Sceptical wrote:Adam wrote:
According to your logic of referring to KQ as "Moula".
[IF] the Nass was private and ONLY SMB and KQ knew about it:
How did Syedna Mufadal TUS and Shz QJB know about the Nass to refer to him as Moula?
[IF], according to your statement some Shehzadas gave Sajda to him. And Sajdo (According to you) equalling Ta'at, how did the Shehzadas know about the Nass?
Maybe there were
ishaara from SMB(RA),
Maybe elevating SKQ to the high rutbah of Mazoon whereas he was only 26 was a
ishaara,
Maybe the first Missaq bayaan was enough to understand that SMB(RA) was doing a strong
ishaara toward young SKQ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwu1zliy-Mc
z ul fazlil mubin
z ur raayil vakil
v al walad ul ahab
v al mukhleso fi ta’atehi be Dai’il asre val hin
Please, Adam, explain me how can you explain :
1) SMS referring to SKQ as his "Maula", and said he (SMS) was his (SKQ) "gulam"
2) Married one of SKQ daughter and his son Taha also married SKQ daughter
3) and finally, SMS said "Bawaji saheb ne ghana sataya che" and new Mukasir reffering to SKQ as a "zaalim" and pray Lanaat on him
SMS is Dai, so he must be
(kal) masoom... how could he be so wrong about SKQ before ?
Interesting questions, but you've got it all jumbled up.
All these questions have been answered on public forums before.
Very simply put. It is the Dai's responsibility to appoint his Mansoos, thus it is HIS responsibility to appoint witnesses. Quoting Syedna Abdeali Saifuddin when people kept asking who he would appoint etc etc he basically said "this is MY business", not anyone elses.
1. IF there was an Ishara from SMB RA, then that means KQ's
Nass wasn't a Private Nass, because other people knew about it. If that is true (and it isn't), KQ's claim to a Private Nass is invalid, and all the arguments that he puts forward are then automatically false, because that's the base of his claim.
2. Even IF there was an Ishara, KQ maintains it was a Public Nass "jeware Zahir thasey tiware". IF other people were given this Ishara, they would have also been instructed to keep it a secret. Thus, IF they performed ANYTHING in Public that symbolised ANYTHING to do with an alleged Nass they were aware of: A) It would be a complete violation of SMB's RA orders B) If they were wrong, KQ should have known better and told them to stop it, because privacy was to be maintained. KQ violated the farman of privacy.
Your next few questions:
Making him Mazoon, Syedna's RA words during the Misaaq, all the titles he was given etc etc.
NONE of this gives ANYONE ANY right whatsoever to self proclaim, or even guess who the Mansoos is.
As mentioned above, appointing the Mansoos is the Dai's responsibility. No one elses.
Nass makes a Mansoos. Titles do not.
Even if Syedna RA used titles much, much much higher than the ones he gave KQ, that wouldn't automatically make him the Mansoos, nor does it give anyone the right to accept him as the Mansoos. That is a sin.
If you are so hung up about titles, why don't you remember Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA giving Syedna Mufaddal the following titles:
1) al Walad al Ahab (similar to KQ's)
2) al Fata al Kamil
3) Aqeeq al Yemen
4) Qurratul Aiyn (Mombasa 1414 - Relayed this year in Surat and wordwide)
Some more here:
http://believesyednaqutbuddin.files.wor ... -walad.jpg
Again, these titles do not automatically make Syedna Mufaddal the Mansoos. It is the Nass that is of main importance.
For more information on these "titles", especially about "al walad al ahab", which is KQ's main claim, read these links:
http://qutbibohras.blogspot.com/2014/07 ... d-son.html
http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/ ... d-al-ahab/
Referring to KQ as Moula.
1. As mentioned before. No one has a right to assume the Mansoos, unless explicitly instructed by the Dai. In this case, if the Nass was private, how would anyone know if it, if they were to use the word "Moula" with that meaning in their mind.
2. "Moula" doesn't necessary need to be Dai or Mansoos. Moula is a word used for respect. And in this case, it was in respect for the high position he occupied. For the same reason, Mukasir Saheb was also referred to as "Moula", but we don't see him claiming to be the Dai.
For more discussion on the word Moula, read these links where the future Imam (who also knew he was the Mansoos), Imam Mansoor calls Ustaad Juzer "Moula"
http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/ ... f-dawat-1/
http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/ ... f-dawat-2/
Marriage does not affect a Mansoos whatsoever.
The Quran talks about Musa Nabi, Nooh Nabi marrying evil wives (before or after). And Rasulullah also did the same, for reasons known best to him. None of this accefts the Nabi or Rasools Prophethood in any way.
think_for_yourself
I went for every Ashara since 1419, I was also there for 100 mi milad - in fact right in front of the takhat during the entire waaz and I have to say that my significant memories are not of these clowns.
For you to continue to refer to them as clowns shows:
1. Your disrespect for the Dai's hazrat, and the traditions that happened with his permission.
2. You believe lost all control of his Dawat for so many years, that he wasn't aware of two "clowns" standing next to him, or was too weak (even before the stroke) to do anything about it. That shows your weak belief in the Dai.
3. It also shows you weren't paying attention to the Hazrat and surrounding (even before Moula entered).
4. These two Khidmat Guzaars are probably in their 30s - 40s right now. As far as I can remember they have been around since 10 years (about 1425H). Before that, 2 other khidmat Guzaars stood, and then these two took over.
5. I have personally seen Syedna RA fondly acknowledge them on multiple occasions.
It's a shame. Either you never came to the Hazrat. Or you wear ignorant back then as well.
[/color]
[/quote]
