narrated] from Ali SA, he has given permission that a janazah can be carried on an animal or carriage. This is allowed if there are not a sufficient number of people to carry it or there is some other excuse or justification (‘uzr). The sunnat, however, and that which is [normally] instructed of is for it to be carried by men. 

The two options given by Amirul Mumineen SA are clear. The janazah should be carried by men and when not possible, either due to there being too few men or some other reason that prohibits carrying the janazah on shoulders, it can be carried by a carriage. Mukhtasar al-Aathar, Kitab al-Wadiyyah (by Syedna Ahmad Hamiduddin al-Kirmani) and Kitab al-Muntakhabah all reiterate this guidance.

It is in accordance with these explicit instructions of Shari’at that Hudat Kiram have always acted. In 1987, when Amirul Jamea al-Muqaddas passed away, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA flew to Cairo to lead his janazah namaz. After namaz in Anwar, the janazah mubarakah was carried to Ra’as al-Husain’s zareeh mubarak and then placed in a vehicle. Syedna Burhanuddin RA, seated in another car, followed the janazah to Marj. There, Amirul Jamea al-Muqaddas was buried outside the Qubbah Mubarakah of Moulana Malek al-Ashtar RA.

Husain Qutbuddin attempts to highlight the importance and hurmat of a Mumin’s janazah in his YouTube Q&A sessions and states that Syedna al-Qadi Noman RA has emphasised that a Mumin’s janazah should be carried on one’s shoulders. His questions why this was not considered for Moula. Using his own rhetoric, something that applies for every Mumin should have been applied for the shahzadah of a Dai:

When Shahzadah Mohammed al-Baqir Bhaisaheb passed away in February, 2009, KQ led prayers over his janazah and presided over his funeral and final rites. After namaz in Saifee masjid, KQ instructed that the janazah be taken to Mohammed Ali road using the alley besides Rawdat Taherah. Once on the main road, KQ had the janazah placed in an ambulance; family members got in the ambulance and sat besdies it. KQ himself got into his Mercedes and then drove to Naryal Wadi where Shahzadah al-Muqaddas was finally laid to rest. Did Husain Qutbuddin forget that his own father allowed for a janazah to be placed in a vehicle, despite the relatively shorter distance and lack of concern over numbers and crowd control?


  • inability to identify references in Dawat texts that clearly allow what he claims is not allowed by shari’at,
  • incapacity to understand the meanings of these texts,
  • failure to realise that his own father has done what he claims is against the sunnah;

All these things indicate that it is he and his father who lack tawfeeq and divine inspiration from Allah Ta’ala.

Reason #67: (Janazah-Post 2) – Sharia’at and the maqaam and authority of the Dai

The Janazah Mubarak of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA

Post 2 – Sharia’at and the maqaam and authority of the Dai

 The attendance of the janazah and namaz upon it are obligatory. Due to this importance, shari’at has specified rules and guidelines for how a Mumin’s funeral and janazah should take place, and like all aspects of life, it has acknowledged that the circumstances of funerals and janazahs are not always alike. Shari’at provides various means to cater to the different constraints and issues that raise in different janazah situations. This is why shari’at is known as sharia’at samhaa’: a religion that is encompassing and tolerant. More importantly, shari’at is led by Saheb al-Shari’at, the imam or dai of each time who carries out and administers the dictates of shari’at with authority given to him by Allah Ta’ala and his ilhaam.

 An example of this is an incident that occurred during the period of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, the 49th Dai which Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA (52nd Dai) describes in one of his wa’az mubaraks (Asharah Mubarakah, 1418 H, 3rd Majlis). During his grandfather’s (49th Dai) time, two senior members of the community passed away in Surat and their janazahs were brought to the Nawapura masjid. Various opinions were shared as to how the janazahs should be placed until an argument broke out. When Syedna BurhanuddinRA (49th Dai)reached the masjid door, two shaikhs came to him seeking judgement as to how the janazah should be placed during the single namaz, both offering different suggestions. Syedna said nothing. When he reached the the two janazahs, he gave instructions that one be moved away.  He led namaz separately for each of the janazahs. In his bayaan mubarak, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA (52nd Dai) states:

There is bayaan [in Dawat texts], that if there are two janazahs, or four, then namaz can be prayed upon each of them individually or all of them together. It is not obligated (faridat) that namaz should take place on them all together. Everyone present was astounded; this is fasl al-khitaab (final decision; ultimate authority). Because Syedna Burhanuddin (49th Dai) had realised that much has already been said; this is not the appropriate time to furnish a response to their queries. Upon witnessing this act, Syedi Mohyiddeen stated: “behold the strength (quwwat) of this saheb, he is endowed with fasl al-khitaab!”

Among the many lessons the bayaan mubarak of Syedna Burhanuddin (52nd) and the actions of Syedna Burhanuddin (49th Dai) offer, three are of direct relevance here.

  • Firstly, as mentioned above, Shari’at allows for multiple courses of actions depending on varying situations.
  • Secondly, it is the haqq na saheb that chooses the correct course of action for a particular situation and makes a final decision based upon what is provided for in Shari’at. He ensures that what is obligated by shari’at is carried out and where shari’at has given provision and choice, he chooses the most appropriate course of action.
  • Finally, Dawat texts must be seen as a collective corpus of literature; bayaans cannot be chosen according to one’s own preference in order to support one’s preferred interpretation.

The provision that when two or more janazahs are placed in a masjid, namaz can be held on them separately is not found in Da’a’im al-Islam. In fact, Da’a’im only refers to the following statement by Moulana AliSA: “When multiple janazahs have been assembled [in a masjid for janazah namaz], [the Imam should] pray a single namaz upon them together. [The janazahs of] men should be placed near him, and [the janazahs of] women should be placed towards the Qiblah.” Da’aim is clear: namaz should be prayed on all janazahs together. It is only in other Fiqh (jurisprudence) texts that this provision for praying namaz separately on each janazah is given. In Mukhtasar al-Aathar, Syedna al-Qadi al-Noman RA, the very author of Da’aim, states: “When multiple janazahs have been assembled [for namaz], the imam can lead prayer upon them together… And if he wishes to pray namaz upon them individually, then that is also permissible.“

The Dai’s actions are always in accordance with shari’at and reflect the meanigs of Dawat texts as a collective entity. His very being is shari’at. Therefore, whatever course of action he chooses is the most appropriate course to be taken. It is the most preferred, most afdal.

Reason #66: (Janazah-Post 1) – Nass is all that matters

The Janazah Mubarak of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA

Post 1 – Nass is all that matters

 A Dai’s greatest responsibility is finding, preparing and appointing, through nass and tawqeef, the Dai that will take his place. This individual is like him in all ways and has all the attributes and qualities required to lead the Dawat. He is guided by the ilhaam of Allah Ta’ala and his wali and therefore everything he does is right and haqq. For those that are willing to see, it is obvious beyond any doubt that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA had appointed Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS as his mansoos and the 53rd Dai through nass and tawqeef. Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS is his heir and successor, and like him, as Dai today, every action and statement of his contains wisdom and hikmat. It is nass that establishes the righteousness of the Dai’s actions, and not vice versa. It is the presence of this nass and tawqeef that informs us that all of his actions are a result of the ilhaam he receives.

The importance in attending a Mumin’s Janazah

Attending the janazah of a Mumin holds great thawaab and reward (Husain Qutbuddin continues to remind us; let us give some bayaans that he does not refer to). Participating in tajheez and takfeen (the preparation of the body for burial), carrying the janazah, partaking in the janazah namaz, and being present at the burial are all great, rewarding acts; they reflect a Mumin’s respect and affection for his departed brother. In fact, in Tanbih al-Gaafeleen, Syedna Hatim bin Ibrahim RA states:

Know, that a Mumin is obligated to honor certain rights of another Mumin: rights, the fulfilment of which, he cannot be excused of.  They are that he should: always continue giving him advice, answer his call, discourage his backbiting, forgive his mistakes, accept his excuses, honour his agreements, visit him when ill, and follow or escort his janazah [after his death].

 Here, Syedna Hatim RA clearly states that a Mumin cannot be excused from honouring these rights of a fellow Mumin, no matter the reason.

 The importance and obligatory nature of the janazah namaz is further highlighted by Syedna Badrul Jamali RA in his kitaab, Majaalis Mustansiriyyah.  He provides a list of the seven obligatory (faridat) and 12 non-obligatory or customary prayers (sunnat). The seven obligatory prayers are as follows:

  1. Namaz at one’s place of domicile (home). They are 17 raka’ats in each night and day.
  2. Namaz during travels (safr). They are 11 raka’ats in each night and day.
  3. Juma’a namaz [during the period of zuhoor]. It does not take place unless there are four people with the imam.
  4. Namaz of Khowf (prayed during battle). A portion of this namaz is prayed behind the imam and a portion is prayed on one’s own.
  5. The namaz of an obligatory Hajj.
  6. The namaz of an obligatory Umrah.
  7. Namaz upon a janazah. It is obligated upon everyone who comes to know about it from among Muslimeen until one among them leads prayer and the rest follow him.

 If shari’at has obligated attendance of the janazah namaz of a Mumin, and has considered it among a Mumin’s right, what is there to be said of the importance of the namaz of the Dai’s janazah? Further, what can be said of a man who claims to be the Dai’s mansoos, but fails to attend his janazah, providing excuses for what Syedna Hatim RA has said is inexcusable? It is an esteemed tradition that every mansoos leads his predecessor’s janazah namaz.

 Amirul Mumineen SA describes one who comes across a janazah and fails to recite salaam upon it and assist in carrying it (let alone someone who purposefully abandons it) as an ‘aajiz: one who is weak and helpless. Situations might arise where every Mumin in a city cannot attend every departed Mumin’s janazah, but his bond of emaan, love and respect for his fellow Mumin make up for any lack of attendance in such a case. Fard al-Kifayah, or the provision that the faridat of attending the janazah is upheld by all Mumineen when a few do it on their behalf applies to these situations. However, when a Dai’s janazah procession takes place in his city, a Mumin who loves his Dai and Moula, would not be found anywhere else but at his Moula’s side. No excuse or situation would stop him from doing so.

Dawe Daar ni Kahaani – Videos

Another Khidmat Guzaar has compiled a collection of videos by the name of “Dawe Daar ni Kahaani”.

These videos are testimonies of primary witnesses to the past actions of Khuzaima Qutbuddin and his clan, to refute his claim of Nass.

Recently some of the videos also contain audio/video arguments already posted on this site.


The updated collection of these videos can be found through this link:

Reason #65: The So Called ‘Amanat’ of Nass (Part TWO)

Continued from Reason #26: The So called ‘Amanat’ of Nass

As they days go by, the evidence to refute this point keeps increasing. Hence, I have decided to make a sequel to this point.

  • In the video posted in the DaweDaarNiKaha series, Sh Mansoor Yamani, who spent many years in the service of Khuzaima Qutbuddin clearly testifies that Bazat Tahera Qutbuddin was told about this ‘so called Nass’, more so, she even brainwashed her children to believe he was the 53rd Dai.

IF the Nass was a strict Amanat from Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA to Khuzaima Qutbuddin, then why did he divulge this information to his children, and allow it to be passed on to his grandchildren? What makes them so special to be privy to this information and not other mumineen? He claims this was to kept secret until Burhanuddin Moula’s demise. It seems he couldn’t keep it to himself and then let the cat out of the bag many years in advance. This is khiyanat (betrayal of trust) in the highest form.

  • It very well known that Khuzaima Qutbuddin, throughout his life equated himself to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. He demanded the same protocol that was only for the Dai.

Sh Mohammed Yamani testified to this fact that in Colombo he stopped mumineen from going to Burhanuddin Moulas hazrat, claiming that since he was present, it was one in the same, and it was not necessary to travel elsewhere. In another video posted in the DaweDaarNiKahaani series, these Sahebs testify this fact.

IF Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA had in fact done Nass on Khuzaima Qutbuddin, and instructed him to keep it private, why then was he parading amoungst Mumineen pretending to be the Dai himself, or his Mansoos. Since he was instructed to keep the Nass private, he should have been more humble, subtle and extra cautious as to not let anyone be aware of this fact.

These few points are evidence that Khuzaima Qutbuddin did not uphold the Amanat of the ‘so called Nass’. He did khiyanat (betrayed this trust).

How can one who cannot hold steadfast the Amanat of Nass be entrusted and capable of holding the Amanat of the Dawat and the position of Dai Muthlaq?


(A thought sent via Email)
One point I picked up while scrutinising HQ’s videos myself, was that he mentions he was present during 1434H Asharah Mubarakah in Surat. He mentions he was in ‘taqiyyat’. I thought the nass on his father was meant to be kept private and that KQ was not to tell anyone. So clearly HQ knew, hence he was in ‘taqiyyat’. He was concealing his belief that, his father was mansoos. This goes against the whole foundation of their claim.
This is proof that Khuzaima Qutbuddin didn’t carry out the Amanat of Nass as allegedly instructed to him by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, he revealed this to his children and his cronies (as clarified above as well).

Reason #64: Q & A (Part 2)

(Continued from Reason #63)

They question why Sh Ibrahim Yamani’s Nass document (of 1388H) and Sh Abdulhusain Yamani’s diary entry (of 1415H) was not made public in 1432H.

  • In 1432H, after nass, the existence of Sh Abdul Husain’s Diary (of 1415H) was known to the general public, many had a images of the pages as as well. This diary entry referred to the 1388H nass where his father, Sh Ibrahim Yamani and 2 others were informed.

  • The document of of nass prepared by Sh Ibrahim Yamani in 1388H was only revealed recently, as we have just come to know that this document was not kept with Sh Ibrahim Yamani’s other belongings. Rather, (as explained to us by Syedna Mufaddal TUS in the 4 Rabi al Akhar 1435 waaz) it was protected and kept in Saifee Mahal in Syedna Taher Saifuddin’s RA room, in a teak cupboard, along with some other private documents by Syedna Burhanuddin RA himself. We were even informed that this cupboard was kept locked and Moulana RA would tend to it personally.

  • This document was the property of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA and it was his choice whether or not it should be made public.

  • Moulana Burhanuddin RA had done nass on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin in 1432H both in the hospital as well as in public on the day of urs mubarak. There was no need to reveal the document. Moulana RA himself had done nass, who would doubt him?

  • It only makes sense that the nass document was revealed now in order to confirm beyond all doubt that Burhanuddin Moula, the 52nd Dai, appointed Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin as the 53rd Dai.

They allege that the Nass document of 1388H by Sh Ibrahim Yamani is a forged document. And add that with today’s technology, it is very easy to forge a document.

  • How can they refute the genuineness of this document, without seeing or assessing it?

  • With the technology available, it is possible to forge a document, but there are ways of verifying it.

  • Just as it is easy to forge a document, it is easier to be delusional and imagine that someone did Nass on you, without any witnesses. You don’t even need technology for that.

  • In the past, Sulaiman did present a forged document. But according to Dawat History, the strongest argument against his false claim is that he accepted the Daiship of Syedna Dawood RA for 3 years, gave Mubarakbadis and even wrote Qasidas in his shaan. This sounds very familiar, as Khuzaima did accept the Nass on Syedna Mufaddal TUS for 3 years as well. (Refer to Reason #8 below).

  • If they would like to draw a parallel with history: Laeen Majdu was delusional and claimed that The Imam had spoken to him directly and secretly. Similarly Khuzaima is delusional to claim that Syedna Burhanuddin RA did Nass on him privately without any witnesses. (Interesting fact: Laeen Majdu made his false claim during the era of the 40th Dai Syedna Hebatullah RA. Syedna Hebatullah’s RA wiladat was on the 16th of Rabi al Awwal 1125H, the same day as Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s RA demise. History does repeat itself. One delusional Majdu, and the second a delusional Khuzaima.)

They allege that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA was being forced and attended many gatherings against his own will.

  • If the Dawat was under ‘siege’, and Syedna RA was being oppressed, as Khuzaima claims, why didn’t he come to the rescue of his Moula? (See Reason #42 for more details). If the entire Dawat has been led to believe that Syedna was doing these acts on his own accord, with his own free will and they were UNAWARE of Moula’s troubles, and Khuzaima and his folk were the only ones who knew otherwise, who knew the TRUTH, that Moula, na’uwzobillah, was being used and hijacked, that he was in pain and discomfort, it was their OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY, not only as an alleged mansoos, but as even a Mumin, to rectify the situation and come to the aid of their Moula no matter what obstacles were in their way and no matter what the perceived consequences on his person or property. What Mumin would knowingly watch what he claims was torture, hijacking, and abuse of their Moula? On top of this, Khuzaima has the audacity to say that it was he who was doing sabr?

  • They refer to this video posted on the FatemiDawat site, trying to prove that Syedna was being forced to do ishara (gesture) of the Shahadat Sajda on Ashura day. This video actually works against their claim. It is evident in the video that Syedna Mufaddal TUS is gently trying to aid Syedna Burhanuddin RA in doing this amal, but as soon as Syedna does ishara with his hand, Syedna Mufaddal TUS stops. This is proof enough that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA was not forced against his own will.

Bazat Tahera and Husain claim that Dawat history is proof that many children and grandchildren of the Imams and Duats have rebelled against the Dawat. For example, during the era of Syedna AbduQadir Najmuddin (47th Dai),  there were many munafiqeen that were in certain positions in the Dawat.

  • This is true. There have been many instances like this. A perfect example of an ‘enemy from within’ and rebelling against the Dawat is Khuzaima himself. Just as there have been children who have done fitnat, there have been in many cases brothers as well, example Zayd & Nizar,

  • Analysing the case of Syedna Abdul Qadir Najmuddin’s RA time. Undoubtedly, there were munafiqeen from within, but what Tahera Qutbuddin fails to mention is, that during this critical time, Syedna Abdul Qadir Najmuddin’s Mansoos, Syedna Abdul Husain Husamuddin RA and other Mukliseen Hudood were always by his side. Khuzaima and his clan here suggest that EVERY SINGLE LAST PERSON abandoned the Dai, Haqq na saheb? Such an occasion has never happened in the history of Dawat. With Amirul Mumineen, Imam Husain, Syedna Dawood b. Qutubshah, in all of these instances, there were Hudood who remained at the side of Moula, the foremost being the mansoos himself.  Haqq na sahib was never alone and his mansoos was at his side. Where was Khuzaima during the last three decades and most importantly, the last three years of Moula’s life?

Reason #63: Q & A (Part 1)

The following claims and statements were made by Bazat Tahera and her brother Husain Qutbuddin in their attempts to ‘help’ Mumineen ‘see’ the truth. Here, their fallacies and fabrications have been clarified.

Referring to the Nass of 1426H, Bazat Tahera claims that there are many discrepancies in the versions of this Nass. She says in one version, Shehzada Qusai BS was present with Shehzada Qaid Johar BS.

  • Firstly, there have been absolutely NO discrepancies in this report and only one version, the actual version, of this nass has been narrated. Burhanuddin Moula informed both Shehzada Qaid Johar BS & Shehzada Malikul Ashtar BS of his nass upon Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin in London in 1426H. This was when Moulana’s mizaaj was not well, before even the incident in 1427 where Moula stayed in Saifee Hospital for three months. During the last decade, this was Moula’s first severe illness and he immediately revealed his nass to his closest confidants, his own two children.

  • Unlike BT’s claim, there has been no version of this nass narrated with Shz Qusai BS being one of the witnesses. She deliberately throws in names to confuse people.

  • In fact, a few hours after the 1432H Nass in London, Shehzada Malikul Ashtar BS did a bayan in Houston and related the incident in London in 1426H. This bayaan was relayed to all centres in USA. This was the first time anyone had heard about this incident, directly from one of the witnesses.

  • This incident is also documented in detail in Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s TUS Risalah Shareefah Zaat al Noor (1388H), that was published in 1432H (after the Nass was made public).

Bazat Tahera also refers to a Risala of 1392H where a certain Nass is mentioned.

  • She seems ignorant to that fact that, till this date no such risalah has been published. The last published risalah is Barakat o Sibghatillah (1390H). Again, by taking names and mentioning dates of risalahs, BT tries to show her audience she is informed and that there is authenticity to her words. However, the fact that she refers to a risalah that has yet to be published demonstrates that she is preying on people’s ignorance and throwing terms around in the hope that people will find her authoritative.

Bazat Tahera says that ‘there is no record in history that the Mansoos hasn’t been informed that he is the Mansoos’. She alleges that Syedna Mufaddal only found this out in London 1432H, and that is the reason why he was so shocked.

  • First of all, her statement is a double negative.

  • Secondly, it is completely UNTRUE that there has never been a mansoos who was unaware of nass being done upon him by his predecessor. Just one example will suffice. When Syedna Abdullah Badruddin RA appointed Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA as his mansoos, he did so at night before witnesses. However, Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA himself was not present. It was only in the morning that Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA was called by Syedna Badruddin RA and informed of the nass. Moula Burhanuddin RA often recounts this event. Obviously then, there have been periods, whether they have been a single night or several years, where a mansoos has not been informed that he is the mansoos.

  • Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS had been informed that he was Syedna Burhanuddin’s mansoos, by Burhanuddin Moula himself. During the waaz on 4th Rabi al Akhar 1435, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS stated that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin had in fact told him about the Nass in 1430H. He was aware of the Nass before 1432.

  • Syedna Mufaddal’s reaction to hearing the other Shazadahs was simply out of concern and care for Burhanuddin Moulas health, not that he did not know that he was mansoos. He feared something may have happened. Indeed, most Mumineen when upon hearing the news of the nass, especially having known Moulana had suffered a stroke a few days earlier, reacted similarly.

The Qutbuddins and their very few followers constantly say that they did not hear Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin perform Nass on Syedna Mufaddal TUS in Raudat Tahera.

  • (Please refer to  Reason #5) The words “Mufaddal Bhai ne Nass nu Taaj” are very clear in the video posted on the website.

  • This was heard by all those who were present, and who heard the relay. Thousands have seen and heard this.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »