Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

[maethist]

Okay, so ظاهرا from Hans Wehr means externally, outwardly, seemingly, presumably, ostensibly, allegedly. This does not necessarily mean in public. But the way it reads to me is that nobody is aware of any witnesses. So Adam is wrong again, just like he admitted that his party claims that nass IS retractable.

zahiran in this context means 'openly', or in other words, publicly or in public.

[haqniwaat]

That's debatable, considering the facts from the dictionary I've posted above. Either way, if it was not public, then it was private, correct? So it was kept private from whom? And if it was private, who are the witnesses?

[maethist]

Either way, if it was not public, then it was private, correct? So it was kept private from whom? And if it was private, who are the witnesses?

No. It means shuhada (witnesses) did not witness openly. They may or may not have done it privately either. If they did not, then, in that case, they kept whatever they witnessed to themselves.

[Biradar]

Adam, as usual, is shrewdly deflecting the real point. He is claiming here that the whole case revolves around the use of one word. I mean, come on, lets be real here. S Qutbuddin was trained by STS (RA) and was SMB (RA)'s mazoon for 50 years. Do you think he does not know enough Arabic to understand this one word? Also, should we believe a third-rate mullah like Adam or someone who was personally trained by STS (RA)? Further, if it was just a matter of one word, then why the submission of 1000s or pages of documents to courts?

In any case, the key really is not the interpretation of this or that word. The key for a believer is who to trust. Should one trust the mazoon of SMB (RA) or those who openly hated and plotted against the rutbas appointed by SMB (RA)? I have personally seen the venom against the mazoon sahib several times when he visited our city for vazeez. The hostilities, as very well documented on this forum, came out in the open with the whole zahir-batin episode. It was revealed at that point that the central figure of the zahir-batin scam was no other than Mr. Muffadul (LA) himself, the poisonous fruit of the infernal plant. Of course, there were other players, in particular Mr Muffadul's uncles, but the key player was dead (having laid down the seed by marrying his daughter to the poisonous flower), and his other mentors were silent and behind the scenes.

Hence, in this case, one can not trust Mr. Muffadul or his Iblisi gang. Whatever they do must be viewed with highest suspicion. Also, it is clear from the utterances of Mr. Muffadul that he is a senseless fool, incapable of being a da'i. It is clear he is a misogynist, or a sexist at the least. He is also befuddled about simple things like who will receive Maulatona Fatema's najat (answer: EVERYONE). I mean, come on, even second grade students know about this. How come a so-called da'i does not? It is clear why: because he is a fool, who only appears somewhat reasonable only when following a closely scripted bayaan or event. Anything else, and he puts his foot in his diseased mouth.

So, the real question for a believer (not for courts) is: who to trust? It is clear that Mr. Muffadul can not be trusted. He is greedy, hungry after money and power, and schemed against his father, parading his like a mannequin in the last two years of the latter's life. He knew that he could not coerce his father to remove SKQ from the post of mazoon, so he schemed with his uncles to come up with this theory of zahir-batin. Further, it is likely that there is some piece of evidence that SMB (RA) appointed SKQ as the da'i. Hence, now this whole business of "nass can be changed".

Incidentally, about the "nass can be changed" business. Lets take that to the logical next step. What if a da'i appoints a mansoos, and then decides, just before he dies that that fellow is useless and it is better to withdraw the nass and not appoint anyone at all. Perhaps, we should point out to these Iblisi toli, that precisely that may have happened, if their logic is extended, during the time of the 47th da'i. So, perhaps those who deny that the 47th da'i onwards are da'i al-mutlaq are correct, by this twisted logic, as perhaps the night before the da'i died, he withdrew the nass and did not appoint anyone!

And, why stop zahir-batin at mason and mukasir. How do we know that Mr. Muffadul is real da'i and not just zahir da'i? Perhaps there is someone else who is the real da'i. Looking at the foolish things Mr. Muffadul says, it is clear he is not a da'i. No need for video, audio or anything else.

[Adam]

@maethist
Thank you for clarifying the concepts further.

@haqniwaat

And yes, Adam the Great, we are all ignorant and we are indebted to you for always telling the truth!

You're welcome.

I don't care about your texts wherever they are.

"my texts" are actually Syedna Taher Saifuddin's Risala, which KQ has quoted incorrectly.

All I know is that Syedna Qutbuddin TUS was mazoon of Syedna Burhanuddin RA, and when he says he is mansoos, I will believe him over any of your great shehzadas! Sorry, I'm just stupid that way!

Thank you for clarifying your" stupidity".
To clarify your situation, you are actually accepting KQ's words over Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin's words. Total ignorance.

About the translation. You just proved our point.
1. There WERE witnesses
2. The Nass was done in private WITH witnesses.

@rational guy

You are mistranslating the word Ashada.

So, what's your translation?

اشهد according to Lane's Lexicon means "to call to witness, call upon as a witness".

[Adam]

Al Qamoos al Moheeth
وأشْهَدَهُ: أحْضَرَهُ،
(ie: asked him to be present)

7|172|وَإِذْ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنۢ بَنِىٓ ءَادَمَ مِن ظُهُورِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ وَأَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلَىٰٓ أَنفُسِهِمْ أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ ۖ قَالُوا۟ بَلَىٰ ۛ شَهِدْنَا
[7:172]
And (remember) when thy Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their reins, their seed, and made them testify of themselves, (saying): Am I not your Lord ? They said: Yea, verily. We testify. (Pickthall)
[7:172]
When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): "Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?"- They said: "Yea! We do testify!" (Yusuf Ali)

[kimanumanu]

So in the azaan and iqamat we are witnessing something?

[kimanumanu]

To clarify your situation, you are actually accepting KQ's words over Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin's words. Total ignorance.

Syedna Burhanuddin's (RA) words that I heard were "Nass nu taj" followed by "Naam su chhe ... su naam chhe" and "Mohammed nu naam chhe ... Mohammed naam chhe" and "Mohammed bhai ne". It was Dr. Moiz that added the word "pehnayu". And this paper was right in front of him and he did not read what was written on it. Why?

[alam]

And Adam, nice seeing you here on this thread now.

And what about the misaaq that so many broke by speaking against Mazoon Saheb for the past few decades.. Didn't Mufaddalbhai Saheb break his misaaq given to Syedna Burhanuddin when he along with many others did dushmani against "teeno maraatibo, no khaaw qasam ande kaho naaa'm". As a matter of fact, many of those who opposed Mazoon Saheb back then had routinely broken their misaaq due to their jealousy, worldly greed and their own obsession with power, by refusing to pray Namaaz behind him, speaking against him, and even attacking him

Now who exactly is the "munaafiq" and Dawat an dushman, ones who openly and shamelessly broke their misaaq during Burhanuddin maula era?

[Adam]

So in the azaan and iqamat we are witnessing something?

Dear Sir,
In the Azan you say Ash-hadO is the first tense which means 'I bare witness/testify/give shahadat'.
The verb used here is Ash-hada - which is a past tense. - It means "to ask to testify".
Two completely different E'raab and different meanings.

@alam
All that needs to be discussed is, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA did a clear Nass on Syedna Mufaddal TUS, and I am a witness "Ash-hado", and so are thousands of other people.

And KQ doesn't have any evidence.

[maethist]

In the Azan you say Ash-hadO is the first tense which means 'I bare witness/testify/give shahadat'.

Adam,

I agree with the above. You could clarify that ash-hado in the azan is the first person singular present tense verb from shahida/yash-hado. (ref Hans Wehr). Right?

[Adam]

Correct.

[true_bohra]

And Adam, nice seeing you here on this thread now.

And what about the misaaq that so many broke by speaking against Mazoon Saheb for the past few decades.. Didn't Mufaddalbhai Saheb break his misaaq given to Syedna Burhanuddin when he along with many others did dushmani against "teeno maraatibo, no khaaw qasam ande kaho naaa'm". As a matter of fact, many of those who opposed Mazoon Saheb back then had routinely broken their misaaq due to their jealousy, worldly greed and their own obsession with power, by refusing to pray Namaaz behind him, speaking against him, and even attacking him

Now who exactly is the "munaafiq" and Dawat an dushman, ones who openly and shamelessly broke their misaaq during Burhanuddin maula era?

Bhai first of all in misaaq texts, its always given about accepting the 3 positions of dawat i.e. Dai, Mazoon and Mukasir which we all mumineen did.

Now misaaq is exclusively given to the Imam and his Dai and not to mazoon and mukasir. So I dont know how can somebody claim that misaaq was broken.

Misaaq gets broken on dushmani of Dai and with this I rest my case.

[humanbeing]

No comparison between the Father and the "pretender" son. This audio file makes it clear as night and day.
Syedna Burhanuddin RA oratory and confidence is amazing. Hear how he says that "Mey Moiyad shu, Imam uz Zaman ni tayeed maney awwe che".

Also for all the those naysayers. See in what clearly Syedna Burhanuddin RA addresses SKQ. He calls him first by his relationship (Simul Ajal - My worthy Brother) and then addresses him as (Al-Walad-ul-Ahab - The Beloved Son). This is clear indication that he had done nass of SKQ and is now showing the relationship between him the Naas (Nass giver) on his Mansoos (Nass receiver), the spritual relationship of the true beloved son.

Also, Aqa Burhanuddin RA clearly says that "Satar ma teen rutba, em Ahed (misaaq) ma sharat levai che, Dai al-Mutlaq ane ehna Zehredast Mazoon ane Mukasir"

And now the new philosophy is Misaaq sharat is only for Imam and Dai. Welcome to the new innovative YN/MS dawat.

[true_bohra]

exactly zehre dast comes mazoon and mukasir. These rutbas are no where parellel to the rutba of Dai.

Also during the safqat in misaaq, the allegiance is taken for Holy Imam AS and his Dai al Mutlaq and not for all the three rutbas

[Truth-Prevails]

TB

Stop twisting words. Who said Mazoon is equal to Dai. Mazoon is under the hand of the Dai (meaning of zehredast FYI).

So now Syedna Burhanuddin saying that 3 rutba Sharat in ahad (misaaq) is not good enough. You only think the shafaqat matters!!

You and Adam are summa cum laude from the twisted tassawur university. Please darken the world more with you explain actions.

At least Zinger is honest when he sees convoluted nonsense and calls it so.

[UnhappyBohra]

TB

Stop twisting words. Who said Mazoon is equal to Dai. Mazoon is under the hand of the Dai (meaning of zehredast FYI).

So now Syedna Burhanuddin saying that 3 rutba Sharat in ahad (misaaq) is not good enough. You only think the shafaqat matters!!

You and Adam are summa cum laude from the twisted tassawur university. Please darken the world more with you explain actions.

At least Zinger is honest when he sees convoluted nonsense and calls it so.

Truth-Prevails you should turn auto correct off on your phone

[haqniwaat]

Mazoon and mukasir are useless rutbas and should not even be a part of misaaq.

[true_bohra]

Mazoon and mukasir are useless rutbas and should not even be a part of misaaq.

great!!! give this idea to the creator of so called new dawat....after leaving the true fatemi dawat, he is very much influenced by reformist...he might bring this reformist step in his new dawat.

[Truth-Prevails]

I guess some people are not evolved enough for sarcasm. So here goes TB

Your DMBS is the one who has in his contrived dawat destroyed the rutba of mazoon and mukasir. Are Husain bs Husamuddin and Qasim Hakimuddin the zahir or batin rutbas. Su thai, Su thai, Thai ke na.... khabar nathi...

[alam]

Alam wrote:And what about the misaaq that so many broke by speaking against Mazoon Saheb for the past few decades.. Didn't Mufaddalbhai Saheb break his misaaq given to Syedna Burhanuddin when he along with many others did dushmani against "teeno maraatibo, no khaaw qasam ande kaho naaa'm". As a matter of fact, many of those who opposed Mazoon Saheb back then had routinely broken their misaaq due to their jealousy, worldly greed and their own obsession with power, by refusing to pray Namaaz behind him, speaking against him, and even attacking him

Now who exactly is the "munaafiq" and Dawat an dushman, ones who openly and shamelessly broke their misaaq during Burhanuddin maula era?

@alam
All that needs to be discussed is, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA did a clear Nass on Syedna Mufaddal TUS, and I am a witness "Ash-hado", and so are thousands of other people.
And KQ doesn't have any evidence.
[/color]

Adam you have NOT responded to the essence of the question which is about breaking the misaaq.

[Adam]

TB
Stop twisting words. Who said Mazoon is equal to Dai. Mazoon is under the hand of the Dai (meaning of zehredast FYI).
So now Syedna Burhanuddin saying that 3 rutba Sharat in ahad (misaaq) is not good enough. You only think the shafaqat matters!!

Dear Sir

Who says the Safaqat only matters, it is the text + the Safaqat that Matters.

1. The Ehed al Awliya says "maratib nu iqraar karo"
2. The Safaqat clarfies "aa ehed kona wastey che?... Imam & Dai" - It doesn't mention any other Rutba.

The Ehed doesn't say to give "Misaq" to the Mazoon or Mukasir.

If you want to believe that, then why do you conveniently removing the word "Mukasir" when you write about Mazoon in the Ehed? Just as you feel the Misaq should be for the Mazoon, you should be following the Mukasir as well.

[truth seeker100]

Mazoon and mukasir are useless rutbas and should not even be a part of misaaq.

great!!! give this idea to the creator of so called new dawat....after leaving the true fatemi dawat, he is very much influenced by reformist...he might bring this reformist step in his new dawat.

Hahaha " TRUE Fatemi dawat" you are so funny even raju shrivastav would be jealous of you

[maddy]

Aaje ek uncle ye ghani important vaat kidhi , khabar nathi ye sahi chhe ya nahi so aap sagla ma si agar koi ne aa vat nu knowledge hoi to plz share . .

Aaj si karib 35 years pehle SKQ je tivare Mazoon hata , moharram ma ek vaayez ma aem elan kari lidhu hatu ke me mansoos chhu , 53 mo dai chhu
Ehna bad vaha na aamil ye SMB ne fax kidha
Ehna bad SMB ye SKQ pas si mazoon no rutbo pachho lai lidho
SKQ na ma saheba na kehva si ke agar rutbo pachho na aapo to humna daawat na 2tukra thai jase to ehna bad karib 8 din bad ye mazoon no rutbo aapne pacho aapo . . .

I don't know this is real story or not but if anyone have idea plz share

[fustrate_Bohra]

This is clear cut made up story to answer the question that we are asking.

Why mazoon was not removed from the post?

Are they running deen or business k ma saheba na kehwa si rutbo aapi dido.

[maddy]

This is clear cut made up story to answer the question that we are asking.

Why mazoon was not removed from the post?

Are they running deen or business k ma saheba na kehwa si rutbo aapi dido.

My question is just that
Is it true ??
He said in his vaayez ??????

[fustrate_Bohra]

As u had heard in waaz may be this is new story they are coming up with.

BTW This story is CRAP and holds no truth if you think logically.

[maddy]

As u had heard in waaz may be this is new story they are coming up with.

BTW This story is CRAP and holds no truth if you think logically.

I had not heard in waaz . .
One of my uncle said this and he read this in some of magazine named conical something a years ago . . .

[UnhappyBohra]

As u had heard in waaz may be this is new story they are coming up with.

BTW This story is CRAP and holds no truth if you think logically.

I had not heard in waaz . .
One of my uncle said this and he read this in some of magazine named conical something a years ago . . .

Yawn....my uncle said you have no brains.

[confused_mumin]

salaam,
Today while Burhanuddin Moula (RA) waaz was being relayed worldwide me and my friend were having a discussion and he told that KQ Saheb's claim is false because when Burhanuddin Moula (RA) did public nass in Raudat Tahera,whatever be the situation if people heard it or not is another story but when the nass ceremony was going on why did KQ Saheb did not come there to claim his nass.that time why did not he come to claim his so called HAQ.

Another theory he told me that few years back KQ Saheb has done many fitnats against Burhanuddin Moula (RA) and against Muffadal Moula (TUS).His diwan declared that he was the 53rd Dai.So then Burhanuddin moula took away his rutba from him and after many maafi's & so called negotiations he was given back his rutba.

Now what is the truth behind this?...Can anyone throw some light on this..Just merely saying that this is again a cooked up story doesnot solve the problem or the rumours...so please can someone provide some sure shot proof that this is false..and i also request Ghulam Mohammed bhai to throw some light here as i feel he is the best person to clear this.