Dear Mr Taher - Part 2
(Continued from Dear Mr Taher - Part 1)
Nass can only be established by Nass & Tawqeef (Read more in this LINK).
Simply put, Tawqeef means making the Nass known to a third person (a witness) - the act of identifying and appointing the mansoos to someone other than the mansoos himself.
According to Fatemi Fiqeh, the technical definition of the term shaahid (witness) is "a person who says “I saw or I heard etc etc”.
(Ref Syedna Qadi Noman RA (Sharh al Akhbar Volume 1)
Although this seems quite simple, it is the basic fundamental that the Qutbis have forgotten. KQ never had any witnesses - therefore there was no valid Nass. Even if he later claimed to have witnesses - none of them could be termed "witnesses" because - as per the above bayaan - they had not testified yet.
Similarly, in regards to the alleged nass on Taher, the Fatemi Dawat site claims:
"At that moment Maulana Qutbuddin advised the witnesses to keep the Nass confidential"
Here's the issue that needs clarification:
A shaahid (witness) is "a person who says “I saw or I heard etc etc”. Until and unless one of those people actually testify to this alleged nass, they cannot be termed "witnesses".
In Taher's first speech, he claims that KQ's wife, Mrs Sakina Qutbuddin was a "witness" to this alleged Nass. Taher refuses to name the others.
In the case of a wasiyyat (bequest), Islamic fiqeh requires a minimum of 2 witnesses.
Who's the second or the other "witness"?
The Quran also states:
فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُونَا رَجُلَيْنِ فَرَجُلٌ وَامْرَأَتَانِ مِمَّنْ تَرْضَوْنَ مِنْ الشُّهَدَاءِ (Surah al Baqarah Ayat 282)
If 2 Male cannot be present, then 1 male plus TWO FEMALE witnesses are required. According to the Qutbi version, (along with Mrs Sakina) they would require one more female and one male to testify to this alleged Nass. The testimony of Mrs Sakina alone is not acceptable.
Only once they testify, they can be termed "witnesses". Not before.
For example, after the London Nass in Cromwell hospital, Shehzada al Qaid Johar Bs, and Shehzada Malik al Ashtar Bs gave their testimony in regards to the Nass. In light of Fatemi Fiqeh, they are "witnesses" in every sense of the word.
On the 5th of Moharram 1436H, Taher Qutbuddin brought up the issue of 'validity of Nass without any witnesses'. He attempted to substantiate his argument by referring to the zikr of Sulaiman Nabi AS. For this he refers to the Taweel (esoteric meanings) of the zikr of Sulaiman Nabi AS from the azeem kitab - Asaas al Taweel by Syedna al Qadi Noman RA.
He claimed that Sulaiman Nabi AS did not not make his Nass on his Mansoos public, and He did not inform his Hudood of his wishes (this is only half of the true story). He then goes on to erroneously connect the zikr of Sulaiman Nabi AS with the alleged 'private' Nass on the 8th Dai, and finally jumps to the conclusion that Khuzaima Qutbuddin's 'private' Nass is thus, valid.
Taher deliberately only relates half of the entire story. If only he had read and understood the very next few lines (on the same page!), he would have realized his mistake.
The complete story is very simple and tears Taher's claim to shreds. Sulaiman Nabi AS performed a Public Nass amoungst witnesses. A refutation of his claim can be found in the following LINK:
http://qutbibohras.blogspot.com/2014/11 ... bi-as.html
The above article was posted in 1436H as a means to expose the lies of the Qutbi Bohras. How KQ, his children and "academic" team categorically twisted dawat texts for their own agenda.
Now that Taher himself is the 2nd all-knowing Qutbi Bohra leader, the onus is on him to support his own claims. Numerous messages have been sent to Taher and the Fatemi Dawat team requesting at least ONE reference to their version of Sulaiman Nabi's AS history. Till date, the Qutbi Bohras have failed to provide one tiny shred of evidence.
Taher deliberately twisted Dawat bayaans. He gave wrong tasawwur.
Following the footsteps of his father, Taher lied. Like father like son.
(MORE DISCUSSIONS WILL CONTINUE IN PART 3 OF THIS POST)