Tag Archives: Dawoodi Bohra

Reason #16: Syedi Mukasir Saheb; An Example To Follow

Khuzaima Qutbuddin argues that the Dai, Mazoon and Mukasir are one and the same and all three can see with the Noor of Allah Taala. His website also states the following: “Syedna Qutbuddin’s supporters are with Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin, and he is with us. We are mumineen, true followers of Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin, and true adherents to the misaaq, fulfilling our qasam of walayat to Dai Mazoon Mukasir.” What justification can they provide for Syedi Mukasir Saheb Husain Bhai Saheb Husamuddin accepting Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS as the mansoos of Syedna Mohammed Burhauddin RA?

He writes that al Maula al Ajal Syedi Qadi Khan states that the obedience (ta’at) of the Dai, Mazoon and Mukasir are compulsory. Are Mumineen wrong in following Syedi Mukasir Saheb in accepting this Nass? (Please refer Reason #5 below, which will clarify Syedi Mukasir Sahebs acceptance of the Nass on Syedna Mufaddal TUS, and how he carried out the rusumaat (traditions) of the public Nass at Raudat Tahera, while Khuzaima was absent.)

Syedni Mukasir Saheb doing talaqqi of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS

Syedi Mukasir Saheb doing talaqqi of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS.

Syedni Mukasir Saheb guiding Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS to Syedna Burhanuddin RA, and Syedna Burhanuddin RA seen welcoming him

Syedi Mukasir Saheb guiding Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS to Syedna Burhanuddin RA, and Syedna Burhanuddin RA seen welcoming him.

Syedna Mukasir Saheb doing wadhawa on Syedna Mufaddal TUS after Nas.

Syedi Mukasir Saheb doing wadhawa to Syedna Mufaddal TUS after Nass.

On Sunday, 25th Rabi al Awwal 1435, during the Sadaqallah Majlis of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, Syedi Mukasir Saheb Husamuddin (despite his age and health), stood and did a bayaan in the hazrat of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS:

  • He did shukr araz that had had the good fortune of serving 3 Dais, Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, and Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS.
  • He said the Syedna Mufaddal TUS was the mansoos of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA and the Nusoos (plural Nass) from the time of Ghadeer e Khum have reached him.
  • He then went on to say that he was Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddins TUS humble servant, and would remain in his khidmat till his last breath.
  • Syedi Mukasir Saheb then clarified the ikhlaas ni tasawwur saying “maraatib na maalik aap cho” (you are the owner of the maraatib (rutba) (of Dawat), and then recited an ayah of the Quran (Aale Imran:26) saying it is solely the Dais right to give and his to take.
  •  He ended by saying that the impostors that do inkaar  (reject) of the True Nass in reality have done inkaar  (rejected) of ALL the previous Nass, and are mustahiq (worthy) of la’nat.

Immediately after completing is bayaan, he gestured allegiance and kissed the ground before the feet of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS and did salaam and qadambosi. At that moment, I couldn’t help but remember this quote of Imam Jafar al Sadiq AS:

When an Abd (servant – of Allah) performs Sajda, Iblees (the devil) screams, “This man obeyed, and I disobeyed, He performed the Sajda and I refused!”. (Kitab al Taharaat – Introdution).

Maybe Khuzaima should take advice and learn humility and obedience from Syedi Mukasir Saheb, he who has lived alongside Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA for 99 years.

Syedni Mukasir Saheb doing bayaan on 25 Rabi Awwal 1435.

Syedi Mukasir Saheb doing bayaan on 25 Rabi Awwal 1435.

Syedni Mukasir Saheb doing salaam to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin on 25 Rabi Awwal 1435.

Syedi Mukasir Saheb doing salaam to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin on 25 Rabi Awwal 1435.

 

Reason #15: Nass-e-Jali 1432H, A rendering in English

On the 19th of Ramadhan al-Moazzam this event was chronicled in a mithaal shareef released by the administrative office of the Dawat – Al-Wazaratus Saifiyah – entitled‘Barakato Bayaan-e-Fadhlin Kabeer.’ In this document of some 40 pages is described the significance of nass, examples of nass conferral throughout history and some of the peerless virtues of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin (tus) that show him to be the rightful recipient of the nass of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (tus).

Please read renditions of some of the articles of this document from these 2 links:

http://akhbar.mumineen.org/archive/deen/fatemi-dawat/nass-e-jali-1432h-a-rendering-in-english/

http://akhbar.mumineen.org/archive/fatemi-dawat/nass-e-jali-1432h-part-ii-raudat-tahera/

Reason # 3: How can “The Second in Command” Go Against The Dawat?

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.”

Sound familiar? History repeats itself.

Reason # 2 The Matter of Private Nass Without Witnesses

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.

Reason # 1 Mazoon in the Role of Mumineen’s Mother

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.