Please view the Update to Reason #8:

Echoes of Past Fitnats in Our Zaman

I have added evidence from Khuzaim Qutbuddin’s previous page, http://www.Tahiyaat.com.

Reason #26: The So called ‘Amanat’ of Nass has been updated in connection to Sh Mansoor Yamanis Testimony.

https://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/01/30/reason-26-the-so-called-amanat-of-nass/

Khuzaima Qutbuddin began his Dawat with the launch of his ‘official’ site while Burhanuddin Moula’s ^RA jism mubarak was still being laid to rest by Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin ^TUS. While Mumineen were mourning their father, some literally while watching the mubarak dafan, they received emails to answer Khuzaima’s call. Repulsive and awful as this is, the fact of the matter, one which is far worse, is that Khuzaima had begun his Dawat while Burhanuddin Moula ^RAwas still alive.  Alongside Burhanuddin Moula’s ^RA  Dawat, Dawat-e-Hadiyah, Khuzaima many years ago had established his own. The inappropriate uses of traditions and protocol reserved for the Dai, the constant distance maintained away from hadrat imamiyyah especially during the last several years, the apparent discouragement of others from going to hadrat imamiyah, the regular emphasis on one’s own achievements and little to no mention of the Dai, and the establishment of charities while disregarding those already established by Moula all bear testimony to this.

There can only be one Dai Mutlaq

Tawheed, or the concept that there is only one Creator, is inherently linked to the understanding that in each era there is only one Imam, and in his satr (seclusion), one Dai. For the last fifty years, the only al-Dai al-Mutlaq on the face of the earth was Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ^RA, and he was the only being deserving of the respect and reverence that accompanies this maqaam and position. Khuzaima would have us believe otherwise. For the thousands of Mumineen who have seen Khuzaima during Burhanuddin Moula’s ^RA era, or observed a majlis that he presided over, or chanced upon one of his ‘ziyarats’ of Rawdat Taherah it was only much too obvious how he imitated the Dai and expected others to show him reverence akin to what was shown to Moula. In various cities across India, including Ujjain, Galyakot and Ahmedabad (where I have seen him with my own eyes), thousands of Mumineen will testify to his insistence to be carried around on a palanquin (miyaana).  The way he gave salaami, the way he carried a tasbeeh in his hand; no other sahebo did this, not even Mukasir saheb, so why did he? When he would visit Rawdat Taherah, the ziyarat lines would be stopped and Mumineen would be forced to sit down. He would have khidmat guzar observe the same protocol as they did when Moula would do ziyarat such as the placement of the qabar mubarak gilaafs and flowers. In places like Secunderabad, during his visits Mumineen would be told to stand along the roads and wait for his car so that they could do his ‘deedar’. His children and followers equated his dua with the dua mubarak of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ^RA and in many instances disregarded Moula’s ^RA dua mubarak altogether. In describing the ‘success’ story of a Mumin Bhai, the Zahra Hasanaat charity website (http://zahrahasanaat.org/success-stories.aspx) states the following:

With the Mubarak dua of Mazoon Mola TUS he repaid the Qarzan amount and started working as a software executive. He is aspiring to be a software programmer in the company.

What is glaringly absent here is any reference to Moula’s ^RA dua mubarak.  In Secunderabad last Ramadan, Khuzaima’s son Aziz stood up to specifically tell Mumineen to benefit from his father’s deedar, his father’s dua and his father’s shifaa. How can there be deedar of anyone apart from the Dai? The source of all dua and shifaa is the Dai, and it is through his barakat and raza that other khidmatguzar are ever even in the position to offer dua for anyone. Elsewhere on the Zahra Hasanaat site, there is a reference to ‘Mazoon Mola’s’ iftaar jaman. Throughout the world, niyaaz and iftaar is always announced as being on behalf of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ^RA, regardless of who is doing khidmat of the jaman. As per Khuzaima’s instructions, his affiliates would announce the niyaaz in various cities in the world as being on behalf of him rather than Moula Burhanuddin ^RA. From the very beginning then, Khuzaima imitated the maqaam of the Dai and established his own Dawat.

Distance from Moula 

Khuzaima maintained distance from the hadrat imamiyah of Moula so that he could create his own hadrat. In the last 30 years of Asharah Mubarakah, how often can Khuzaima be seen at Moula’s ^RA side? In fact, even his sons and daughters could not be seen. As a measure of representation, Khuzaima would send one of his sons to attend Moula’s ^RA Asharah and even when in Moula’s presence, despite hearing the shahaadat from the labb mubarak of Husain Imam’s ^SA Dai ^RA, a Mumin would be hard pressed to see any one of them shed a tear or express grief in the way Moula has taught us.

Khuzaima and his affiliates claim that Moula and his Dawat had been hijacked in the last three years. However, did they not believe that the deedar of Moula still carried barakat? Was there no merit in attending Asharah Mubarakah with Moula, even if its sole purpose was to only catch a single glimpse of Syedna Burhanuddin ^RA? Or was the notion of deedar hijacked as well? While thousands of Mumineen waited for hours on Rawdat Taherah street in order to see Moula’s radiant chera mubarak, Khuzaima and his affiliates gathered in a large house in Bakersfield. Not only did he shun the hadrat imamiyah of Syedna Burhanuddin ^RA, he shunned even the jamaat and community center built with his raza mubarak for the privacy of his son TB’s home.

The Role of a Mazoon 

The Mazoon’s role is to bring Mumineen closer to the Dai. How many people can honestly say that Khuzaima had a hand in bringing them closer to Burhanuddin Moula? In fact, Khuzaima actively sought to keep people distant from Moula. In Colombo many years ago, Khuzaima became upset when his host, Shaikh Abidali Bhai Jaferjee requested raza for his family to travel to Cairo to have his sons’ nikah conducted at the hands of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ^RA. His response:  “Why is there any need to go there when I am here?” Every year before Asharah, he would call up his close confidants and followers and specifically instruct them to come to the venue where he would be delivering wa´az rather than attending the Asharah Mubarakah conducted by Moula. How could anyone tell a Mumin not to go to Moula?

To Never Speak of Moula

What’s more is that when Khuzaima speaks, he speaks only of himself. Apart from a cursory, formal prayer for Syedna Burhanuddin ^RA, when have any of us heard Khuzaima speak of Syedna Burhanuddin ^RA? In Toronto last year, Mumineen will attest to the fact that Khuzaima has not mentioned Moula’s name more than a couple times during a wa’az, forget describing Moula’s shaan or recounting a moment where he was privy to seeing Burhanuddin Moula’s ^RA splendor in the fifty years of being his Mazoon, a fact he continues to parade. Surely, in these fifty years he must have witnessed hundreds and hundreds of shaanaat? The truth is that Khuzaima was never around, and when he was, he was too busy trying to demonstrate his own shaan to notice Moula’s or filled with hatred and envy to witness Moula’s maqaam. The fact that the FatemiDawat site had to pull out an audio clip from over 27 years ago in which he said something positive about Moula is proof enough of his indifference, nay, animosity towards Moula.

The night that this Moula passed away was a night when no Mumin could think of anything other than their Moula: the way he smiled, the way he spoke, the way he touched each of our hearts. Khuzaima, however, did not muster one bayaan, not a single instance where in which mentioned Moula without self-promotion involved. Every single time he recounts a historic incident with Moula it only to provide so-called evidence of his nass. Watch his YouTube videos and you will not be able to deny this. All anyone can hear is ‘mein, mein, mein’. Evidence of being a Dai’s mansoos is not in merely claiming it, but in keeping that Dai’s memory alive; an act Khuzaima failed to do the very night the Dai passed away.

To have vision but not sight

On his official website, Khuzaima promotes his vision for his Dawat, but as you may have guessed, this is a vision he maintained long before Moula Burhanuddin ^RA left us for the Hereafter. The very presence of a philosophy page on the website indicates that he felt it necessary to clarify his vision and make it obvious that it contrasted with the prevalent practices and philosophies of Burhanuddin Moula’s ^RA Dawat, practices that obviously go beyond the three years where they claim Dawat was ‘hijacked’. Khuzaima has always differed from Moula and this is obvious in his unabashing use of interest in financial transactions, the manner by which the females of his home veil themselves, his disregard for Jamea, his unsanctioned practices during the ziyarat of Awliyaullah ^SA, his attention, or lack thereof to namaaz timings, his disrespect and ignorance of the principles of zakat, and many, many other things. Khuzaima is nothing like Syedna Burhanuddin ^RA. His actions throughout his life pointed towards this and now his ‘philosophy’ webpage confirms it.

Failing to honor Moula’s memory

Syedna Burhanuddin ^RA is the epitome of generosity, in fact, he is generosity personified. During the course of his fifty years he established numerous charities, funds and movements for the betterment of all mankind, many in the revered memory of his father Syedna Taher Saifuddin ^RA. As Mazoon of Syedna Burhanuddin’s ^RA Dawat, it was Khuzaima’s job to assist in the functioning and outreach of these establishments in the name of his Moula. Yet Khuzaima never did any of that. In fact, Khuzaima was not associated to even a single department of the many departments under Moulana’s administration. Khuzaima not only failed to assist and support Moula’s administration and charities; he disregarded and established his own. Zahra Hasanat was established in 1997 with objectives that overlap those that Burhanuddin Moula’s ^RA entities already cater to. The gravest example of this is that during the Burhanuddin Moula’s ^RA golden jubilee year, when Mumineen worldwide were celebrating one of the most momentous occasions in the last century, giving tribute to their Moula in different ways, Khuzaima celebrated his own jubilee in a private function held in Najam Baug and established a charity for higher education naming it after himself: The Qutbi Jubilee Scholarship Program. His site claims:

The charities founded and supervised by Syedna [sic] Qutbuddin, such as Zahra Hasanaat and the Qutbi Jubilee Scholarship Program for Higher Education (QJSP), are examples of this sage and conscientious philosophy. They are forward-looking institutions for the benefit of all mumineen. Syedna [sic] Qutbuddin’s efforts in this regard are a true implementation of Syedna Burhanuddin’s directives to help mumineen.

How can Khuzaima’s initiatives be a ‘true implementation of Syedna Burhanuddin’s ^RA directives’ in meaning if they are not even remotely associated to him in name? That Khuzaima’s last official act in the reign of his predecessor was to establish an entity that took his own name rather than that of his Moula’s, his greatest benefactor, the one who according to Fatemi philosophy is considered to be his mujid, the one who has created him and given him existence, is evidence of his disregard for Moula even while he lived. No Mazoon, let alone Mumin, would give his own self priority over his Moula. Do not our littlest children know that anything and everything good is attributed to Moula?

 Conclusion

 The evidence provided in this post should not be dismissed as anecdotal or hearsay. Ask around with an open mind and thousands of Mumineen will verify the statements made here. Khuzaima had no respect for Syedna Burhanuddin. He was fixated with becoming the Dai to the extent that he started acting like one while Moula was still alive. And when the day came that our Moula was no more, he did not hesitate to claim the mantle of that which he always pretended to be. But Dawat al-Haqq can only be towards Allah Ta’ala and can only be led by the true Dai.

Unto Him is the Call to Haqq. And those they call upon besides Him do not respond to them with a thing, except as one who stretches his hands toward water [from afar, calling it] to reach his mouth, but it will not reach it [thus]. And the supplication of the disbelievers is not but in error [i.e. futility].

(In reply to Husain Qutbuddin’s Youtube video)

Though grudgingly acknowledging al-Jamea tus-Saifiyah’s value, Husain downplays the importance of him and his siblings not having attended Jamea. He states that because they were tutored by al-Dai al-Ajal Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ^RA and Khuzaima directly, it was unnecessary for them to affiliate with Jamea since they accessed Ilm Aale Mohammed ^SA at its source.

This is why he is wrong.

Al-Jamea-tus-Saifiyah: Ideal and Concept

Nothing encapsulates the concept and ideal of Jamea better than Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s profound statement: Jamea mari zaat che (Jamea is my entity, my being, myself). This eloquent sentence merges two separate but interrelated standpoints. Firstly, this sentence shows us that Syedna Burhanuddin’s zaat mubarakah, his entity and being is Jamea, which means “all encompassing”. Every aspect of Dawat Hadiyah, be it belief, knowledge, practice or character is represented in his thoughts, words and actions. Furthermore, his entity is such that it assimilates all Mumineen within itself, becoming a sanctuary for them all. This very ideal of encompassment and assimilation is embodied within the institution, Al-Jamea-tus-Saifiyah both in its physical structure and within the thoughts, words and actions of the Mumineen that adhere to it. Every Mumin in this regard is part of Jamea.

Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ^RA: Mufeed Aalaa (Prime Preceptor)

Therefore, Syedna Burhanuddin’s association of his pristine and pure being with this institution is testimony that regardless of direct means of tutelage, he is in fact the mufeed aalaa (prime preceptor) of all that study in Jamea. This is the belief of every student and teacher within the institution. It is only Moula’s faiz that nourishes Jamea and no other institution is accorded this privilege. Only the ignorant would differentiate the entity from the institution. If instruction depended on the merit of individual teachers, then the vile four manaahis (dushmano in the guise of teachers) would have corrupted generations of students, but they could not. This is because Moula’s faiz was reaching students regardless of whatever poison they oozed out within the environment. Similarly, Khuzaima and his children have given many asbaaq to many Mumineen but not all who heard their babble were corrupted by them. On the other hand, Syedna Taher Saifuddin ^RA personally tutored Shaddaad (one of the four manaahis) but this direct tutelage did him no good. Fresh spring water filled into a dirty vessel will become dirty, while the same, even if flowing through countless channels will benefit when it reaches a clean vessel. The distinction is obvious.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Even If they were direct beneficiaries of Syedna Burhanuddin ^RA as they claim, they certainly were not the only ones. Many of their peers despite their direct tutelage chose to, or were advised to, study at Jamea. If this were unnecessary why would they have done so? If Syedna’s Burhanuddin’s direct mustafeeds (students) could attend Jamea, then students of other personages below him should have had no objection doing so. Even if we overlook this issue and take their word at face value, that Husain and his siblings had imbibed what they claim to have imbibed from the wellsprings of Ilm Alle Mohammeed ^SA, why is there still no sanctity for Jamea, no linkages or affiliation to it seen in their actions. If they have indeed benefited from proximity to Syedna Burhanuddin, the embodiment of Jamea, why are their contributions to his institution next to nothing? Their privileged tutelage would have dictated that they participated within Jamea if not as students than as contributors or leaders.

Absence from the Shafahi Imtehaan

Husain’s father was one of the first to sit for the shafahi (oral examination) of Jamea. Why were the bulk of his children so conspicuous in their general absence from it? Especially, since there are many from the Qasr Aali who participate even if they are unable to undertake full time study? Being seated in front of the Dai al-Zamaan, where the voices of past Doat resound and benefitting from a privileged opportunity of presenting one’s belief, one’s ikhlaas, and one’s tasawwur to Moula is the ultimate honour. That is why all categories of Mumineen are allowed representation and participation in that sacred space. Their so called proximity, privilege and learning should have demonstrated exemplary performance there. Instead, their recurrent absence spoke volumes about their true beliefs and intentions. This is evident when Husain speaks of his father’s pride in attending his Cambridge convocation but that same father denied the bulk of his children the greater honour of participating in the shafahi imtehaan in front of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ^RA.

Learning to Serve

Husain and his siblings, who claim distinction in deeni and secular knowledge, could have rendered service to Jamea in many other ways as well. Not that Jamea needs them, but they could have taught, delivered lectures, helped in curriculum implementation, improved pedagogy etc. They chose not to.  Those who were truly close to Moula and benefitted from his teachings seized every opportunity they could to work for the development of the institution. With the level of sincerity and perceptivity that they claim they have, should they have waited to be told to affiliate themselves with Jamea or should they have come forward to serve? Is the fact that none of them were ever told by Syedna Burhanuddin to join Jamea directly in their favour or against them, while at the same time he was encouraging others in his household to do so? If they claim that ‘Jamea’ prepared and instructed them, then after such maturity how did they render ‘Jamea’ service? If they claim that such affiliation or service is unnecessary, then they have never affiliated themselves with Jamea at all, neither with the Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin nor with his institution.

 

(In reply to Husain Qutbuddin’s Youtube video)

Husaain Qutbuddin states:

       To be Mazoon Mutlaq means to enjoy complete authority. Such complete authority must mean investment of complete trust by the Imam and his Dai. If such complete trust has been invested, then his word is absolute, he cannot stray.

Judging by the variety of fallacies presented in his videos, this definitely appears to be one area where he can claim irrefutable mastery in. Here, a crafty slippery slope is provided in which the rhetorical torrent of cause and effect might obscure a weak mind.

The Mazoon is limited by the authority and delegation of the Dai. If he had such complete authority as Husain claims, what would be the difference between the two entities? Khuzaima did not enjoy unlimited, unaccountable freedom in Dawat matters. But for argument’s sake, even if he did, it means that he was expected to serve effectively and efficiently, possibly more so than any saheb or Mumin below him. It does not mean that he was being trusted to the extent that he could not err or his word could not be questioned by the Dai. Trust and fallibility are two separate and distinct concepts. Even if trust in him was absolute, for argument’s sake, it did not make him infallible, which is exactly what Husain is hinting at. He is equating trust, even absolute trust with infallibility. If trust is broken it is because a human being is by nature and essence fallible, even if appointed by a Dai. This is very obvious because humans are imperfect and flawed. All throughout our lives, we trust people with major and minor responsibilities, yet at times our trust is betrayed. For example, husbands trust their wives completely in their personal lives but at times they betray that trust, and vice versa. Clients trust lawyers completely for their cases but they have been known to abuse their powers. Covenants of trust are known to be broken because human beings are by nature fallible. In Dawat al-Satr only the Dai is infallible. Khuzaima was, and definitely is, not.

An incident occurred in 1409 H where the covenant of trust between him and his Moula was definitely breached and though Husain would like us to forget, we know that Khuzaima’s character emerged quite tarnished, to say the least.

Al-Dai al-Ajal Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ^RA proclaims.

“ek waqt Bhai Qutbuddin ney bhi em khayal thai gayu, aney em yaqeen thai gayoo, aney zehn ma lai leedu key aa saazish….”

Maybe Husain has some retort regarding how our eyes are shut and our intellect is jaded regarding this immaculate proclamation as well.

(In reply to Husain Qutbuddin’s Youtube video)

All throughout his banter, Husain Qutbuddin would not have us reflect on fundamentals and have us focus instead on incorrect historical analogies and skewed character analysis. Lets look at a couple of examples.

He states:

What’s happening right now is similar to Rasoolullah’s initial establishment of Islam. Only three individuals were with him at its inception, so only a few Mumineen today is acceptable. Majority is not a proof of haqq. The Quran has chastised the majority in many instances. Isn’t this analogy logical etc etc?

Why this is false? First of all, even if any parallels were allowed between Rasoolullah ^SA and Khuzaima, all the premises and analogies drawn by Husain are proven inappropriate upon reflection.

Early Islam

Rasoolullah ^SA was establishing a whole new religion amongst a community of polytheists (mushrekeen). He was asking them to leave idols they had worshipped for centuries if not millennia. Is Khuzaima establishing a new religion different from what his predecessor espoused? Are we being asked to convert to an entirely different religion? It is understandable that at the onset of Islam conversion would take place gradually. This has been the case with all previous Anbiyaa Kiraam ^SA that introduced a new shari’ah, Musa Nabi SA and Eesa Nabi SA, for example. Therefore, the analogy of Khuzaima’s clan resembling followers of early Islam is misleading, as is the analogy that Mumineen believing in Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin ^TUS resemble those Mushrekeen who would not even listen to the Quran Majeed. The messages of the Quran Majeed might have been new to Mushrekeen but the parameters of a valid nass have been known to Mumineen for over 1400 years. They know that nass should be attested by witnesses in private or should be publicly proclaimed, and, hence, have no reason to pay heed to a claimant that has not even a shred of proof for his appointment, apart from his word. Even if his word was above question, which it is not, it is not nearly enough to hold credence. Therefore, Mumineen are justified in refusing to hear Khuzaima’s banter on the basis of their knowledge and the virtue of their righteousness.

Ameerul Mumineen after Rasoolullah ^SA

Husain would also like us believe that Khuzaima’s clan today resembles the followers of Ameerul Mumineen after Rasoolullah’s demise. This is not true because, around that time, a clear distinction was being formed between being Muslim and being Mumin, which was not so apparent in Rasoolullah’s time. After his demise, there was a repetition of what had taken place in the period of every wasi, prior to Ameerul Mumineen. Every ummat would disobey their nabi’s instruction of staying true to his wasi, and only Mumineen, the privileged and chosen few, would follow him. The majority of the nabi’s ummat would betray his wasi and therefore bore the brunt of Allah Ta’ala’s disdain as stated in the Quran Majeed, which criticises and chastises this majority of disbelievers.

However, Mumineen in satr are already within the haram (sanctuary) of emaan. Since Ameerul Mumineen’s time we have always been a minority within the larger Muslim majority. However, this does not mean that being a minority itself is proof of haqq as Husain would have us believe. Over 1400 years there have been many splinter groups within Mumineen who were minorities in respect to the majority of Mumineen. This does make them righteous. Aligning to haqq has never been a competition of who has the smallest group of people supporting him. It might be poor reflection on the efforts of all our Hodaat Kiraam ^SA over a period of 1400 years if suddenly overnight only 70 odd individuals stayed true to haqq from a community of several hundred thousand. If being a majority is by itself not proof of haqq then neither is being a minority proof of such. This false premise leads to these false analogies: Rasoolullah SA had few supporters. Imam Husain ^SA has 72 shohada and so on. Because of such comparisons, a weak mind might be duped into thinking that being few in number, on its own, is a sign of righteousness.

(In reply to Husain Qutbuddin’s Youtube video)

Husain constantly appeals to intellect and reason assuming that the several hundred thousand followers of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin ^TUS are not doing the same. Now that their lifeline of whimsical evidence is proving deficient,  they have resorted to smoke and mirrors. Husain tries to purport the use of intellect and reason as a red-herring and diversion from the truth. He has brought out the age-old dusty suit of the ‘the place of intellect in religion.’ However, his mistake is he assumes that members of the Dawoodi Bohra community do not adhere to logic, reason, and intellect in their own individual understanding of religion.

The bulk of his argument suggests that his listeners should use their intellect and draw conclusions solely based on the information he has provided for them as the premise.

Thus, finding the flaw in his proposition is not difficult.  The primary flaw, or deception if you like, lies in his premise and the options that he sets for his listeners. He gives his listeners a limited amount of information and then tells them to now connect the dots based on the fragmented evidence he has provided.  Drawing lines between four dots can only make a quadrilateral. Therefore, what requires more intelligence and true use of intellect is questioning why the dots are placed this way in the first place. Who placed them there? Why should one connect them from left to right rather than right to left?

By exploiting the gaps of information provided, it would appear that Husain does not want his listeners to engage in such reflection because he realizes that his arguments lack merit under any actual scrutiny. This is mainly due to the fact that neither himself or his entire family have provided a shred of evidence why all of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin’s ^TUS multiple conferrals of nass are not valid. He aims to cast doubt on some while hoping that one might forget about the recurring other instances of nass. He is playing the game of ‘fit the historical analogy in its right slot’, or ‘lets choose which character analysis we like best’. Repeated witnessed historical events can’t be taken out of the equation. So, instead I ask Husain whether he has an attested document, or witnesses, or a mere public proclamation in favour of Khuzaima’s claim. Do any one of his examples equal up to those that clearly place Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin ^TUS as the 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq?

Guidance from Dawat Texts

Let us turn to the Books of Dawat, as any reasonable person would do, to find proof. For an appointment by nass, the books of Dawat only provide two possible accounts: A witnessed private appointment with or without documentation and a public proclamation. Both accounts stand true and have occurred more than once for Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin ^TUS. (See Reason #56).

Husain knows this and wishes that we will forget that although the intellect is a powerful tool given to us by the Almighty, in regards to choosing haq na sahib, Moula, we are not meant to use our intellect as a proof of his maqam and nass.  Syedna Hamiduddeen ^RA , in Kitab al-Masaabeeh written in the era of Imam Hakim, relates many arguments which disallow the umma (the religious community) to choose a rasool or an imam with their intellect. Firstly, we are lacking in all the knowledge needed by an imam to ascend to the maqam of imamat. If we do not have that capability ourselves, how can we appoint someone to this post? If we do not have authority to appoint individuals to lesser posts like judges etc, then how could we claim to appoint someone to a post greater than that; the imamate? Moreover, the imam must be maasoom, and since being maasoom is not a physical distinction that would make the masoom sahib known, it would lead to follow that only Allah or another masoom sahib, his predecessor, should be able to do so.

There are many more such arguments like this one in various other Dawat texts. Therefore, the call to reason and intellect to acknowledge haq na sahib, is not something that can be argued from a true Fatimi theological or philosophical point of view.  While reason and intellect are our utmost important tools, they still can’t be utilised in determining haq na sahib. That determination must be done by the predecessor of the successor and this is the main reason that nass is conferred among witnesses and publicly proclaimed as well – solely for the fact that our human reasoning and intellect are not universal and they are subject to change due to exterior circumstances – such as cosmography. There is no sidestepping this fact. Husain either has forgotten this or knows but he would rather his audience be ignorant of these fundamentals and focus instead on incorrect historical analogies and skewed character analysis.

(In reply to Husain Qutbuddin’s Youtube video)

This brief overview is aimed to highlight the underhand tactics which he has used to misdirect and misinform viewers, as well as the general tone and style of his talks.

Firstly, he expresses emotion when he talks about Moula’s wafaat. If he was genuinely affected by the wafaat of Moula, would he not have come to pay his last respects? Would he not have walked with the janaza? Would he not have attended the burial? One can’t help but be doubtful of his sincerity, since Husain, his brothers and followers could have very easily merged themselves with the sea of people at Syedna Burhanuddin’s RA funeral without anyone being the wiser, but they chose not to.

Secondly, most of the content is anecdotal with no real basis on which it can be believed. He improvises on the lack of accurate referencing by using rhetoric. Despite his claims to using ‘intellect’, he shows a surprising lack of intellectual rigour in any of his comments. He merely references riwayats or points as “bayaan aayu che”. For example he says that in order for nass to be conferred, a ‘ring’ must be given. Where exactly is this bayaan? The 30th Dai Syedna Ali Shamsuddin conferred Nass on 31st Dai Syedna Qasim Khan, whilst the former was in Yemen and the latter was in India. There is no record of him giving him a ring. Infact, there are many Sahebo and Mumineen today who have also been given rings by Syedna Burhanuddin RA, should they all claim to be the Dai?

What is really bewildering is that a Haafiz wouldn’t have said what he suggested in the beginning. He claims that Khuzaima entered the ghurfa mubaraka of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, while the Quran Majeed was being recited. He claims that as he entered the 81st Ayat of the 17th Sura was heard and as Khuzaima did sajdo, the 40th Ayat of the 50th Sura was heard. Firstly, the Quran Majeed being recited was from an audio recording. Secondly, keeping in mind the playback time of this recital, it would have taken approximately 4 hours to reach the second ayat – did Khuzaima spend four hours between entering the ghurfa and doing sajdo?! If he was a Haafiz he would have realised where each ayat in the Quran was. If he was truthful, he would never have mentioned the alleged hearing of these ayats in the first place. His lack of credibility brings into disrepute everything he says. If one can so blatantly lie about the Quran, there is nothing to prevent him from mentioning other untruths.

He repeats innumerable times ‘daleel che’. Just because one states that evidence exists, doesn’t mean that it is a foregone conclusion that such evidence exists. Whatever ‘evidence’ he refers to is at best, flimsy, vague, and distorted. What concrete evidence has he presented? Anyone can offer a skewed subjective interpretation of what has occurred in the past. For example he refers to what happened after Rasullah’s passing. A minority of Muslims remained loyal to Amirul Mumineen. He implies that the dwindling numbers of those who follow Khuzaima are like the loyalists of Ali.

He also draws parallels between the 72 shohada of Imam Hussain and the Qutbi followers, which erroneously implies that they were the only individuals in Imam Husain’s Dawat. This was not the case, because Imam Husain’s followers were present in Makka, Madina and elsewhere at the time. Further, this is blatant disregard for what Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin has repeatedly stated in waaz mubarak, that the Duat are of no less stature than those who sacrificed themselves for Imam Hussain in Kerbala. Just as he dismisses the argument of majority as proof of truth, we reject his argument of minority as proof of Khuzaima’s validity. For if being in the minority was evidence of righteousness, every splinter faction from Dawat would be upon Haqq and the majority would by default be destined to hell.

Furthermore, his lack of specific details begs the viewer to question the authenticity of all his references. He keeps saying ‘ghani zikaro che’. This is nothing but a disclaimer to absolve himself of his lack of knowledge in a number of areas. What may or may not have occurred in Misr ‘around the year 1409H’ is very difficult to authenticate. Vague and ambiguous references to events which may or may not have happened are characteristic of his style.

He exudes confidence by inviting those with questions to engage with him, even summoning ‘the other side’ to a face-to-face debate. This is just a false sense of confidence. He implies that he and his side encourage questions, whereas those on this side of the fence are ‘jhooni’ (delirious) and are just forced to accept without questioning, i.e blind faith. He forgets that the first principle of Islam is ‘sallim’ meaning to accept and then ‘sal lim’ which means to ask ‘why’? Neither Islam nor Dawat have ever propagated blind faith. Question by all means. However, knowledge does not equate to acceptance and for this reason, Hudaat Kiram have established a code and protocol on how knowledge can be acquired.

 All throughout his videos, we cannot but help conclude that rhetoric is a poor substitute to substance.

(In reply to Husain Qutbuddin’s Youtube video)

Husain Qutbuddin further alleges that everything he says, his father’s claims, it is all supported by Dawat texts. In his farfetched attempts to give his cause legitimacy through our kitaabs, he forgets that all the instances of nass upon Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin ^TUS, in actuality  are verified and supported by the history of previous nusoos (pl. nass) found in the texts of Dawat.

 Let us evaluate.

Do Dawat texts not confirm that previous Dais, such as Syedna Abdeali Saifuddin ^RA (43rd Dai) and Syedna Mohammed Ezzuddin ^RA (23rd Dai), have had written documents drafted in which they indicate their nass upon their successors and then have attested such documents in their own hand?

Do Dawat texts not confirm that previous Doat Mutlaqeen ^RA, such as Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ^RA (49^th Dai), have had brothers of the mansoos and other close relatives bear witness to the nass? Have they not entrusted such people with the responsibility of testifying to the validity of nass?

Do Dawat texts not confirm that nass is complete only with tawqeef, the act of identifying and describing the mansoos to someone other than the mansoos himself?

Do Dawat texts not confirm that previous Doat Mutlaqeen ^RA have always had witnesses bear testimony to the nass, regardless of whether it was private or public?

Both reason and Dawat texts support the conclusive nass done upon Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin ^TUS by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ^RA. Khuzaima’s claims neither hold up to reason nor have any validity in these texts.

It seems, then, that Husain Qutbuddin, despite receiving a PhD in Quran Majeed from Cambridge University, and his father and his siblings are the ones who lack reason. Husain said that those who abandon resaon, pointing at the nearly 1 million followers of Moulana Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS, are equivalent to animals for abandoning their intellect and ´aql. I just cannot see it that way.

(In reply to Husain Qutbuddin’s Youtube video)

Reason

Substantiated by Dawat texts.

 The above mentioned words are phrases by which Husain Qutbuddin describes his father’s arguments and claims to the position of al-Dai al-Mutlaq. He explains in his YouTube videos that the wise thing, the intelligent thing to do in this situation, is to accept his father as the Dai because he is willing to talk and answer questions. He alleges that what he says and the historical evidence he provides are reasonable and substantiated by Dawat texts.

The irony is, however, that for someone who is so insistent and encouraging of others to use their intellect and reasoning in determining what is Haqq, he, his father and his siblings haven’t employed the same tool.  In all the instances where Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ^RA has very clearly established his nass upon Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin ^TUS, Khuzaima, his kids and those who they have preached to are unwilling to listen to reason and continuously disregard and ignore the very Dawat texts they try to use to bolster their own false claims.

 Let us evaluate.

Is it reasonable to dismiss the entire nass of 1388 H by declaring the document as a forgery without having even seen it, held it, or examined it?

 Is it reasonable to ignore the entire nass incident of 1415 H, wherein Syedna Burhanuddin ^RA recounts the entire nass of 1388 H to Shaikh Abdulhusain Yamani in Karachi nearly twenty-seven years later, thus establishing, beyond a doubt, that the 1388 H nass occurred and further strengthed the nass upon Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin ^TUS?

Is it reasonable to ignore Shaikh Abdulhusain Yamani and pretend his testimony regarding the 1415 H nass that took place in Karachi does not matter, one that he has again and again recounted and retold? How is his veracity in question as well?

 Is it reasonable to conclude that a man’s entire family, all seven of his children that he knowingly and deliberately surrounded himself with, his grandchildren and great grandchildren, his entire kin  consisting of more than 200 individuals, all somehow betrayed his trust? The trust of a figure who was not only their physical father, but more importantly their spiritual father. He was the one whose happiness and obedience they believed was their path to heaven and whose benevolence and generosity they experienced every waking minute of their lives. How can it be that this entire family, every last one—apart from a seemingly disgruntled half-brother, who was rarely seen to be near him, all betrayed his trust? How could they all have taken advantage of the ailing health of their father, one who they were willing to give their lives for in a heartbeat?

 Is it reasonable to consider that the people Moulana Burhanuddin ^RA entrusted and charged with the task of operating several functions of the entire Dawat, including his brothers, sons and their children, are all untrustworthy? These were the individuals  who he had personally groomed for Dawat’s khidmat, the ones he has repeatedly in countless bayaans referred to as the apples of his eye, the solace of his soul, and his most beloved and cherished. He often referred to them as his own limbs and organs, and the very support by which he stands. Is it reasonable to disqualify their testimonies without a shred of valid evidence against them other than conspiracy theories? Is it justifiable to say that they should all, every last one, be perceived as liars and concocters?

Is it reasonable to deny the eyewitness testimonies of eight different individuals living today (listed below), at three different instances of nass spanning twenty years on baseless accusations mere assumptions of fact? All of whom meet the criteria set by Dawat texts for testimony?

·         1415H Nass – 1) Shaikh Abdulhusain Yamani

·         1426H Nass – 2) Shahzadah Dr Qaid Joher Bhaisaheb and 3) Shahzadah Malekulashtar Bhaisaheb

·         1432H Nass – 3) Shahzadah Idris Bhaisaheb, 4) Shahzadah Qusai Bhaisaheb, 5) Shahzadah Ammar Bhaisaheb, 6) Shahzahdi Husaina Baisaheba, 7) Dr Moiz Bhaisaheb 8) Abdulqadir Bhaisaheb

 Is it reasonable to denounce the testimonies of thousands of people who worldwide saw and heard Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ^RA re-confer nass upon Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin ^TUS on the 19^th of Rajab, 1432H and is it reasonable to then blatantly claim, regardless of these testimonies, that this nass in fact did NOT happen?

 Is it reasonable to claim that almost every Dawoodi Bohra except a few hundred —every single person: man, woman and child—is making this event up or misunderstanding the truth? Is it reasonable to believe that everyone is just conspiring against him or that the only truthful person in Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s Dawat, one he diligently and painstakingly nurtured for fifty years, is Khuzaima Qutbuddin?

 Is it reasonable to assert that something has been given to you, or an appointment has been made upon you without any witnesses, without any concrete evidence other than your own testimony and personal belief?

 The answers to these questions are obvious. Khuzaima’s actions and words, along with Husain’s recent Q & A’s defy reason. The only word that can describe their claims to anyone who uses reason is ‘delusional.’ By definition –

 delusion  (dɪˈluːʒən): psychiatry illusion, See also hallucination, a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason (Collins English Dictionary)