Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

The one and only free public forum for Bohras. The focus of this forum is the reform movement, the Dawoodi Bohra faith and, of course, the corrupt priesthood. But the discussion is in no way restricted to the Bohras alone.
monginis
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:00 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1441

Unread post by monginis » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:44 am

true_bohra wrote:@mongy

Selling of properties is not that easy when title is in dispute.

And there is no need for Syedna TUS to run anywhwere. Running is in habit of one who was hiding in USA.
what are you trying to say?

you are insulting Imam? because he is also hiding some where? nauzobillah.

adna_mumin
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:43 pm

"Taareekh yaad nathi"

#1442

Unread post by adna_mumin » Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:38 am

"Taareekh yaad nathi"

This is an attempt to dissect, discuss and may be bring more ideas out of the Q&A series on Fatemidawat website. There have been few reasons given to convey the message as to why Shz Mufaddal BS cannot be Dai.

Let us take the one about the forgotten date, made famous by the phrase "Taareekh yaad nathi" in the waaz on Imam uz Zaman Milad by Mufaddal BS.

In the Q&A video the claim made is like a person would correctly remember the date of his Nikah (and many other such events of his life) so how could the person claiming to be Dai forget the date on which his Naas that is Burhanuddin Moula RA conveyed to him that he was the mansoos by showing the Letter of 1388 H.

I have the following issue with the reasoning given by Husain BS. That because the supposed event never happened if any arbitrary date was offered then Mufaddal BS ran the risk of someone out of the million Bohras would come forward to claim that either Burhanuddin Moula RA or Mufaddal BS himself were in such, such place on that date.

One thing that is also claimed in the Waaz was that this happened in Mumbai. Here is a problem with this theory.
So question arises if indeed he had to make up a date, do Mumineen not know which dates Moula RA was surely in Mumbai year after year even if one never kept record of his travels?? If that is common knowledge surely he and his group would have thought about it and suggested?

Lailatul Qadr and Urs of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA are 2 events Moula RA was almost certainly in his last years in Mumbai.
One exception being of his indisposition few years ago when in Shehrullah he (Moula RA) stayed in London.

So if indeed Mufaddal bs wanted to make up a date he surely could have chosen either of these 2 events? That he did not means?

P.S: Request Admin to keep this a standalone thread if possible. If we can discuss many other aspects of that video Q&A series might be beneficial to many of us.

adna_mumin
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:43 pm

Re: "Taareekh yaad nathi"

#1443

Unread post by adna_mumin » Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:15 pm

Speech Impairment of Burhanuddin Aqa RA

This relates to the event of Raudat Tahera in 2011 that is claimed as Public pronouncement of Nass.
2 contrasting perspectives have been put forth about that event by either side.

On one side is the Shz Mufaddal BS saying that Burhanuddin Aqa ra was doing a jahran or public pronouncement for the whole community to come see and be witness. Little wonder that a video of the event was shot and those not present were shown the video all around the world.

And of course now we have the other side of the then Mazoon saheb claim that see for yourself - the video does not contain a single decipherable word or utterance from Burhanuddin Aqa RA. They took the same video and posted it for the entire community to come, see for yourself - the EXACT same video now viewed from the other perspective. You dont hear a word from Moula RA himself and that there is no reason to believe this was Nass.

I must admit here that there is clear evidence of Moula RA being DIRECTED when to utter and when to stop, even forcibly moving the mike away. (When i discussed this video with someone on Fatemi Dawat side i was made aware of such points by timeline)

Now comes the third perspective that i want to put forth for the same video clip.

1. Is not Burhanuddin Aqa RA trying in the video so hard to say something? Yes that much is evident and not contested.
2. Would Burhanuddin Moula RA leave mumineen with anything BUT a clear explicit successor?
3. Are we taking his physical difficulty of speech at such age in that illness lightly that he wanted to convey to us "Here i am before you appointing my mansoos so you can see? He is your Dai after me and that is what i am trying to tell you"

The Mazoon saheb side take on this is that the video was staged and Moula's physical inability taken advantage of. That he had appointed his mansoos 50 years ago and was at peace. Let us say we take this assumption, then are we to assume that for the next 2.5 years Moula ra continued to be taken advantage of? He did not know that Shz Mufaddal BS has made this claim and continues to do that, perform Ashara waaz sitting next to him? All this time he continued to give one clear sign that he was observing the happenings. He did wave his hand for Salaami more than once after this incident.

Again, Would Burhanuddin Moula RA leave mumineen with anything BUT a clear explicit successor?

My personal opinion after analysis has been that the word of Mazoon is superior to everyone else but the Dai himself. And today there is a conflict, i find it hard to believe a fraud was retained in the high position by my Moula Burhanuddin RA who was Haq in his hayaat tayyaba. That position is still unchanged but a unbiased analysis will continue and hopefully the bias will stay out.

adna_mumin
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:43 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1444

Unread post by adna_mumin » Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:21 pm

Inviolability of Mithaq Text

A rather believable contention of Husain BS on the Fatemi Dawat is that the text of Ahad ul misaq that every mumin, mumina agree and swear on is sacred and is not to be edited.

Basically the point of claim is:

Soon after the Raudat Tahera incident of 2011 a edited Misaaq text was sent by Vazarat Office of Daiz Zaman that had added the mansoos part with name of Shz Mufaddal BS. The claim by Husain BS is such an edit is tantamount to sacrilege, cannot be done and is not permissible according to Dawat texts.

Also that if adding Mansoos and his name was something permissible or required then Syedna Taher Saifuddin ra may have done that when he appointed Syedna Burhanuddin ra his mazoon and mansoos. It being even more easier for him as then there was single name for both Mazoon and Mansoos. And because Syedna Taher Saifuddin ra did not do that, that it is not doable and anyone attempting to do it has to be a fraud.

I for one cannot see any reasonable opposition to this stand by Husain BS. It seems firmly grounded on reason.

However i do have one point to contend which is slightly digressing but on principle, perfectly related.

Have we heard of Gadheer e khum and what Rasulullah SAW did after proclaiming Moulana Ali SA his vasi and successor to lead Muslim Ummah as Ameeral mumineen?
Man kunto Moulaho fa haaza Ali un Moula ho

Did people give bayt to Rasulullah SAW AND to his vasi Moulana Ali SA that Ali is Moula after Nabi saw? So has a Naas not taken bayt for his mansoos from mumineen?

Should we not learn from our "Taareekh" that we mumineen hear and grow up with? After all Our world revolves around mohabbat of Allah ta and Panjatan pak AS, that is the dearest to us? It is that mohabbat that we believe binds us to the Fatemi Dawat today and we strive to be on side of Haq, Haq na Dai as he is hablullah in satr of Imam uz zamaan who is haq na Imam. I digress..

rational_guy
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:21 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1445

Unread post by rational_guy » Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:42 am

Rasulillah (SAW) did a Zahran nass on Mola Ali (SAW). Rasulillah explicitly took peoples misaaq with Ali at this side. Syedna Taher Saifuddin (RA) explicitly did not change the misaaq. Syedna Jaffer Bin Mansoor (Babul abwab) with the Imams instruction explicitly documented the three maratibs in misaaq. And the Duats for 900 years have maintained that tradition. Syedna Taher Saifuddin (RA) did not change it.

How can Shehzada Mufaddal bhaisaheb change it?

Saeed al Khair
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 5:08 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1446

Unread post by Saeed al Khair » Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:06 am

Dai Mazun and Mukasir's name were added in Misaq at Yemen,not in Egypt.

rational_guy
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:21 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1447

Unread post by rational_guy » Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:43 am

Unfortunately Saeed, I am very sure it is written by Syedna Jaffer bin mansoor ul yemen. He was in the time of Imam mustansir and Imam mustansir was doing tamheed of satar dawat. Saeed bhai lets be careful before we speak, your insults might categorize you as a naive follower of Shehzada Mufaddal Bhaisaheb.

yuzarsif
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:40 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1448

Unread post by yuzarsif » Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:47 am

Religious matters must not come to court: HC judge
Recuses Himself From Hearing Syedna Succession Case

Rosy Sequeira TNN

Mumbai: Religious matters should not come to court, the Bombay high court said on Monday when a suit filed by the uncle of the recently ordained Syedna of the Dawoodi Bohra community came up for hearing.
Justice S J Kathawalla, who made the observation, however, later recused himself from hearing the suit filed by Khuzema Qutbuddin against the succession of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, the son of his half-brother, the late Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, as spiritual head of the community.
Qutbuddin has urged for direction to declare him the 53rd Dai-al-Mutlaq or spiritual head and to restrain his nephew from acting as the Dai. He claimed the late Syedna had privately anointed him as his successor in December 1965 and told him to reveal it only at an appropriate time.
At the outset, Justice Kathawalla revealed that he had appeared for the 52nd Dai in an excommunication matter many years ago. “After the matter, the Dai gave me two shawls,’’ he recollected, adding that non-Bohra advocates were present at the felicitation in a hall. He then asked if either side had any objection to him hearing the case.
While Syedna’s advocate Janak Dwarkadas consented to the judge hearing the matter, Qutbuddin’s advocate Ravi Kadam said he would have to take instructions from his client.
Justice Kathawalla then remarked that it would be better for the parties to discuss the matter. “It is better to sit outside and discuss. Religious matters should not come to court. Most courts are not equipped (to handle such issues),” he said.
The judge also asked if there could be a temporary arrangement pending hearing of the petition. “Is it not possible for a working arrangement?” asked Justice Kathawalla. Dwarkadas replied, “I don’t think so.’’ Kadam echoed his sentiments. After the court’s recess, Kadam requested the judge to recuse himself from the case. Following this, the judge recorded his recusal. The suit will come up for hearing before another single judge.
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/ ... wMode=HTML

Fakhruddinsuratwala
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:03 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1449

Unread post by Fakhruddinsuratwala » Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:02 am

MUMBAI: Religious matters should not come to court, the Bombay high court said on Monday when a suit filed by the uncle of the recently ordained Syedna of the Dawoodi Bohra community came up for hearing.

Justice S J Kathawalla, who made the observation, however, later recused himself from hearing the suit filed by Khuzema Qutbuddin against the succession of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, the son of his half-brother, the late Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, as spiritual head of the community.

Qutbuddin has urged for direction to declare him the 53rd Dai-al-Mutlaq or spiritual head and to restrain his nephew from acting as the Dai. He claimed the late Syedna had privately anointed him as his successor in December 1965 and told him to reveal it only at an appropriate time.

At the outset, Justice Kathawalla revealed that he had appeared for the 52nd Dai in an excommunication matter many years ago. "After the matter, the Dai gave me two shawls,'' he recollected, adding that non-Bohra advocates were present at the felicitation in a hall. He then asked if either side had any objection to him hearing the case.

While Syedna's advocate Janak Dwarkadas consented to the judge hearing the matter, Qutbuddin's advocate Ravi Kadam said he would have to take instructions from his client.

Justice Kathawalla then remarked that it would be better for the parties to discuss the matter. "It is better to sit outside and discuss. Religious matters should not come to court. Most courts are not equipped (to handle such issues)," he said.

The judge also asked if there could be a temporary arrangement pending hearing of the petition. "Is it not possible for a working arrangement?" asked Justice Kathawalla. Dwarkadas replied, "I don't think so.'' Kadam echoed his sentiments. After the court's recess, Kadam requested the judge to recuse himself from the case. Following this, the judge recorded his recusal. The suit will come up for hearing before another single judge.

Habeel
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:01 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1450

Unread post by Habeel » Tue Apr 08, 2014 8:18 am

Rational_guy, Syedna Jafar bin Mansoor al Yaman was in the time of Mehdi immam to Moiz Imam. His most popular book is " Kitab e Alim Wa Ghulam".

Being_Bohra
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1451

Unread post by Being_Bohra » Tue Apr 08, 2014 8:51 am

Activities carried out by MS after syednas demise have clearly centered around collecting money. Can anyone post a list of his activities along with the money collected for each. one can use this as a strong point in court to prove how spiritual or worldly our self proclaimed Dai is.

salaar
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:36 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1452

Unread post by salaar » Tue Apr 08, 2014 8:53 am

this is with reference to the post by saeed ul khair for rational guy, iam utterly disappointed by the way people address each other, you may not agree with ones viewpoint but what is the need of saying all the rubbish although rational guy could have responded oe maadar............................. but he behaved in a very calm and civilized manner, therefore bro saeedul khair i advise you to observe respects to others and respect will return to you.

monginis
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:00 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1453

Unread post by monginis » Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:17 pm

salaar wrote:this is with reference to the post by saeed ul khair for rational guy, iam utterly disappointed by the way people address each other, you may not agree with ones viewpoint but what is the need of saying all the rubbish although rational guy could have responded oe maadar............................. but he behaved in a very calm and civilized manner, therefore bro saeedul khair i advise you to observe respects to others and respect will return to you.
Cypher to get disappointed bro, this is just called MAN TO MAN talk, few idiots don't understand the words of respect until they are hit back.

Maqbool
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 4:01 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1454

Unread post by Maqbool » Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:03 am

MS bs., what he says amongst the gathering of mumenins about the comments of doctors and regarding cases filled by KQ bs is just to play with emotions of gullible. He will not be able to speak the same language in front of judges. When he will say that aa farzando che ene kem koi puchtu nathi teo sahid che. There will definitely be counter "then KQ bs is son of STS (a dai) and remained 50 years to the second post of dawat. eene kem koi puchtu nahi?"

Ozdundee
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:57 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1455

Unread post by Ozdundee » Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:53 am

Justice Kathawalla revealed that he had appeared for the 52nd Dai in an excommunication matter many years ago.
Whats all this about ?

maddy
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1456

Unread post by maddy » Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:27 am

Salam dohad taraf mufadal moula ni ziyafat friday hasanfir ma naki thay che sagla samil thay. 11000 ma 2 pass qadambosi ni anne 5500 ni ek pass che. Hasanfir ava gava ni gadi ni vevastha jamaat kari apse :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Looto bhai looto , jitnu male lai lo
samaj ma nai aavtu aa SMS su jame ziyafat ma ??
itna paisa only ziyafat ma hazir thava :twisted:

monginis
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:00 am

Time to leave for real world mission

#1457

Unread post by monginis » Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:41 am

Bismillah,

It's enough of being a keyboard warrior and now its time to do something in the actual world, I have been actively monitoring Bohra situation and now its time for me to use my expertise of knowledge to help dawat of HAQ, being an investment banker and having IT knowledge I will operate in the background. :wink:

See you guys and continue diffusing the true statement.... :mrgreen:

Just luck and MASALAAM.

sign in OFF :arrow: EXIT

Fatema MN
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:26 am

Re: "Taareekh yaad nathi"

#1458

Unread post by Fatema MN » Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:57 am

adna_mumin wrote:"Taareekh yaad nathi"

This is an attempt to dissect, discuss and may be bring more ideas out of the Q&A series on Fatemidawat website. There have been few reasons given to convey the message as to why Shz Mufaddal BS cannot be Dai.

Let us take the one about the forgotten date, made famous by the phrase "Taareekh yaad nathi" in the waaz on Imam uz Zaman Milad by Mufaddal BS.

In the Q&A video the claim made is like a person would correctly remember the date of his Nikah (and many other such events of his life) so how could the person claiming to be Dai forget the date on which his Naas that is Burhanuddin Moula RA conveyed to him that he was the mansoos by showing the Letter of 1388 H.

I have the following issue with the reasoning given by Husain BS. That because the supposed event never happened if any arbitrary date was offered then Mufaddal BS ran the risk of someone out of the million Bohras would come forward to claim that either Burhanuddin Moula RA or Mufaddal BS himself were in such, such place on that date.

One thing that is also claimed in the Waaz was that this happened in Mumbai. Here is a problem with this theory.
So question arises if indeed he had to make up a date, do Mumineen not know which dates Moula RA was surely in Mumbai year after year even if one never kept record of his travels?? If that is common knowledge surely he and his group would have thought about it and suggested?

Lailatul Qadr and Urs of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA are 2 events Moula RA was almost certainly in his last years in Mumbai.
One exception being of his indisposition few years ago when in Shehrullah he (Moula RA) stayed in London.

So if indeed Mufaddal bs wanted to make up a date he surely could have chosen either of these 2 events? That he did not means?

P.S: Request Admin to keep this a standalone thread if possible. If we can discuss many other aspects of that video Q&A series might be beneficial to many of us.
@adna_mumin bhai, I think this is a wonderful idea. I can present my view on this... I heard this bayaan live. Until that day, the general impression amongst the people was that Mufaddal bhaisaab was not aware of himself being the Mansoos until the London hospital incident was relayed to him by the Shehzadas. It was during the waaz on Imam uz zamaan's milad that he publicly acknowledged that he was supposedly made aware of the nass by Burhanuddin Mola. When he started the bayaan in this regard, he was very hesitant. I remember distinctly that he did not relay the events of that day very clearly. He left a lot of sentences incomplete and did not declare confidently that he was aware that he was the mansoos.
Regarding the date or year of the event, If it had really happened, then as a mansoos, it would or rather should be THE MOST important day of his life until that time. Therefore, a real mansoos would remember the date of the event and also everything else that was happening around that time. Now for some reason, if he did actually forget the date, then at least he knew that he was going to do the bayaan regarding this, so he could have sat down for a few minutes the day before the waaz and tried to make an attempt to recollect the exact year at least! If you don't remember the date or the year, and also don't make an attempt to recollect it, then it means that you did not give enough importance to the event! And would a true mansoos NOT give importance to the day on which he was made aware of this????
Now, as to why he did not make up a date? Only he can tell. My guess is that it was a story cooked up at the last minute (it was not scripted in his bayaan, therefore he was fumbling so much) and due thought was not given to it.

One other thing I noticed was that at first he carefully removed the diary from a plastic cover, then he started reading from it without proper punctuations or emphasis, he also struggled to read some parts of it. Then he mentioned that one of the witnesses' name was written by Burhanuddin mola himself and that there might possibly be some hikmat in it. Now as the Dai, he is supposed to tell us what the hikmat is, if not him, who will? After all this, he started getting angry and slammed the diary down! It almost fell off the takhat. During the course of the waaz, his anger grew and he also slammed some 'waraqs' down very disrespectfully, after waving them and saying look I have all these 'waraqs'!! Now this took me by surprise because in the past I have seen that he always treated the waraqs with a lot of respect and kissed them and placed them carefully. Is such display of anger a good thing for a Dai?

Akhtiar Wahid
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:22 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1459

Unread post by Akhtiar Wahid » Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:16 am

One more thing to notice, on that day when supposedly nass was conferred in front of all the people in Mumbai in Raudat Tahera on the urus of STS(RA) we did not see any pomp and extravagant following, usually there is alot of chipmunk styled dressed up band baja and baraat. The event was so salient but so silent. During the Milad Mubarak of Murhoom SMB(RA) there was so much showoff and Muffadal saab was sitting on the throne and enjoying the view.

Akhtiar Wahid
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:22 am

Re: "Taareekh yaad nathi"

#1460

Unread post by Akhtiar Wahid » Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:25 am

Fatema MN wrote:
adna_mumin wrote:"Taareekh yaad nathi"

This is an attempt to dissect, discuss and may be bring more ideas out of the Q&A series on Fatemidawat website. There have been few reasons given to convey the message as to why Shz Mufaddal BS cannot be Dai.

Let us take the one about the forgotten date, made famous by the phrase "Taareekh yaad nathi" in the waaz on Imam uz Zaman Milad by Mufaddal BS.

In the Q&A video the claim made is like a person would correctly remember the date of his Nikah (and many other such events of his life) so how could the person claiming to be Dai forget the date on which his Naas that is Burhanuddin Moula RA conveyed to him that he was the mansoos by showing the Letter of 1388 H.

I have the following issue with the reasoning given by Husain BS. That because the supposed event never happened if any arbitrary date was offered then Mufaddal BS ran the risk of someone out of the million Bohras would come forward to claim that either Burhanuddin Moula RA or Mufaddal BS himself were in such, such place on that date.

One thing that is also claimed in the Waaz was that this happened in Mumbai. Here is a problem with this theory.
So question arises if indeed he had to make up a date, do Mumineen not know which dates Moula RA was surely in Mumbai year after year even if one never kept record of his travels?? If that is common knowledge surely he and his group would have thought about it and suggested?

Lailatul Qadr and Urs of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA are 2 events Moula RA was almost certainly in his last years in Mumbai.
One exception being of his indisposition few years ago when in Shehrullah he (Moula RA) stayed in London.

So if indeed Mufaddal bs wanted to make up a date he surely could have chosen either of these 2 events? That he did not means?

P.S: Request Admin to keep this a standalone thread if possible. If we can discuss many other aspects of that video Q&A series might be beneficial to many of us.
@adna_mumin bhai, I think this is a wonderful idea. I can present my view on this... I heard this bayaan live. Until that day, the general impression amongst the people was that Mufaddal bhaisaab was not aware of himself being the Mansoos until the London hospital incident was relayed to him by the Shehzadas. It was during the waaz on Imam uz zamaan's milad that he publicly acknowledged that he was supposedly made aware of the nass by Burhanuddin Mola. When he started the bayaan in this regard, he was very hesitant. I remember distinctly that he did not relay the events of that day very clearly. He left a lot of sentences incomplete and did not declare confidently that he was aware that he was the mansoos.
Regarding the date or year of the event, If it had really happened, then as a mansoos, it would or rather should be THE MOST important day of his life until that time. Therefore, a real mansoos would remember the date of the event and also everything else that was happening around that time. Now for some reason, if he did actually forget the date, then at least he knew that he was going to do the bayaan regarding this, so he could have sat down for a few minutes the day before the waaz and tried to make an attempt to recollect the exact year at least! If you don't remember the date or the year, and also don't make an attempt to recollect it, then it means that you did not give enough importance to the event! And would a true mansoos NOT give importance to the day on which he was made aware of this????
Now, as to why he did not make up a date? Only he can tell. My guess is that it was a story cooked up at the last minute (it was not scripted in his bayaan, therefore he was fumbling so much) and due thought was not given to it.

One other thing I noticed was that at first he carefully removed the diary from a plastic cover, then he started reading from it without proper punctuations or emphasis, he also struggled to read some parts of it. Then he mentioned that one of the witnesses' name was written by Burhanuddin mola himself and that there might possibly be some hikmat in it. Now as the Dai, he is supposed to tell us what the hikmat is, if not him, who will? After all this, he started getting angry and slammed the diary down! It almost fell off the takhat. During the course of the waaz, his anger grew and he also slammed some 'waraqs' down very disrespectfully, after waving them and saying look I have all these 'waraqs'!! Now this took me by surprise because in the past I have seen that he always treated the waraqs with a lot of respect and kissed them and placed them carefully. Is such display of anger a good thing for a Dai?
It is clearly evident, that any sane person can make out that this person who is claiming himself to be dai sitting on the takht is blatantly speaking lies and fooling dawoodi bohras in clear daylight!

adna_mumin
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:43 pm

Re: "Taareekh yaad nathi"

#1461

Unread post by adna_mumin » Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:48 am

"Taareekh yaad nathi"
Fatema MN wrote:
@adna_mumin bhai, I think this is a wonderful idea. I can present my view on this... I heard this bayaan live. Until that day, the general impression amongst the people was that Mufaddal bhaisaab was not aware of himself being the Mansoos until the London hospital incident was relayed to him by the Shehzadas. It was during the waaz on Imam uz zamaan's milad that he publicly acknowledged that he was supposedly made aware of the nass by Burhanuddin Mola. When he started the bayaan in this regard, he was very hesitant. I remember distinctly that he did not relay the events of that day very clearly. He left a lot of sentences incomplete and did not declare confidently that he was aware that he was the mansoos.
Thank you Fatema ben for agreeing that this is a positive effort. Hope it will be useful.
Fatema MN wrote: Regarding the date or year of the event, If it had really happened, then as a mansoos, it would or rather should be THE MOST important day of his life until that time.
Well, may be. May be not. Not every human is good with dates. Actually speaking this non-rememberance of the date is construed in some areas as being not so rutba-envied and therefore not taking the effort because of not being self-centred. That he never imagined that a 53 Dai would need to assume? And one meaning of 'masoom' is innocent?
Fatema MN wrote: Therefore, a real mansoos would remember the date of the event and also everything else that was happening around that time.
To be fair, i think he did mention of some renovation that had been in progress.
Fatema MN wrote:
Now for some reason, if he did actually forget the date, then at least he knew that he was going to do the bayaan regarding this, so he could have sat down for a few minutes the day before the waaz and tried to make an attempt to recollect the exact year at least! If you don't remember the date or the year, and also don't make an attempt to recollect it, then it means that you did not give enough importance to the event! And would a true mansoos NOT give importance to the day on which he was made aware of this????

Now, as to why he did not make up a date? Only he can tell. My guess is that it was a story cooked up at the last minute (it was not scripted in his bayaan, therefore he was fumbling so much) and due thought was not given to it.
May be. In fact a strong possibility. Because the events do not add up.
Fatema MN wrote:
One other thing I noticed was that at first he carefully removed the diary from a plastic cover, then he started reading from it without proper punctuations or emphasis, he also struggled to read some parts of it. Then he mentioned that one of the witnesses' name was written by Burhanuddin mola himself and that there might possibly be some hikmat in it. Now as the Dai, he is supposed to tell us what the hikmat is, if not him, who will?
Here is a viewpoint on this too. That he was implicitly meaning that the hikmat of Burhanuddin Moula ra self adding a text was perhaps for that piece of paper to become so important for today that it become undeniable.
Fatema MN wrote: After all this, he started getting angry and slammed the diary down! It almost fell off the takhat.
Yes and i second that this happened. I was surprised at how carefully the paper was opened and how easily it was kept back. If i recall correctly it was no longer put back in the cover that it initially was. So much for the respect to Burhanuddin Moula ra i thought! Go ahead if you have a contrary view please continue to post on this as well as two other posts i wrote up.

On a related note, now that the Hon. Court takes the case up for hearing is it fine for continuing to discuss it? I really hope so.

Bohra spring
Posts: 1303
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:37 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1462

Unread post by Bohra spring » Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:56 pm

Ozdundee wrote:
Justice Kathawalla revealed that he had appeared for the 52nd Dai in an excommunication matter many years ago.
Whats all this about ?
What case did Kathawalla represent for SMB ?

ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1463

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:59 pm

Bohra spring wrote:What case did Kathawalla represent for SMB ?
I think it was a case pertaining to "Baraat" (ex-communication) filed by Reformists.

ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1464

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:44 pm

For all the abdes who say that SKQ's fatemidawat website was launched very recently for ulterior motives, kindly go to SKQ's very old website http://www.tahiyaat.com/ and you will be redirected to the new one. This proves that the current website is just a more refined version of the old one and is not something which has been launched in a hurry. Hence the so called conspiracy theories of abdes is debunked !

true_bohra
Posts: 719
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:19 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1465

Unread post by true_bohra » Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:40 am

another poor post from you gulam mohammed. When this fatemidawat.com was launched, I myself visited tahiyaat.com and it was existing.

I visited the site because on its news section, it was mentioned that Syedi Mazoon Saheb presided in Urs Majlis of Syedna Noor Mohammed Nuruddin RA where bayan of Shz Qaid Johar BS regarding nass was relayed. But what I found was that they deliberately deleted the 1432H akhbaar archives just to destroy the evidence.

And in matter of 3 days, tahiyaat.com was merged with fatemidawat.com. So any person visiting that site will directly be moved to fatemidawat.com.

Now say where the conspiracy theory lies??? :roll: :roll:

Akhtiar Wahid
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:22 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1466

Unread post by Akhtiar Wahid » Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:54 am

true_bohra wrote:another poor post from you gulam mohammed. When this fatemidawat.com was launched, I myself visited tahiyaat.com and it was existing.

I visited the site because on its news section, it was mentioned that Syedi Mazoon Saheb presided in Urs Majlis of Syedna Noor Mohammed Nuruddin RA where bayan of Shz Qaid Johar BS regarding nass was relayed. But what I found was that they deliberately deleted the 1432H akhbaar archives just to destroy the evidence.

And in matter of 3 days, tahiyaat.com was merged with fatemidawat.com. So any person visiting that site will directly be moved to fatemidawat.com.

Now say where the conspiracy theory lies??? :roll: :roll:
How about copyrighting all the youtube videos which were a clear evidence that there was no nass done and there was even guilt of degrading women. ISN'T THAT A CONSPIRACY TO DIGEST.

true_bohra
Posts: 719
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:19 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1467

Unread post by true_bohra » Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:58 am

ohh u wanna see that video...go to www.believesyednaqutbuddin.com

the video is there...dont forget to hear what Maula says at 26:51

monginis
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:00 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1468

Unread post by monginis » Fri Apr 11, 2014 4:27 am

true_bohra wrote:ohh u wanna see that video...go to http://www.believesyednaqutbuddin.com

the video is there...dont forget to hear what Maula says at 26:51
sorry none of us heard actually what mola says, can you please type it here?

Saeed al Khair
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 5:08 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1469

Unread post by Saeed al Khair » Fri Apr 11, 2014 4:32 am

53 Reasons NOT To Believe Khuzaima Qutbuddin

TABLE OF CONTENTS
REMEMBERING OUR MOULA
AUDIO TRANSLATIONS
YOUR REFLECTIONS
OUR MESSAGE
ABOUT

REASON #96: DOCTOR! DOCTOR!
Posted on April 9, 2014 by 53 Reasons 8 comments
This article is in response to the judgmental comments passed in an article about Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s RA health, by two doctors in the field of neurology, namely:

Dr. Daniel Mankens, chairman of Neurology Beaumont Hospital, Michigan; USA. (The name is most likely misspelt, as Google correction suggests “Dr Daniel Menkes”).
Dr. James M Gebel, Chairman of Neurology, Akron Medical Centre, Ohio; USA.
These experts are currently practicing in Michigan and Ohio, USA (in close proximity to where Tahera, Taher, and Taiyeba live). It is clear that neither of them were treating Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA as he was in London and they were 4,000 miles away in the U.S. Their comments are most likely based on reports given to them by the Qutbuddins. In brief, they have claimed that after suffering a debilitating stroke, medically, Syedna Burhanuddin RA could not have spoken coherently and performed nass, nor could he have drunk the sherbet that was presented to him in the hospital.

I am not a doctor, but common sense tells me that although the field of medicine has advanced in the last several years it is far from diagnosing every medical situation universally. It is common practice that doctors are able to diagnose certain patients based on tests and results provided by other doctors, but in complicated matters, the creme of doctors would hesitate to pass any judgements unless they have physically examined the patient. How then is it possible for a doctor to pass comments on a patient he hasn’t seen or examined, let alone witness his spirituality (if indeed the Qutbuddins accept Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin as a spiritual personality). How can anyone in the right mind blindly accept these statements or any reputable newspaper report them without any actual verification?

I do not doubt the expertise of these doctors sought out by the Qutbuddin family. I only wish to highlight that the doctors might not have been aware of the importance of the incident they were commenting on or the age-old traditions and customs surrounding it. These doctors have only commented based on the material presented to them by those who have approached them from the Qutbuddin family and their supporters.

As a Dawoodi Bohra and practicing member of the faith, I wonder on how informed the doctors were of the history of Dawat and the importance of nass. Their experience with Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA was next to none and I am not aware of their understanding of basic Dawoodi Bohra customs (like the consumption of sherbet). No matter how advanced their comprehension may be in medicine, understandably, they would surely be less knowledgeable when it comes to these religious matters.

Firstly, these respected doctors would not be aware of the importance of nass. According to Dawoodi Bohra theology, belief, and practice it is the greatest and most important task charged upon every Nabi, Imam and Dai. Only once nass is performed may each saheb ‘rest in peace.’ It is a tenet of our faith. The Duat Mutlaqeen swore to the Imam that no Dai would leave this world without passing on the amanat of nass to his mansoos. For the salvation and najaat of mumineen. Come what may, each Imam has appointed their mansoos. Rasulullah SAW declared Moulana Ali AS his mansoos even though it meant that it would endanger his life.

Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA has stated that the 49th Dai declared his nass on Syedna Abdullah Badruddin RA, at a time of illness when no other (ordinary) man could speak coherently.

The nass has, was, and will be always declared ‘as if life depended on it’. For indeed, life does depend on it. All our lives.

Secondly, I am unsure that these respected doctors have not been shown the video nor images of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA in Raudat Tahera on the 19th of Rajab 1432H, only a mere two weeks after this stroke. I wonder why no one chose to comment on this. The Fatemi Dawat website has alleged that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, due to his stroke, was not medically fit to pronounce nass on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS that day. I wonder why the Qutbuddins didn’t ask the doctors to comment on the events which took place this day? The actions of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA that day are not that of an ordinary person who had suffered a stroke. After a flight from London to Mumbai, we witnessed Syedna al Muqaddas RA enter Raudat Tahera on a palkhi and give salaami to mumineen exactly like he always would.

(Images taken from Zeninfosys.com – 19 Rajab 1432)


Syedna raising his hands high in salaami and acknowledging the gathering.

Syedna raising his hands high in salaami and acknowledging the gathering.
Then we witnessed Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, despite his stroke, sit on the ground as in namaaz, perform ziyarat, and walk around the qabr of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA.

(Images from the video of 19th Rajab 1432H – Raudat Tahera)


Syedna RA seated on the ground besides the qabr mubarak.

Syedna RA performing ziyarat as he always did.

Syedna RA taking slow steps and walking around the Qabr Mubarak
We then witnessed Moulana Mohammed Burhanuddin RA acknowledging Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS in front of him, giving him raza to proceed, calling him closer, holding the mic and speaking and finally accepting the najwa from Syedi Mukasir Saheb DM.


Syedna RA clearly giving raza to Syedna Mufaddal TUS without any aid and instructing him to proceed.

Syedna RA bending over to speak to Syedna Mufaddal TUS with his hands on his back. Sh Abdulhusain Yamani, one of the Nass witnesses looks on overjoyed & with keen interest.
Syedna RA holding the mic with his hands and performing Nass.
Syedna RA holding the mic with his hands and performing Nass.
Syedna RA stretching his hands out accepting the najwa tray.
Syedna RA accepting the najwa tray.
In the video at exactly (26:53 to 26:57) Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin says “Mufaddal Bhai ne Nass nu Taaj“. We can also clearly hear Moula RA stating “Khuda Barakat Aape” (32.40 – 32.43). (this is from the video posted on the Fatemi Dawat website originally).

All of this, which have witnessed, I believe refutes their following statement that “Syedna was too ill to speak coherently“. Furthermore, if these doctors were present during the first waaz on the 2nd of Moharram 1433H Hijri in Mumbai, they would have heard the short bayaan/waaz of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, where many words of the shahaadat were crystal clear, especially the final closing sentence of و اخر دعوانا ان الحمد لله رب العالمين. I was present at both occasions, and I am proud to bear witness of what I heard.

Thirdly, regarding the sherbet.

Dr James M Gebel makes the following statement:

“It would have been impossible for His Holiness to have drunk sherbet the night of June 4… he was documented to not be even able to initiate swallowing… and to be continuously completely unsafe for any oral intake.”
The rasm of drinking sherbet is to mark a moment of happiness; in this case it was the public announcement of Syedna’s successor, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS.

These moments of joy can be expressed by drinking sherbet or tasting sweets called saakar. The sherbet is usually drunk in tiny sips (sometimes almost the size of a drop), and saakar ranges from granules of sugar to chocolates or sweets. In this case, it is noted that Syedna was offered sherbet.

The Qutbuddins obviously don’t know the specifics of the situation in the hospital because simply they weren’t there. Were the doctors aware that the consumption of sherbet in Dawoodi Bohra customs doesn’t mean that an entire glass of liquid is gulped down. That action possibly could have resulted in difficulty of swallowing. Even if the most tiniest drop was offered to Syedna Burhanuddin RA, it would be considered the drinking of sherbet for a joyous occasion.

I am not aware of the quantity of of sherbet that was offered to Syedna al Muqaddas RA, but neither are they, so it is best not to pass judgements on blind assumptions. Any professional, let alone a respected doctor, would agree.

The evidence is clear. For anyone who yet doubts, I would request them to read Reason #5 Analysis of Nass Video on Khuzaima Qutbuddin’s Website. and watch the video again.

Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA and Syedna Mufaddal TUS are our spiritual doctors. May their nazaraat heal the hearts of every mumin who wants to believe the truth. Ameen

Uncategorized
REASON #95 – WE ARE UNITED
Posted on April 9, 2014 by 53 Reasons 7 comments
We Support Moulana Mufaddal Saifuddin TUSWe Support Moulana Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS


Uncategorized
REASON #94: A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE (PART 2)
Posted on April 9, 2014 by 53 Reasons 11 comments
Recently, Khuzaima Qutbuddin and the Fatemidawat website have made the following statement in an effort to justify their unprecedented action of using the Indian court system to try and prove Khuzaima’s claims as holding the office of the 53rd Dai Mutlaq:

“Syedna [sic] Qutbuddin follows the path of his predecessors. The 51st and 52nd Dai have both established their rights in the Indian Judiciary when challenged; they have recognized the jurisdiction of the courts and defended their rights. In fact Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin approached the courts as plaintiff to assert his rights as Dai.” (Sijil – A Weekly Newsletter of Fatemidawat.com, Issue 8, 5th Jamadil Ukhra 1435H).
They go on to talk about the Chanda Bhai Gulla Case as an example and mindfully state that Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA ‘established’ his rights in the Indian Judiciary when challenged by an opposition. The wording chosen here in Sijil is important to note. In English, to establish something generally means to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis. In other words, the author of the article in Sijil, the official newsletter of Fatemidawat.com – the official website of Khuzaima Qutbuddin – seems to be stating that the ruling of judicial courts are means to establish the rights of the Da’i Mutlaq. That is to say, if a court rules in favor of the Da’i it somehow affirms his position; it somehow legitimizes the position of the Da’i.

Furthermore, they go on to claim that going to the judiciary system (which the community habitually respects and abides by to the fullest extent) is a customary action of the Du’at Mutlaqeen, namely the 51st and 52nd Dai Mutlaq when a need arose to ‘establish’ their position. Khuzaima and his children make this statement in order to justify their own current actions of approaching the Mumbai High Court as plaintiffs to ‘establish’ Khuzaima’s claim of holding the office of the 53rd Da’i Mutlaq and to seek legal adjudication ruling that Aqa Moula Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS is not our 53rd Da’i al-Mutlaq and successor of Aqa Moula Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. They want the Indian judiciary system to rule against and undermine the wishes and unfaltering belief of nearly 99.95% percent or more members of the Dawoodi Bohra community. They would like to make the Indian judiciary system a criterion for determining religious dogma and belief.

As the Mumbai Mirror has reported the Qutbuddins seek the following,

Syedna [sic] Khuzaima Qutbuddin has filed a suit in High Court against Shehzada Mufaddal Saifuddin, seeking relief that he (Khuzaima) be declared Dai-al-Mutlaq
Mufaddal Saifuddin should be restrained from holding himself out as or performing any acts or deeds as the Dai al-Mutlaq.
and that no transfers should be made as regard to the trust’s assets.
Thus, they are interested in limiting the power of the current 53rd Da’i al- Mutlaq Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS and controlling the funds of Dawat. It is quite baffling that anyone would be compelled to do this considering that almost all the members of the Dawoodi Bohra only accept Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS as their Da’i and will never consider Khuzaima Qutbuddin as anything more than a claimant to something that isn’t his. Yet this isn’t the first time Da’wat has been taken to court by plaintiffs seeking to remove the Da’i Mutlaq from power surrounding questions about nass.

This last point is where Khuzaima Qutbuddin and his children have provided the readers of their website with a somewhat ahistorical account (because it is out of context) of the Chanda Gulla Bhai Case as a justification for their unprecedented action of dealing with the matters of Dawat-i-Hadiyah in court. They are somehow suggesting that the British-Colonial justice system in India was better suited to legitimize the position of the Da’i Mutlaq than the Dawoodi Bohra community itself and that Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA appeared in court himself to give testimony to ‘establish’ legitimization for the position of Da’i Mutlaq. When has ever an exterior party been more suited to pass judgement or make regulations for a religious community than the community itself?

Before I go into the details of the Chanda Bhai Gulla case in the following point, I would like to first pose a question. What if any given legal system does not acknowledge the authority or power of the Da’i Mutlaq. Does this change the belief of the community? Would it actually sever the belief of the Dawoodi Bohra community for their Da’i – a belief which is based on love and devotion? The answer is obvious.

The story of Syedna Qutbuddin Shaheed RA is etched in the consciousness of every Mu’min since it is a pivotal moment in our community’s history. Historically, Syedna Qutbuddin Shaheed RA was martyred in Ahmedabad because the Mughal legal system found him guilty of heresy during the era of the Mughal emperor Shah Jehan. During the early history of Dawat in Hindustan, the Duat Mutlaqeen had, for the most part, led the Dawoodi Bohra community with a fair amount of religious freedom in Gujarat under the early Mughal emperors. However, during the reign of his father, Awrangzeb began a campaign to limit those freedoms and to persecute religious minorities while he served as governor of Gujarat. This coincided with the era of Syedna Qutb Khan Qutbuddin al-Shaheed RA (1644-1646).

In 1645, Awrangzeb arrived in Gujarat and under the influence of his advisor, ‘Abd al-Ghawī (al-Qawī) he persecuted all Shias including the Dawoodi Bohra community. He imprisoned Syedna Qutbuddin al-Shaheed RA accusing him of being a rāfḍī (a heretic). Dawoodi Bohra mosques were placed under Sunnī control and Syedna Qutbuddin Shaheed RA was eventually brought to trial. This court decided to put him to death due to a forged letter signed by the young children of Syedna Qutbuddin Shaheed RA in which there was a false testimony claiming that Moula RA acceded to being a rāfḍī (heretic). The court ruled against Moulana Qutbuddin Shaheed RA and ordered that he be punished by beheading. Moulana Qutbuddin Shaheed RA was martyred by beheading while giving sajda at the ground of Karanj in Kalupur Ahmedabad. This act was an attempt by Awrangzeb to bring an end to the community and sever our religious conviction and beliefs through fear and persecution.

What Khuzaima fails to understand that it isn’t the tradition of Duat Mutlaqeen to seek the court’s ruling to determine the validity of the Da’i Mutlaq as he has claimed. On the contrary, using the judiciary system to challenge Dawat and the Dai is the action of those who have traditionally opposed Dawat. Khuzaima has sought to forward his agenda through the judiciary system in order to ultimately make financial gains and try to get an external party to award him the title of being called the Dai since Moulana Burhanuddin Aqa RA did not. However, Khuzaima will never be able to stake a claim over the hearts of the Dawoodi Bohra community.

Almost 500 years ago, Awrangzeb, ‘Abd al-Ghawī, and Shah Beg tried to persecute the community in the guise of seeking a ruling through a judiciary system. However, history has shown that the subsequent will and belief of the community could not be faltered. Syedna Qutbuddin Shaheed RA told his persecutors near to his martyrdom that, “You might be able to murder my physical body but you will never be able to murder my soul.” Those words resonate today in the hearts of all Mumineen. Our message to Khuzaima and his children are – we do not fear you or your futile attempts to use the judiciary system to try and persecute our belief systems. We are united more than ever under our Moula Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS. We too have faith in the Indian judiciary system that they will uphold justice and the belief and well acknowledged resolve of the community in accepting Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s RA successor Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS as the 53rd Da’i Mutlaq.



Uncategorized
NASS VIDEO – RAUDAT TAHERA 19TH RAJAB 1432H
Posted on April 7, 2014 by 53 Reasons Leave a comment
The video of the Nass by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS can be found here:




This is EXACTLY the same video posted on Khuzaima Qutbuddins’s site.

Although the audio is muffled, the words “Mufaddal bhai ne Nass nu taaj” are clearly heard at 26m:50s.



For a detailed analysis of the video, you can also view:

Reason #5 Analysis of Nass Video on Khuzaima Qutbuddin’s Website.

Uncategorized
REASON # 93: MOCKERY OF JUSTICE
Posted on April 6, 2014 by 53 Reasons 6 comments
On March 12, 2014 the Mumbai Mirror published an article remarking on nine children who were kidnapped by the daughters of Khuzeima Qutbuddin, the claimant to holding the rightful position of the 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohra community. In fact the article states, “On January 17th, the very day that the Syedna passed away, the children — who lived in Saifee Mahal, home of the Syedna and his family in Malabar Hill, were taken away to Thane by their mothers, and there has been no trace of them ever since.” The Mumbai Mirror fell short of reporting all the facts of the matter or their source conveniently left out a major detail.

This detail is that soon after the abduction of the children, some of these nine children appeared in separate homemade videos in which they held scripts and read lines proclaiming that their maternal grandfather, Khuzaima Qutbuddin, was the true 53rd Da’i and how they have willingly adhered to his claim and cause. (Although these videos were also sent to me via whatsapp, out of sheer humanity and respect to both families involved, I absolutely cannot post them here. I do not only feel that such an act is exploitative, but I also would add that it seems insensitively cruel to do so.) However, I will say that the dispersal of these videos took place just three days after Aqa Moula Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s RA demise. The videos were sent to members of the Dawoodi Bohra community in what seemed to have been an attempt by the Qutbuddin family to make them go viral and in many ways torment the grieve stricken families of these children who were mourning the demise of both their spiritual and actual father, Moulana Burhanuddin TUS.

Regardless of the theological claims that Khuzaima Qutbuddin, his wife, and his children adhere to and purport as him being the 53rd Da’i Mutlaq, by publicly exploiting their grandchildren and those of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS and Syedi Qaid Johar Bhaisaheb Izzuddin in order to cause them more turmoil in a time of mourning seems to be an act lacking any moral justification or human decency. Why did the Mumbai Mirror leave this well known detail of the viral videos out of their report? Furthermore, it should be noted that abducting children from their normal household situations and environments and abruptly removing them from the love and care of their fathers, grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins is one of the first acts Khuzaima Qutbuddin performed after he made his claim to being the 53rd Dai Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohra community.

International kidnapping and child abduction is a very serious matter. It causes a great amount of pain and stress for all the parties involved, especially those families from who the children were taken away without their knowledge. In cases like these, children are made into innocent victims of their parents’ decisions to use extreme measures without the guidance and jurisdiction of civil courts. In fact, since October 25, 1980 the Hague Convention of Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction were put in place internationally to try and spare children from the harm which can ensue from such situations. Provisions have been instated internationally to ensure that children are returned to their families and proper custody hearings take place. India, however, is not a signatory of the Hague Convention nor does Indian law fully consider the act of parental kidnapping a crime.

Perhaps, in the eyes of Indian law (and maybe not international or United States law), the Qutbuddin family has not immediately committed a crime. In fact, it is reported that often in such cases in India custody is awarded to the mother and solved by keeping the culturally sensitive situations in mind and by determining the factors which are best suited for Indian society. Therefore, the ultimate decision of the fate of these young innocent children who were abducted by their mothers on the day of Aqa Moula Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s TUS demise is a matter which is left for the Indian courts.

However, in any civil society, the law is hardly the only component to measure common morality and justice. Every human being has an inner sense of social justice imbued in the fiber of our being. Thus, even though perhaps no penalizing act has been done by the daughters of Qutbuddin according to Indian law (we will have to wait and see the efficiency of the Indian court system), a major injustice has been done. It seems very hard to believe that sanctioning the abduction of children, releasing exploitative hurtful videos of minors, internationally kidnapping children, and aiding and abetting criminals, could ever be the just and moral actions of any religious leader – much less anyone claiming to be the Da’i Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohra community. It seems rather ironic that Khuzaima Qutbuddin and his family are attempting to channel and utilize Indian law to try and prove their claims as being the rightful owners of the office of the 53rd Da’i Mutlaq while simply ignoring other aspects of the law and basic morality when it suits their own personal agenda. This is truly an unprecedented situation in the history of the Dawoodi Bohras.

Uncategorized
UPDATES TO: REASON #65: THE SO CALLED ‘AMANAT’ OF NASS (PART TWO)
Posted on March 23, 2014 by 53 Reasons Leave a comment
Updated on 23 March 2014

Please view:

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

http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/ ... -part-two/



Uncategorized
REASON #92: CHANGING THE MEETHAQ
Posted on March 23, 2014 by 53 Reasons 12 comments


Husain Qutbuddin (HQ) claims that the text of Ehd al-Awliyaa’ (Meethaq) can never be changed and since it was changed following the nass by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA upon Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS, the latter cannot be a true Dai.

Firstly, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin issued the directive to add the name of his mansoos to the meethaq text. The mithaal mubarak was sent by Syedna al-Muqaddas’s secretariat (Alvazaratus Saifiyah) and the first person to carry out this directive was Syedi Mukasir Saheb Husain Bhaisaheb Husamuddin. Again, at yet another milestone in the golden annals of Dawat the yadd and yameen of the Dai was nowhere to be seen.
Secondly, there is no record of the mithaal mubarak being sent twice, as HQ claims, however, it seems highly probable that the Qutbuddin family were sent the same mithaal twice seeing as they were the least likely to comply.
Thirdly, HQ claims that one cannot change the ibaarat (text) of Ehd al-Awliyaa’ at all, not even one letter. It is explicitly mentioned in the text that the custom of Ehd is not a recent one. From the very day that Allah created Adam Nabi, this custom was in place. Allah states in the Quran that ‘Indeed, we had beforehand taken the covenant from Adam’. Does HQ really believe that the text of Ehd al-Awliyaa’ is the same as it was during the time of Adam Nabi? In Lisaan al-Dawat? Repeatedly mentioning Imam and Imam’s Dai? Detailing the functioning of Dawat when an Imam goes into seclusion? Delineating the three posts by which the Dawat continues during satr? And many other stipulations that are particular to Islam and the period of satr? Does he really think that whilst the Dawat was based in Yemen, the Ehd al-Awliyaa’ was recited in Lisan al-Dawat? It seems he is also unaware of the fact that the clause ‘zairey dast’ (the Mazoon and Mukasir being subordinate and controlled by the Dai Mutlaq) was added by al-Dai al-Ajal Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA. His father may not even know, since it was done well before he came into existence. Will he now even accuse Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA of violating the nehj of Dawat as he has Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA?
The text of the Ehd al-Awliyaa’ can be changed, but only by the Imam and during his satr by the Dai Mutlaq, because it is to him that we are giving meethaq. It his meethaq, an oath given to him, surely then the one the oath being given to has the right to alter it as he sees fit. The Imam and his Dai are not bound by the text of the Ehd al-Awliyaa’ but rather it is a means for them to convey to their followers what is expected and required of them. And as times change so does the language and content of Ehd al-Awliyaa’.

HQ then goes on to claim that ‘mansoos nu iqraar dawat na kitaabo ma nathi’. Has he read every single Dawat text? Secondly, this is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Has he not read the narration of Amirul Mumineen SA placing the Quran upon his head and calling upon it to speak? Amirul Mumineen SA then declared that ‘I am the book that speaks’. It is a fundamental flaw in his aqeedah if he gauges the actions of Duat Mutlaqeen by Dawat texts. They are the living books and their actions are the nehj of Dawat. If a Dai of any time deems it necessary to add his mansoos’s name in the Ehd al-Awliyaa’, he has an incontrovertible right to do so. And those who question his authority to do so need to re-examine their adherence to the tenets of Ehd al-Awliyaa’. Therefore, citing examples of what Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA did regarding the text of Ehd al-Awliyaa’ after his nass upon Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA is misleading. Different times require different courses of action. The Dai Mutlaq of the time knows which course to take.

The awareness of the four odd people sitting in front of HQ is also commendable. One person blurts out that no changes have been made to the Ehd al-Awliyaa’ for 900 years. How does he know? Has he examined each and every manuscript? If his audience are so scholarly maybe HQ can rest his throat and let them conduct the remaining Q&A sessions.

In the recording of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s RA waaz mubarak shown to Mumineen during Ashara 1435 H, he stated that Syedna Abdulhusain Husamuddin RA dismissed those who denied nass being conferred upon Syedna Abdulqadir Najmuddin RA and labelled them as ‘children’. Amongst the wisdom inherent in this statement, is the fact that some within these munafeqeen were 2, or 4, or 5, or 7 years old when nass was proclaimed. They were actually too young to know anything about nass at the time. The four Qutbuddin sons should realise that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s RA nass upon Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS was conferred long before they were even born.

As the renowned Fatemi poet Ibne Hani aptly says:

The Banu Abbas (Abassids) ask ‘Has Egypt been conquered? Tell Banu Abbas that ‘the matter is long resolved’

Uncategorized
BLOG STATS

851,730 visitors
Blog at WordPress.com. Customized Dynamic News Theme.
53 Reasons NOT To Believe Khuzaima Qutbuddin Blog at WordPress.com. Customized Dynamic News Theme Follow
Follow “53 Reasons NOT To Believe Khuzaima Qutbuddin”

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 321 other followers





Powered by WordPress.com

adna_mumin
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:43 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#1470

Unread post by adna_mumin » Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:44 am

53 Reasons NOT To Believe Khuzaima Qutbuddin

TABLE OF CONTENTS
REMEMBERING OUR MOULA
AUDIO TRANSLATIONS
YOUR REFLECTIONS
OUR MESSAGE
ABOUT

REASON #96: DOCTOR! DOCTOR!
Posted on April 9, 2014 by 53 Reasons 8 comments
This article is in response to the judgmental comments passed in an article about Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s RA health, by two doctors in the field of neurology, namely:
....
Utterly illogical, devoid of reason, full of make believe concoctions. Title has the word "reasons" but that is the only occurrence of it in the whole text!