Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

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.
lawgraduate
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:31 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#91

Unread post by lawgraduate » Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:11 am

Biradar wrote:
Adam wrote:My cousin paid this amount for his daughter. Turns out that SMB (RA) found out that this absurd amount was being charged. He was very annoyed, and cancelled all the remaining misaaqs for that day.
it shows MB was unfit to manage dawat affairs.

instead of cancelling remaing misaaq he should have recite all misaaq FREE of charge, and not only that he should have declared in mic that from now on no one should pay any money for misaaq or nikah, and those who took money should have been punished severely.

this would have gave strong message to community, but MB preferred to hush up things and let go the culprits.

james
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:06 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#92

Unread post by james » Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:27 am

Biradar wrote:

Adam is correct. I should say that the last decade or so of SMB (RA)'s rule was also full of the same pomp and glory as displayed (in a more exaggerated manner) by Dawedar Mr. Muffadul Saifuddin (LA). Now, the question is: who was running the show? Was it SMB (RA) or his nefarious and laeen children and brothers? It is a question that remains to be answered, and perhaps things will become clear in the future.

I will tell of a personal example. A few years ago, SMB (RA) came to Pune. There were many children who wanted to give their misaaq to the da'i himself. As usual, a huge amount of salaam was determined for this "honor". My cousin paid this amount for his daughter. Turns out that SMB (RA) found out that this absurd amount was being charged. He was very annoyed, and cancelled all the remaining misaaqs for that day. So, the question comes up: under whose authority was this amount determined? Obviously, it could not be some two-dime Kothari. It must be some powerful shehzada or the other. In retrospect it must be DMMS (LA).

In the same vein, after his stroke, as we all know, SMB (RA) was paraded like a mannequin dummy, false teeth shoved into his mouth and forced to sit like an idol in front of thousands of fanatics. At that time, people from the USA were paying 100,000 DOLLARS to become a shaikh. I kid you not, 100,000 dollars! Who determined this amount? Obviously, it was not SMB (RA). It could only be a high ranking member of the Iblisi Toli, perhaps DMMS (LA) himself.

Hence, those who are with DMMS (LA), like this Adam, are actually the ones who hated SMB (RA) and loved money and power. They were so desperate to fill their coffers and have every Bohra grovel in front of them, that they did not spare their own father, and insulted and degraded him at every opportunity. Now, these same people are using their own nefarious actions to besmirch the actions of SMB (RA)! Mind boggling, to say the least.

Biradar,

Why indulge in the false show of affixing "RA" to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin's name? Do you reckon your posts against the incumbent Dai will be met with more legitimacy if you held the 52nd Dai RA in good stead?


For years you have been an out and out enemy of Syedna RA which zinger so eloquently puts.You even went far with comparing the bethak of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA to "Ganpati festival" (Nauzobillah)

You even accepted that Nass had taken place on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS before.Did you really think that your hypocrisy won't be challenged? :lol:

Here,


Biradar wrote:
accountability wrote:Natural contender of the office wll be Mazoon, but there are precedents, that nominee was not Mazoon, but in each case nominee was declared in mazoon's presence and endorsed by mazoon.
This is a ridiculous statement. Please prove that in each case of the last 52 da'is the appointment was endorsed by mazoon and in his presence. In many instances the nass was done by letter, sometimes in public and sometimes in private among a select few. At the end of the day the da'i can do absolutely what he wants and no one is required to endorse his choice. In the time of satr the da'i is the absolute leader. There is an instance when the Mazoon was removed from his position.

I think people are getting too worked up about this nass issue. It was bound to happen one day and it is good it has happened so that the community does not split. Of course, schisms are still possible but I think highly unlikely. In the misaaq one explicitly declares that the da'i can promote whoever he wants and demote whoever he wants. It does not say he needs endorsement from anyone. Now, one can question the misaq from many perspectives but this is the way it is.

Just accept this as a valid succession and move on. There will no difference to the progressive movement at all. Things are not going to change and probably will get worse.
One more gem,

Biradar wrote:
ghulam muhammed wrote: There was a surprise visitor alongwith the dai............. MAZUN saab was seen after a very long time.
BTW: Contrary to what people would have us believe on this forum, the Mazoon saheb was not missing because he did not approve of the nass. Nothing of that sort. He has been very sick and receiving treatment. He has a throat condition, probably a form of cancer, that flared up again. So his absence was due to sickness and not due to any internal power struggle. So, please do not try cook up silly conspiracy theories.

zinger
Posts: 1963
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:40 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#93

Unread post by zinger » Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:52 am

james wrote:
For years you have been an out and out enemy of Syedna RA which zinger so eloquently puts.You even went far with comparing the bethak of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA to "Ganpati festival" (Nauzobillah)
i so eloquently put what?

Adam
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#94

Unread post by Adam » Tue Mar 03, 2015 10:11 am

lawgraduate wrote:
Biradar wrote:
it shows MB was unfit to manage dawat affairs.

instead of cancelling remaing misaaq he should have recite all misaaq FREE of charge, and not only that he should have declared in mic that from now on no one should pay any money for misaaq or nikah, and those who took money should have been punished severely.

this would have gave strong message to community, but MB preferred to hush up things and let go the culprits.

@ LAW GRADUATE
I am misquoted in the above statements. Please correct it. I said no such thing.

@ James
Great dig out from the past.

lawgraduate
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:31 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#95

Unread post by lawgraduate » Tue Mar 03, 2015 10:12 am

Adam wrote:
lawgraduate wrote: it shows MB was unfit to manage dawat affairs.

instead of cancelling remaing misaaq he should have recite all misaaq FREE of charge, and not only that he should have declared in mic that from now on no one should pay any money for misaaq or nikah, and those who took money should have been punished severely.

this would have gave strong message to community, but MB preferred to hush up things and let go the culprits.

@ LAW GRADUATE
I am misquoted in the above statements. Please correct it. I said no such thing.

@ James
Great dig out from the past.
Birader has said it.....he is in initials.

Adam
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#96

Unread post by Adam » Tue Mar 03, 2015 10:13 am

SBM wrote:
Adam wrote:Haters will hate.
The people who hated Syedna Mohmmed Burhanuddin and his policies are the EXACT same that openly hate Syedna Mufaddal TUS (and support KQ at the same time.)
HINT HINT.
Adam
You are totally off on this. SKQ and his family did not hate SMB and many followers of SKQ who opine on this forum have clearly stated their love of SMB but no love for SMS. I hope you take your blinders off your eyes think rationally
I was talking about you as well.
You hated Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. This Forum has ample evidence of that - and that hatred has been transferred to Syedna Mufaddal TUS.

But you still are very fond of KQ.

SBM
Posts: 6228
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#97

Unread post by SBM » Tue Mar 03, 2015 11:25 am

Adam
I was talking about you as well.
You hated Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. This Forum has ample evidence of that - and that hatred has been transferred to Syedna Mufaddal TUS.

But you still are very fond of KQ.
Let me clarify I do not hate,, I just have no love for him and his family,
I have also mentioned the reasons and if it missed your attention because you were too busy calling respectful female as Baby and making ROTIS then let me refresh you, I lost my mother because growing up we were very poor and the Goons in Saify Mahal would not provide any medical help instead they told us to get PHOOK NU PAANI and SHAKAAR while they were getting the best medical care at Bombay Hospital.
I have no allegiance to any one. I have called SKQ also an opportunist and have questioned his silence during the 50 years as Mazoon. All I have said that SKQ family is much more educated and may be he or his family may be able to bring this community to its glory days if the power does not corrupt them.
So far SKQ and his family has not made mockery of the community by making ROTIs and auctioning it off like your leader SMS

Saif53
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:39 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#98

Unread post by Saif53 » Tue Mar 03, 2015 11:45 pm

Please read the two new posts on the Qutbi Bohra Blog.

The Sabaq Gone Wrong Part 1

The Sabaq Gone Wrong Part 2

Saif53
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:39 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#99

Unread post by Saif53 » Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:23 am

Two new posts from the QUTBI BOHRA BLOG:
SIDQ: PART ONE

SIDQ: PART ONE

The Qutbi Bohra Sijill #60 deals with the alleged concept of Sidq (truth). Please refer to the previous article posted on my Blog on Sidq.
The latest Qutbi article on Sidq is a clear reflection of their ignorance of Fatemi haqeeqat & Fatemi philosophy and their inability to comprehend the fundamental tenets of Nass. This is clear proof that they are now void of tawfeeq.
The Sijill #60 states:

"During Rasulullah’s time there were many who claimed the Prophethood. Only Rasulullah was Truthful. But how do we tell who is true and who is not? The two basic criteria to assess these claims are: 1) the credibility of the individual and 2) whether the statements and messages of the individual is validated by the application of our rational mind."

The Qutbi's validate the sidq of Rasulullah SAW based on the opinions and rationality of the followers. If it were up to the individual to assess the credibility of an Imam, it is no different from the concept of "the ummah selecting the Imam based on their judgment", which is the belief of some other sects of Islam. This concept is completely at odds with Fatemi philosophy, and has been refuted in Taj al-Aqaaid Chapter 41 (the same book the Qutbis quote later on).

Instead, the ONLY way to validate the maqaam of Rasulullah SAW is through the Nass & Tawqeef of the previous Imam.

If only the Qutbis had read and understood the chapter of Nass & Tawqeef in the kitaab Daim al-Islam, they would have understood this simple but most important foundation of Fatemi belief.

The Sijill continues:

"Similarly after Rasulullah there were others who claimed to be Rasulullah’s successor, but only Ali was Truthful."

Moulana Ali AS was the successor of Rasulullah simply because he was his mansoos. Indeed, the the haq na saheb and haq and sidq come hand in hand, but, the difference is very clearly spelled out by Rasulullah SAW in his statement after he performed a clear nass on Moulana Ali AS.
He said:

"(O' Allah) direct 'Haq' towards Ali, wherever he turns".

The Imam is haq personified. Haq follows him, not the other way around. The Qutbi Bohras have failed to understand these basics. They've got their priorities mixed up.

The Sijill goes on:

"There were others who claimed to be the rightful successors to Maulana Ali but only the Fatemi Imams are truthful."

The Fatemi Imams are truthful because they were appointed through Nass & Tawqeef not because they were judged so by the rational minds of people of their times.

... and on:

"Over the years there have been numerous competing claims to veracity and Truthfulness of Allah’s Nabi, his Imam, and his Dai. Who should you believe, and why?"

ANSWER: We would believe those who have been appointed through Nass & Tawqeef.

Saif53
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:39 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#100

Unread post by Saif53 » Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:24 am

SIDQ: PART TWO
SIDQ: PART TWO
(Continued from SIDQ: PART ONE)

Finally, the Sjill arrives at KQ desperately trying to rely on the fact that since he was the Mazoon, he must be the Dai. They quote Kitab Taaj al-Aqaid (written by the 5th Dai Mutlaq):

"The 5th Dai in his Kitab Tajul-‘Aqa’id states that the Mazoon speaks the truth whether it be for him or against him; only such a person is raised to this rutba."

As far as I know, Taaj al-Aqaid doesn't state any bayaan like this, and I haven't been able to find the same bayaan the Qutbis are quoting. I would request them to enlighten me on their source of this bayaan.

The Sjill then quotes the 41st Dai RA.

"The 41st Dai Syedna Abdut-Tayyib Zakiuddin also describes the Mazoon as the truthful and sincere friend of the Dai (Sadiqan Saadiqan) and a brother to him who follows (comes after) him as the one who bears witness [over his followers as to their faith] (akhan yatluhu shaahida)."

Once again, the Qutbis are guilty of misinterpreting dawat texts and misleading readers. The above bayaan is quoted from Syedna Taher Saifuddin's RA risala shareefah; Fuyuzaat al-Jannah page 255.
On page 254 it is mentioned that Syedna Abdut Tayyib Zakiuddin RA suceeded the 40th Dai after his wafaat. The first amal he does is to define the tarteeb of hudood and names them. Syedna Abdut Tayyib Zakiuddin RA then states that in the rutba shareefah saniyyah of the Mazoon, he appoints Syedi Ismail bin Syedna Ibrahim Wajihuddin QR.

في الرتبة الشريفة السنية المأذونية * التي هي بعد رتبة الداعي اجل الرتب الدينية * مؤزرا له و معاضدا * و معينا له في الامور و مرافدا * و صديقا صادقا و اخا يتلوه شاهدا *للشيخ الماجد الجليل * السلطان السحبان النبيل * الكارع من مشرب الحقائق العذب الفرات السلسبيل * السالك من الحذاقة و النجابة و المهابة اسوى السبيل * الحائز قصب السباق الى المقام الاثيل * علم الدين * بهجة المهتدين * اسمعيل جي بهائي بن سيدنا وجيه الدين بارك الله له هذا المقام و المحل * و جعله للتوفيق والتسديد اهل*

It is important to note that the only words in praise of the position of the Mazoon are those that mention this position being lofty, and the most exalted of religious ranks following that of the al-Dai al-Mutlaq.
Following these phrases all of the remaining phrases – including true friend and a brother to the Dai – are actually in praise of Syedi Ismailji.

Yes, the position of the Mazoon follows that of al-Dai al-Mutlaq, however, this is the same Syedna Abdultyeb Zakiuddin RA who has mentioned that:

“It is possible that circumstances, along with siyaasat (administrative wisdom) determines that such hudood are retained in their position. Even though they are completely or partly inadequate in their aqeedah (beliefs), knowledge and practice. This could be due to a number of reasons which contribute to the betterment of Dawat Hadiyah or to its collective harmony. The application of such policy has been witnessed in the history of past Imams and Doat, and is apparent for individuals of understanding.”

Therefore, Syedna Zakiuddin’s extended praise of Syedi Ismailji reveals that along with the position, he also possesses attributes worthy of it.
This should be contrasted with the risaalah written by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, following the wafaat of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA. Syedna RA mentions his first misaaq majlis:

وفي هذا المجلس اقمت في رتبة الاذن صنوي الاكرم خزيمة بهائي صاحب قطب الدين * و اثبت عمي الاكرم صالح بهائي صاحب صفي الدين في رتبة الكسر
(Translation: And in this majis I appointed to the position of Mazoon, my honourable brother Khuzaima Bhaisaheb Qutbuddin, and maintained my honourable uncle Saleh Bhaisaheb Safiyuddin in the position of Mukasir.)
It should be pointed out that when mentioning both persons, Syedna RA uses the praise ‘honourable’.
Another noteworthy phrase in this risaalah is that Syedna RA goes on to say that, according to the wateerat (of Dawat) the misaaq was taken for "me".
الوتيرة ... بأخذ العهد لي
Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA clearly states that the meethaaq is for the Dai alone, thus invalidating the much propagated Qutbi belief that the meethaq is also for the Mazoon. .

Finally, in this same risala shareefah; Fuyuzaat al-Jannah page 255, Syedna Abdut Taiyeb Zakiuddin RA states that the Dai and His mansoos are always considered One. The Mazoon and Mukasir (if other than the Mansoos) come after them.

mnoorani
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:05 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#101

Unread post by mnoorani » Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:50 pm

Saif53 wrote:
SIDQ: PART TWO
SIDQ: PART TWO
(Continued from SIDQ: PART ONE)

Finally, the Sjill arrives at KQ desperately trying to rely on the fact that since he was the Mazoon, he must be the Dai. They quote Kitab Taaj al-Aqaid (written by the 5th Dai Mutlaq):

"The 5th Dai in his Kitab Tajul-‘Aqa’id states that the Mazoon speaks the truth whether it be for him or against him; only such a person is raised to this rutba."

As far as I know, Taaj al-Aqaid doesn't state any bayaan like this, and I haven't been able to find the same bayaan the Qutbis are quoting. I would request them to enlighten me on their source of this bayaan.

The Sjill then quotes the 41st Dai RA.

"The 41st Dai Syedna Abdut-Tayyib Zakiuddin also describes the Mazoon as the truthful and sincere friend of the Dai (Sadiqan Saadiqan) and a brother to him who follows (comes after) him as the one who bears witness [over his followers as to their faith] (akhan yatluhu shaahida)."

Once again, the Qutbis are guilty of misinterpreting dawat texts and misleading readers. The above bayaan is quoted from Syedna Taher Saifuddin's RA risala shareefah; Fuyuzaat al-Jannah page 255.
On page 254 it is mentioned that Syedna Abdut Tayyib Zakiuddin RA suceeded the 40th Dai after his wafaat. The first amal he does is to define the tarteeb of hudood and names them. Syedna Abdut Tayyib Zakiuddin RA then states that in the rutba shareefah saniyyah of the Mazoon, he appoints Syedi Ismail bin Syedna Ibrahim Wajihuddin QR.

في الرتبة الشريفة السنية المأذونية * التي هي بعد رتبة الداعي اجل الرتب الدينية * مؤزرا له و معاضدا * و معينا له في الامور و مرافدا * و صديقا صادقا و اخا يتلوه شاهدا *للشيخ الماجد الجليل * السلطان السحبان النبيل * الكارع من مشرب الحقائق العذب الفرات السلسبيل * السالك من الحذاقة و النجابة و المهابة اسوى السبيل * الحائز قصب السباق الى المقام الاثيل * علم الدين * بهجة المهتدين * اسمعيل جي بهائي بن سيدنا وجيه الدين بارك الله له هذا المقام و المحل * و جعله للتوفيق والتسديد اهل*

It is important to note that the only words in praise of the position of the Mazoon are those that mention this position being lofty, and the most exalted of religious ranks following that of the al-Dai al-Mutlaq.
Following these phrases all of the remaining phrases – including true friend and a brother to the Dai – are actually in praise of Syedi Ismailji.

Yes, the position of the Mazoon follows that of al-Dai al-Mutlaq, however, this is the same Syedna Abdultyeb Zakiuddin RA who has mentioned that:

“It is possible that circumstances, along with siyaasat (administrative wisdom) determines that such hudood are retained in their position. Even though they are completely or partly inadequate in their aqeedah (beliefs), knowledge and practice. This could be due to a number of reasons which contribute to the betterment of Dawat Hadiyah or to its collective harmony. The application of such policy has been witnessed in the history of past Imams and Doat, and is apparent for individuals of understanding.”

Therefore, Syedna Zakiuddin’s extended praise of Syedi Ismailji reveals that along with the position, he also possesses attributes worthy of it.
This should be contrasted with the risaalah written by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, following the wafaat of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA. Syedna RA mentions his first misaaq majlis:

وفي هذا المجلس اقمت في رتبة الاذن صنوي الاكرم خزيمة بهائي صاحب قطب الدين * و اثبت عمي الاكرم صالح بهائي صاحب صفي الدين في رتبة الكسر
(Translation: And in this majis I appointed to the position of Mazoon, my honourable brother Khuzaima Bhaisaheb Qutbuddin, and maintained my honourable uncle Saleh Bhaisaheb Safiyuddin in the position of Mukasir.)
It should be pointed out that when mentioning both persons, Syedna RA uses the praise ‘honourable’.
Another noteworthy phrase in this risaalah is that Syedna RA goes on to say that, according to the wateerat (of Dawat) the misaaq was taken for "me".
الوتيرة ... بأخذ العهد لي
Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA clearly states that the meethaaq is for the Dai alone, thus invalidating the much propagated Qutbi belief that the meethaq is also for the Mazoon. .

Finally, in this same risala shareefah; Fuyuzaat al-Jannah page 255, Syedna Abdut Taiyeb Zakiuddin RA states that the Dai and His mansoos are always considered One. The Mazoon and Mukasir (if other than the Mansoos) come after them.

Dear Saif Bhai Treppan,

Aasmaan na ane Zameen na Allah bewe tamari har mushkil ne ahssan kare.
You have given great refrences and daleel.
Pan sau (100) waat ni ek (1) waat.
Su koi pan dawaat ni kitaabon ma Mansoos jewo rutbo che ?
Ya pachi apna Haqiqi Qibla, Ilah Al Ardh, Ghayb na jaankar, Marela pan Al Hayy na title thi pehchaanaar Sayedna Mohammed Burhanuddin ye a rutba, khaas emne Pyaara dikra Aali Qadr Mufaddal Maula maate special Imam uz Zamaan na Ilham thi aa Rutba banaaya?

Saif53
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:39 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#102

Unread post by Saif53 » Sun May 03, 2015 1:04 am

FROM THE QUTBI BOHRA BLOG:
Ziyarat From Afar
A recent article in The Mumbai Mirror talked about how some of the Qutbi daughters were allegedly "forced" to do ziyarat of Raudat Tahera from the JJ flyover. This was nothing less than a publicity stunt.

It seems that the Qutbis got the idea of doing ziyarat and istelaam from afar, thanks to the ideas posted on this blog, especially my Absence at Janaza post.

This begs the question:

Why now? After more than a year from Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin's RA wafaat? Or did they just wake up?
Instead of purposely running away from the janaza mubarak and dafan rites, why didn't they stand on the JJ flyover and observe the janaza mubarak and participate in the janaza namaz?

Khuzaima claims that after Syedna RA suffered a debilitating stroke, the reason he remained silent about the Nass on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS was because he prayed for Syedna's recovery and wished to clarify the matter with Him directly. This is an illogical position, let alone an intelligent answer as Abdeali, his son, claims.

If KQ indeed prayed for Syedna's recovery, the least he could do was be at Moula's side, help and care for him until His recovery, ensure everything was attended to. What help is a man who deliberately stays away for three years?
More importantly, if the Qutbis claim that the Nass was staged, and Syedna RA was being surrounded by 100% liars, conspirators, munafiqeen and enemies of Dawat, the least Khuzaima (or his family) could have done for 3 years would be to stand beside Syedna RA, protect him from these "dushmans" - and not leave Moula alone - if indeed they were eagerly waiting for his recovery.

During the battle of Uhud, when the Muslim formation was broken, Rasulullah SAW instructed Moulana Ali AS to flee as well. Moulana Ali AS instantly replied and did araz, "Where should I run away to? Should I run away a kaafir after being a Muslim?".

Today, it is clear who the kaafir is.

Saif53
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:39 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#103

Unread post by Saif53 » Sun May 03, 2015 1:04 am

FROM THE QUTBI BOHRA BLOG
Thoughts on KQ's Hearing
On April 27th and 28th KQ arrived for his hearing at the Mumbai High Court. It marked the beginning of his eventually embarrassing defeat.

Nothing new was said that hasn't been refuted on numerous blogs such as this.

Here are a few thoughts on what was discussed:

In court, KQ claimed "there were two attempts" on his life. (Ref: The Hindu Newspaper Article), whereas HQ, his son, claims there were three attempts, emphasizing this claim with his fingers. (Ref : Q&A Part 6).


Like father like son, both are liars. Quoting Husain's words "a liar cannot be the Dai".

KQ further confirmed he did not remember the dates of the alleged attempts on his life. According to HQ's logic (discussed here), by forgetting dates of such an important events, it must be fabricated.
If his allegations were true, the first thing he should have done was to inform the relavant authorities, just like he ran to courts like a mouse.

Quoting an article on Rediff.com, KQ supposedly said "It was the duty of the Mazoon to protect the Dai". This begs the question. Where was KQ's protection when the Dai was being surrounded by "dushmans" and allegedly being forced against his own will? Did KQ not upkeep the duty of the Mazoon? This has also been discussed in detail here & here.

Saif53
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:39 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#104

Unread post by Saif53 » Tue May 05, 2015 9:16 am

FROM THE QUTBI BOHRA BLOG
Zikra & Jamea
The 19th of Rajab al Asab 1436H will mark the Zikra Majlis of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA and Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. This is the second Zikra Majlis during the era of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS.

The Zikra Majlis marks the beginning of the annual Imtehan of al Jamea tus Saifiyah, the tradition of which began during the era of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA; who personally conducted the written and oral exams. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA emphasized the importance of attending Zikra and Imtehan every year.
Syedna Taher Saifuddin TA conducting bayaan in al Jamea tus Saifiyah Surat

Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA has repeatedly stated that Jamea is the zaat of the Dai.

It's no surprise that The words "Zikra", "Jamea", "Imtehan", "Shafahi Imtehan" send shivers down Khuzaima Qutbuddin's spine. KQ despised Jamea (read here & here). All these years, KQ maintained the tradition of of avoiding and running away from these miqaat or any Jamea related activity.

IF KQ claims to be the Dai, and the sucessor of two Dais, then when his is Zikra Majlis? Where is his Jamea? When is the written Imtehan, or oral Shafahi Imtehan of his Abnaa al Jamea (childred/students of Jamea)?
His children maintain they obtained ilm from "Jamea", even though they never really physically enrolled in the institution.
Surely he would have at least one student in his "Jamea"?

JC
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#105

Unread post by JC » Tue May 05, 2015 5:09 pm

These 'jamaes' should also be closed alongwith all madrasahs where fanaticism is taught; these are the breeding grounds for hatred. Bohra jamaes are just to produce zombies, abdes and amtes, it hs NOTHING to do with Knowledge and Education.

alam
Posts: 712
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:15 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#106

Unread post by alam » Tue May 05, 2015 8:50 pm

JC - Jameeaas are now built worldwide- as educational institutions - partly for economic reasons too - 100s of graduates being churned out each year, and they need jobs too-- and yes they have tons to do - make money off of the education industry.

Saif53
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:39 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#107

Unread post by Saif53 » Thu May 14, 2015 1:38 pm

FROM THE QUTBI BOHRA BLOG
Misleading analysis of the word "Ablagh": Sijill #65
The Qutbi Bohra Sijill #65 states:

"Syedna Taher Saifuddin’s Amal, in the context of the aforementioned Hadith, was the appointment of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA as his successor. That was his Amal Saleh. His Niyyat, then, was the selection and preparation of Syedna Qutbuddin TUS to succeed Syedna Burhanuddin. That was Ablagh as it was to take place many years later and because Syedna Taher Saifuddin showered him with his abundant nazaraat."

Before and after the above given excerpt, the Qutbi Bohras have revealed A'ala bayanaat of "Ta'weel" which is contradictory to the amal of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (RA) and Dawat principles.
Ref:
http://qutbibohras.blogspot.in/2014/07/ ... enets.html
http://qutbibohras.blogspot.in/2015/03/ ... art-1.html

Let us refute the above statement of KQ, WITHOUT exposing any "ta'weel".

Please note: I will NOT be discussing Ta'weel bayans in this article. Publishing Ta'weel related bayans on a public forum such as Youtube is a clear violation of the Misaq.
POINT A
KQ draws faulty inference from the hadith of Rasulullah (SAW) and in turn shows utter disrespect and irreverence to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (RA). The hadith goes as follows:
نية المؤمن ابلغ من عمله
[The niyyat of a mumin is far reaching than his amal (deed)]

The word "ablagh" is a superlative tense of "baligh"
"ablagho min" means 'far reaching than'
According to the grammatical rule of superlative tense, "best" is always better than "good" and "farthest" is always farther than "far".
KQ is clearly saying that the deed (amal) of Syedna Taher Saifuddin (RA) is Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (RA), and KQ is his intention (niyyat) - na'uzobillah.
The intention (niyyat) is "ablagh" than the deed (amal), so KQ slyly insinuates that he is better than Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (RA), OR, that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (RA) was just a mere medium after Syedna Taher Saifuddin (RA) for the arrival of KQ as the ultimate conclusion! Hasha lillah!

The aforementioned Hadith has also been stated by Rasulullah (SAW) as follows:

نية المؤمن خير من عمله
[A mumin's intention is more honourable than his deed]
Raudat Hidayaat-Vol-3-Hadeeth 48
POINT B
The Fateli Dawat Sijill #65 website states:

"That was Ablagh as it was to take place many years later and because Syedna Taher Saifuddin showered him with his abundant nazaraat."

The meaning of "ablagh" has no relation with the phrase "to take place many years later" so this interpretation is totally unsound & completely incorrect.
Is KQ hinting that he was showered with more nazaraat by 51st Dai (RA) than Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (RA)?!

No Dai is lesser than the other. I would strongly advise KQ to refer the following verse of Syedi Sadiq Ali Saheb (QR) before drawing comparisons between Duat Kiraam (RA) to bolster his false claim:
In a previous article, I discussed the concept of "Most Beloved Son", and had posted a rhetorical question:

"Shouldn't the Mansoos be the "Most beloved son" and not any one else? Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA was the physical and spiritual son of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA. He is by far the "most beloved son". Unless KQ believes that he was more beloved to Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA than his own Mansoos (Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin)."

The answer I would have expected from KQ back then would have been, "Of course not! The Mansoos (in this case The 52nd Dai) is obviously more beloved to the 51st Dai". But after reading KQ's recent waaz transcript, it's crystal clear that KQ genuinely believes he is "far better", "far superior" and "ablagh" than Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. This is the sole reason he constantly went against Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA.

The number timeline in Qutbi Belief runs as follows:
1,2,3,...48,49,50, 51, 53 and then 52 (when convenient).
Ref:
http://qutbibohras.blogspot.com/2014/06 ... ng-52.html

Finally, it is evidently clear, that by giving such blasphemous, anti-Fatemi tasawwuraat, KQ is now void basic tawfeeq to the extent that he cannot help but utter these blunders during his public sermons. The Sijill Newsletters are compiled by his Qutbi children. In order for them to repeat their fathers' mistakes and later document it in their Sijill, further proves their lack of understanding of basic Fatemi Dawat tenets, and they too are void of all tawfeeq.

نعوذ بالله من الحور بعد الكور

HighFlyer
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:38 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#108

Unread post by HighFlyer » Sat May 16, 2015 11:14 am

its a shame fat tummy jamiya ustadz are working hard to defend mufaddal by twisting hadith and using knowledge of Arabic to confuse poor dawoodi bohras.

I suggest all true momeenin to look upon the life and amal of mufaddal instead of buying fancy arabic stories written by these jamiya ustadz, they are just like jews who always used their power of knowledge to use it against the deen of ALLAH SUBHANU.

I request all momeenin to compare ayyash life of mufaddal with our previous duat and our panjatan paak and decide by your own consciousness what is right and what is wrong.

believe me these people have all time on earth to write fancy stuff, because they are feed well on your money.

use your own intelligence and decide.

fustrate_Bohra
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 6:46 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#109

Unread post by fustrate_Bohra » Sat May 16, 2015 1:45 pm

Agreed. I don't understand why these idiots cannot see their lavish lifestyle. Why don't they ever compare their words with their action. These idiots keeps on telling that progressive are agnst these ayash family because of money, so what wrong in it, We are not paying our hard earned momey so that they can roam around like king and consider followers as SLAVES. I feel so sad even the highly educated people cannot understand this.

Their life is open book but unfortunately these brain dead abdes cannot read it.

SBM
Posts: 6228
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#110

Unread post by SBM » Sat May 16, 2015 4:40 pm

Their life is open book but unfortunately these brain dead abdes cannot read it.
Because their Master told them to learn how to make ROTI and not required to READ. btw both these words have four letters and begins with R and their Masters is also RUHANI so it is triple R (does not make sense just like when SMS talked about number 23)

Saif53
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:39 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#111

Unread post by Saif53 » Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:12 am

FROM THE QUTBI BOHRA BLOG
In Every Day and Age (Part 1)
The Fatemi Dawat Sijil #68 discusses to the existence and ma'refat of the Saheb e Zaman in every age - as the foundation of our faith. Here are some captions from the Sijil:

"Our belief is that in every day and age a living Imam must be present to guide mumineen to Siraat-e-Mustaqeem."

"In the time of seclusion, his Dai must be known and present to guide mumineen to the Imam and the Straight Path."

"The philosophy of having a living guide amongst us is a cornerstone of our belief system."


I couldn't agree more. What is stated above is theologically sound according to True Fatemi Dawat beliefs. However, for Khuzaima Qutbuddin and the Qutbi Bohras, this actually refutes there claim.

Here's how:

There are many references in Dawat texts referring to the Rutba of the Zaman na Saheb and his Mansoos. For example, Madeh would refer to the Dai as the Sun and his Mansoos as the Moon. Besides that, many fundamental beliefs are based on the maqaam of the Dai and his Mansoos (after being appointed). There are many references in Ta'weel books as well. (I shall abstain from any references as it is against dawat tenets to do so.)

Prior to the 1432H Nass, the Maqaam of the Mansoos was known "in theory", now, it was known in person. Every Mumin attributed these tasawwur of the Mansoos, to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS.

Whether it was a genuine Nass or, as the Qutbi s allege - a staged one, since KQ had not made his claim public, no one could have known otherwise. According to everyone Mumin and Non Mumin, Syedna Mufaddal TUS was Syedna's RA successor, and there was no doubt about it.

Since KQ made his claim public after the wafaat of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, does he imply that Mumineen were holding the wrong Mansoos tasawwur, and were attributing it to the wrong person for 3 years? For 3 years, during the 52 nd Dai's era, Mumineen were taken for a ride and the Dai did not correct them? Since the Dai and Mansoos are one, they were taking the name of the Dai and an alleged "enemy" in the same breadth, and no one stopped them?

During those 3 years, many mumineen passed away adhering to these tasawwur. If one were to be questioned who the Mansoos was, the answer would only be "Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS". There was no other possible answer.

Associating the wrong Mansoos with the Haq na Saheb equates to shirk. Who is responsible for shirk committed by mumineen, and these wrong tasawwur for 3 years? It can be one of two people. Either of which would shatter the false Qutbi claim:

1) If it was KQ'S fault and it was indeed his responsibility to inform the people in 1432H that there was an attempt to sideline him, and he was the real Mansoos - then we all know he didn't uphold that responsibility. Hence he is to blame. If he is to blame, he cannot be the Dai.
OR
2)If the Qutbi s claim that it was (naoozobillah) Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA at fault, then there is no need to discuss this any further.

My question to Mr KQ:
What was yours, your children's, and the Mumineen's belief during those 3 years? Was everyone committing shirk?

One may argue that since the Dai himself was alive, and since he is the undisputed axis of faith, confusion or ignorance in the ma'refat of the Mansoos doesn't hinder any Mumin s Najaat as the Dai himself will guarantee najaat.

One may argue that for "certain" hikmat the Dai "allowed" this ignorance and ambiguity considering the greater good (whatever that may be).

These arguments don't hold any weight, but even if they do, the next point will refute KQ'S claim a second time round. Please read: In Every Day and Age (Part 2)

Saif53
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:39 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#112

Unread post by Saif53 » Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:13 am

FROM THE QUTBI BOHRA BLOG
In Every Day and Age (Part 2)
Continued from In Every Day and Age (Part 1)

Friday 16 Rabi al Awwal 1435H marked the wafaat of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. Mumineen came to know of this tragic news before and around 12 pm IST. Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS arrived in Mumbai that evening. Prior to Syedna's TUS arrival, KQ entered Saify Mahal, did what he did, and then left for Thane. He did NOT make his claim public, nor did he even hint it to his children nor close companions.

On Saturday 17th Rabi Awwal morning (as the Janaaza Mubarak was making its way to Raudat Tahera) Mumineen started receiving emails containing a PDF of KQ's claim and demands.
Many did not read it nor give any notice to it primarily because Syedna's Janaaza was more important to them than anything else. Secondly, the letter was received from an unknown source, the drafting and editing was immature and it was officially attested (KQ'S signature was scanned and inserted into the PDF).
Until then, no one believed it to be true. Only when Team KQ released his video declaration on Saturday evening, did people come to know of his position. Nearly 36 Hours had passed between Syedna's RA wafaat and KQ'S claim.

Quoting Sijil #68:

"In the time of seclusion, his Dai must be known and present to guide mumineen"

The Qutbi s confirm that after the 52nd Dai's wafaat, the 53rd Dai MUST be known.
Moulatena Hurratul Maleka RA took the misaq from the Duat that "ek Dai na guzre magar bija ne qaim kari ne guzrey" [no Dai will pass away without appointing another in his place]. Dawat texts further clarify that this vacuum of ma'refat cannot exist even for a blink of an eye "aank ni michkaar" let alone 36 Hours!
Not knowing the zamaan na Dai tantamount to atheism (ilhaad) and believing in the wrong Dai equates to shirk!

Hence the million dollar question:What was the tasawwur of the people on Friday 16 Rabi al Awwal? Were they committing shirk by believing in the wrong Dai? If they were were committing shirk knowingly or unknowingly, who is to blame?

On that same evening, crowds of Mumineen flocked towards Saify Mahal. They were informed of the demise of the 52nd Dai, and at the same time thronged to do deedar of the 53rd Dai, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS. There was no doubt in their mind as to who the next Dai was (and since KQ hadn't become the claimant yet, there was no other choice).

From those who came, 18 Mumineen died in a tragic stampede. Without a doubt, they firmly believed in Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS as the 53rd Dai.What was the position of their death? Will they be judged as Mushrikeen that followed the wrong Dai? If yes, then where is the justice in that, since KQ only made his claim public a day later?!

If it was KQ'S fault and it was indeed his responsibility to inform the people - he didn't uphold that responsibility. Hence he is to blame. If he is to blame, he cannot be the Dai.

If the Qutbis claim that it was (naoozobillah) Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA at fault, then there is no need to discuss this any further.

Concluding, I post a simple question to Mr KQ:What was position of the belief of ALL followers of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA on Friday 16th Rabi Awwal before KQ made his claim? Were they committing shirk even for a few seconds and did those 18 people die as Mushrikeen? Or, were they on Sirat e Mustaqeem following Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS?

humanbeing
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:30 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#113

Unread post by humanbeing » Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:06 am

Qutbi Bohra Blog wrote:Not knowing the zamaan na Dai tantamount to atheism (ilhaad) and believing in the wrong Dai equates to shirk!
Wow ! interesting … !! and worrisome

kimanumanu
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#114

Unread post by kimanumanu » Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:41 am

Saif53 wrote:FROM THE QUTBI BOHRA BLOG
For 50 years, during the 52 nd Dai's era, Mumineen were taken for a ride and the Dai did not correct them? In the misaq, they were taking the name of the Dai and an alleged "enemy" in the same breadth, and no one stopped them?

During those 50 years, many mumineen passed away adhering to these tasawwur. If one were to be questioned who the Mazoon was, the answer would only be "Khuzeima Qutbuddin". There was no other possible answer.
How does that sound?

Saif53
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:39 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#115

Unread post by Saif53 » Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:57 am

kimanumanu wrote:
Saif53 wrote:FROM THE QUTBI BOHRA BLOG
How does that sound?
Sounds okay.
Does the Mazoon guarantee salvation?
Since the answer is No, that doesn't hinder any Mumin.

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

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#116

Unread post by Saeed al Khair » Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:53 am

Yes! As per ilm al Haqaiq, Mazun and Mukasir both are playing part in the process of Najaat of Arwah.
According to this process, the Nass of Mufaddal is Batil and Nass of Qutbuddin is valid.
Come on of Qasre Jaali, and Jamea Saifyahin the battlefield Haq v/s Batil, we will discuss Kutub al Haqiq and its fixed Tasawwur
Doodh Ka Doodh aur Paani Ka Paani Hu Jaiga Aur Mufaddal Bhaag Jaiga

Saif53
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:39 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#117

Unread post by Saif53 » Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:35 pm

Saeed al Khair wrote:Yes! As per ilm al Haqaiq, Mazun and Mukasir both are playing part in the process of Najaat of Arwah.
According to this process, the Nass of Mufaddal is Batil and Nass of Qutbuddin is valid.
Come on of Qasre Jaali, and Jamea Saifyahin the battlefield Haq v/s Batil, we will discuss Kutub al Haqiq and its fixed Tasawwur
Doodh Ka Doodh aur Paani Ka Paani Hu Jaiga Aur Mufaddal Bhaag Jaiga
So what happened to the Mukasir Syedi Husain BS? Didn't he go astray as per your belief?
Please give reference of your bayaan.

And what has this got to do with Nass being Batil & Valid?

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

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#118

Unread post by adna_mumin » Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:38 pm

Saif53 wrote:FROM THE QUTBI BOHRA BLOG


Quoting Sijil #68:

"In the time of seclusion, his Dai must be known and present to guide mumineen"

The Qutbi s confirm that after the 52nd Dai's wafaat, the 53rd Dai MUST be known.
Moulatena Hurratul Maleka RA took the misaq from the Duat that "ek Dai na guzre magar bija ne qaim kari ne guzrey" [no Dai will pass away without appointing another in his place]. Dawat texts further clarify that this vacuum of ma'refat cannot exist even for a blink of an eye "aank ni michkaar" let alone 36 Hours!
For you and friends running similar blogs,

You rightly begin when you say "ek Dai na guzre magar bija ne qaim kari ne guzrey" . Yes this is the tasavvur.
But go off tangent to assume this means that mumineen have to know of the mansoos before hand? Really, do you?

Again, Does it mean that mumineen have to KNOW who the mansoos is, right that moment or before?

If the answer is "Yes", define "Private Nass" will you? ("With witnesses" as you like to qualify :-) )
Saif53 wrote:

If the Qutbis claim that it was (naoozobillah) Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA at fault, then there is no need to discuss this any further.
Only convoluted minds can bring such a question up! In the courts may be it is understandable from a lawyer.
What about you (by you i mean the blogger in case you disown its content but still would post it here anyway!), a "muhib" of Moula Burhanuddin ra?
Saif53 wrote:

Concluding, I post a simple question to Mr KQ:What was position of the belief of ALL followers of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA on Friday 16th Rabi Awwal before KQ made his claim? Were they committing shirk even for a few seconds and did those 18 people die as Mushrikeen? Or, were they on Sirat e Mustaqeem following Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS?

For a thousand years whenever a Dai'l mutlaq left for heavenly abode, how many hours would it ordinarily take for mumineen to know of the demise? Hours? Days, may be? Month(s) in few instances?

Especially in cases when nass has been private? Need we say more?

disillusioned
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 3:46 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#119

Unread post by disillusioned » Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:49 pm

Saif53 wrote:FROM THE QUTBI BOHRA BLOG
In Every Day and Age (Part 2)
Continued from In Every Day and Age (Part 1)

Dawat texts further clarify that this vacuum of ma'refat cannot exist even for a blink of an eye "aank ni michkaar" let alone 36 Hours!
Not knowing the zamaan na Dai tantamount to atheism (ilhaad) and believing in the wrong Dai equates to shirk!

Hence the million dollar question:What was the tasawwur of the people on Friday 16 Rabi al Awwal? Were they committing shirk by believing in the wrong Dai? If they were were committing shirk knowingly or unknowingly, who is to blame?

On that same evening, crowds of Mumineen flocked towards Saify Mahal. They were informed of the demise of the 52nd Dai, and at the same time thronged to do deedar of the 53rd Dai, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS. There was no doubt in their mind as to who the next Dai was (and since KQ hadn't become the claimant yet, there was no other choice).

From those who came, 18 Mumineen died in a tragic stampede. Without a doubt, they firmly believed in Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS as the 53rd Dai.What was the position of their death? Will they be judged as Mushrikeen that followed the wrong Dai? If yes, then where is the justice in that, since KQ only made his claim public a day later?!

If it was KQ'S fault and it was indeed his responsibility to inform the people - he didn't uphold that responsibility. Hence he is to blame. If he is to blame, he cannot be the Dai.

If the Qutbis claim that it was (naoozobillah) Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA at fault, then there is no need to discuss this any further.

Concluding, I post a simple question to Mr KQ:What was position of the belief of ALL followers of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA on Friday 16th Rabi Awwal before KQ made his claim? Were they committing shirk even for a few seconds and did those 18 people die as Mushrikeen? Or, were they on Sirat e Mustaqeem following Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS?
Wasn't one of the criticisms being levied on KQ that he made his claim too soon after the wafaat of SMB? All that noise about normal Bohras and all other Hudood still being in the midst of shock and grief and that if he had any decency he would have at least waited until after the burial, etc.?

So now his claim was too late?

qutub_mamajiwala
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:17 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics) - 2015

#120

Unread post by qutub_mamajiwala » Wed Jun 03, 2015 2:30 am

adna_mumin wrote:
Saif53 wrote:FROM THE QUTBI BOHRA BLOG

For a thousand years whenever a Dai'l mutlaq left for heavenly abode, how many hours would it ordinarily take for mumineen to know of the demise? Hours? Days, may be? Month(s) in few instances?

Especially in cases when nass has been private? Need we say more?
today in age of instant communication, we know instantly. what about before dai and before that of imam?
karbala tragedy was not known to anybody till many days and months till zainab a s informed them.
what about their tasawwur?