Can You Explain Your Ashara Mubaraka Absence?

Bazat Saifiyyah with her father when they appeared to be on Ta’aat

Dear Mr. Qutbuddin,

         Your daughter Dr. Saifiyyah Qutbuddin writes in an a scholarly article about the modern history of the Dawoodi Bohra community  regarding Ashara Mubaraka as a remarkable innovation for religio-cultural identity for the community:

“Routine communal gatherings in the local masjid or markaz are vital to recharging loyalty to the faith and keeping the blood of the community flowing, so to speak, but an illustration of increased solidarity is the huge congregation of thousands of Bohras traveling from all over the world every year to be present at the ‘Ashura sermons commemorating Imam Husayn’s martyrdom held by the present da’i.  These occasions also serve as an international forum for Bohras to keep in touch with traditional Bohra culture and forge closer ties.” (“History fo the Da’udi Bohra Tayyibis,” in A Modern History of the Ismailis, ed. Farhad Daftary).

My question is quite simple then. In the last thirty years or more before your claim as the head of the Dawoodi Bohra Community, I believe you came to one or two gatherings of Ashara Mubaraka with the 52nd Da’i Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin RA. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think it was more than two. If you were really the successor of His Holiness Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin R.A. do you not think your presence would have been requested by him? Wouldn’t it have been prudent to attend so that at this world gathering people would have come to know, respect, adore, and come to admire Burhanuddin Moula’s RA successor? You, however, were never there and therefore, most mumineen from this international crowd of ‘Bohras traveling from all over the world every year to be present at the ‘Ashura sermons,’ as mentioned by your daughter Bazat Saifiyah, never got to know you personally or ‘forge closer ties’ to you or members of your family. All I remember is Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin Aqa TUS was always present at Ashara and brought mumineen closer to Moula Burhanuddin RA and always helped them understand the importance of these days in the bayan he would do in front of these massive crowds on Ashura ni raat. Aqa Moula Burhanuddin RA never kept him away and he attended all of them as far as I can remember. This was the case for the last 30 years or so. The truth is, since you weren’t there, most people don’t know you and probably never have done salaam to you. This had never been the case with the current Syedi Mazoon Saheb (former Mukasir Saheb) Syedi Husain BS who was constantly present at this event many times in the last thirty years. If you truly are the Haq na Da’i, could you possibly explain your absence from Ashara Mubaraka and why you chose not to attend. I think it is important for you to explain why you were never seen at the most important religio-cultural event which helps form Bohra identity as is the testimony of your learned daughter Dr. Saifiyah.

Thank you for hearing my inquiry.

I hope to hear a response from you since you are saying you are Haq na Da’i and if someone calls you to make an argument in your defense, I believe it is compulsory for you to do so.

Bless you, Mr. Qutbuddin. I hope you will engage in this dialogue so people can understand how you legitimize your claims and you can do the Da’wat that you say you were charged to do.

Peace,

Hashim Mustafa

Kuwait

Your Own Children’s Tarbiyyat According to Burhanuddin Moula’s Khushi

Dear Mr. Qutbuddin (Cc) Dr. Tahera Qutbuddin ,

There is one burning question that I would like to ask you. All mumineen and muminaat acknowledge that rida, tailored, sewn, and adorned in a universal style was prescribed to us by Burhanuddin Moula RA and Busaheba Amatullah Aisaheba. This dress, although tailored similarly, did not deprive muminaat of their individual identities. Rather, if one witnesses a Dawoodi Bohra crowd of women, although they are wearing like clothing they all look different. Some ‘aunties’ have swag while others uphold a certain sophistication in their look. The rida is amazing, in my opinion, and I know people might disagree and that’s okay with me. I believe Burhanuddin Moula RA employed Islamic principles and implemented rida to create a unique identity for Dawoodi Bohras. Wearing rida was definitely Moulana Burhanuddin’s wish and he often spoke of the ahmiyyat of Libas ul Anwar and told Muminaat to wear rida. Topi, daari, rida, became a part of our society over the years – a shared collective identity.  At first, it was especially hard for Muminaat worldwide, living in a post-colonial and post-nation state environment, to first adapt and transition to this change. However, adhering to Burhanuddin Moula’s wishes, Muminaat, including professionals such as doctors and lawyers, decided to follow to Aqa Moula’s RA teachings. Today Muminaat have worked in the government in many countries, given valedictorian speeches, and met the president proudly wearing the customary rida dress of the Dawoodi Bohra community in order to represent their communal identity.

What I find peculiar then, is that you claim to be Aqa Moula Burhanuddin’s RA successor and an enforcer of his policies – the policies that all Mumineen and Muminaat have been continuously encouraged to follow. However, your daughter, Dr. Tahera Qutbuddin, does not always wear rida in her professional settings. She does dress Islamically, but what she is wearing is definitely not a rida.  Her style choice is commendable and professional, it is highly Islamic, but I must say it is her own individual creation. Her making a conscious choice of her own clothing is completely fine and part of her own prerogative. However, I feel it is wrong when you and she both claim that she is a Shehzadi (princess) of the religion and the true successors of Burhanuddin Moula RA. When she wears her Islamic individually tailored and styled dress, it can be read as being a little hypocritical and deceptive. What it appears to resemble is the the situation in many other authoritarian autocratic regimes where royal families make policies which culturally prescribe women to do one thing but because they see themselves at a higher class over the masses don’t adhere to it themselves. This situation seems clear in Dr. Tahera Qutbuddin’s case. If your own daughter can call herself a Shehzadi (princess) of the religion because of your claim to succeed Burhanuddin Moula RA as the Dai of the Dawoodi Bohra community then why wouldn’t she choose to wear the prescribed communal dress that Burhanuddin Moula asked other Muminaat to wear? It just doesn’t add up. What makes her profession any different than a Muminaat lawyer, doctor, or someone working in the White House, who gladly were told to wear the dress belonging to the communal identity. These accomplished women had to make huge strides to adhere to Aqa Moula’s RA dress code and they didn’t see rida as a deterrent to their professional careers. Why is Dr. Tahera Qutbuddin held to another standard? Why is it allowed by you, since you are claiming to be the head of the religion and telling your followers to do one thing and not telling Dr. Tahera to do the same? I apologize if this letter appears to be unpleasant. That isn’t my intention. As a professional woman and wearer of rida who has done so in a professional setting for the last twenty-five years, I have proudly worn it as a marker of my Dawoodi Bohra identity. I don’t have to wear it but I do because I want to. I feel that Dr. Tahera Qutbuddin doesn’t follow the same measures because either she sees herself as more privileged than other muminaat who fulfilled Aqa Moula Burhanuddin’s RA wishes or she simply felt that the rida was not fit for a professional environment. I request you, Mr. Qutbuddin, to share some thoughts on what you think about this. Either on your website or on here.

Yours truly,

Nafisa (last name not given)

Professional Mumina and mother of three

Who Can Indicate Authority? Who Legitimizes a Claim?

Dear Mr. Khuzaima Qutbuddin,

           As per the announcement on your website, Fatemi Dawat, you recently lifted the Quran-e Majid in the air on the day of Aashura and you declared,

“The successor of the 51^st Dai and 52^nd Dai is amongst you, and on this day of Aashura, keeping Allah Ta’ala as my witness, keeping Imam Husain SA as my witness, and keeping Imam-uz-zaman SA as my witness, with the Qur’an Majeed in my hand – the Qur’an from which my bawajisaheb has prayed, that is with me, keeping that Qur’an in hand I declare to you that the 53^rd Dai – the servant of Imam-uz-zaman – is Khuzaima Qutbuddin.  The Nass of all the Dais, the Nass of the 51^st Dai and the Nass of the 52^nd Dai, has reached me, the 53^rd Dai. The 51^st Dai conferred Nass and the 52^nd Dai conferred Nass on me………………“My soul is sacrifice for the Mawla of all men – in his remembrance my soul passes each day and night”…bismillah-ir-rahmaan-ir-rahim –lahu Da’watul Haqq, lahu Da’watul Haqq, lahu Da’watul Haqq, lahu Da’watul Haqq .”

     While I do understand your sentiment and the significance and premise of holding the Quran of Taher Saifuddin Moula in your hands and basically swearing by it, what I don’t understand is the theological basis or need for such a proclamation. If I remember Burhanuddin Moula’s waez and the well known history of Dawat correctly, I have always heard the zikr of Syedna Abdul Tayyeb Zakiuddin and the jaanfishaani he did for Da’wat during the zaman of Syedna Hebatullah al Moiyyad fi Deen when he was the Mazoon. There was a certain daawedaar at that time named Majdu’ who was doing fitnat and claiming that he was the hujjat of Imamuz Zaman and there was no longer a need for the Da’i amongst mumineen. In fact, he proclaimed that his appointment to the rank of hujja was done privately without any witnesses by the Dai Balagh of Imamuz Zaman. It must have seemed as an outlandish claim to most mumineen at that time, but a splinter group of people split believing Majdu and his unprecedented allegations because the theology was presented to them as factual and correct. They were known as the Hibtias.  Majdu had a lot of knowledge of Dawat nu ilm and him and his father had taken sabaq from Syedi Luqmanjee b. Habibullah. During that strife, in order to strengthen the aqeeda of mumineen, Syedna Abdul Tayyeb Zakiuddin did araz to Syedna Hebatullah al Moiyyad that “even if Imamuz Zaman did zuhoor and came out of pardah amongst all mumineen we would first respectfully araz that we will only accept his statement if Syedna Hebatullah tells us it is so and that he is in fact the Imam.” Therefore, the simple truth and theological position I understand from this well repeated bayan is that even if Imamuz Zaman does zuhoor, it is up to Dai Zaman to tell us explicitly that he is Imamuz Zaman before we are to accept. The authority to indicate and affirm hierarchal positions within Dawat, even if it is affirming the identity of Imam himself, belong to the Dai (simply because our belief is that Imam has left him in charge). There is no room for misinterpreting Syedna Abdul Tayyeb Zakiuddin’s words. The indication of Haq na Sahib is a straightforward pronouncement by Dai Zaman – and not anyone else. Majdu’s fitnat ensures that certainly a private nass or indication would not have ever been considered theologically acceptable. Furthermore, it is basic common sense that if the Dai is in charge and holds the full responsibility of Dawat and Mumineen with the powers invested in him by Imamuz Zaman, then it would definitely also be mandatory on him to clearly point out his successor to Mumineen. I don’t think it goes the other way around where a successor first claims that he has been appointed. You and your children are constantly telling people to appeal to their rationale. Therefore, I cannot understand how you legitimize making a claim that you are the Dai without any actual verbal testimony from anyone or how you say that Syedna Muhammad Burhanuddin Aqa indicated as such to you privately. It doesn’t seem to add up with the tenets in the bayan above or the other bayans about nass. I believe claims just can’t be accepted without supporting proof, especially if you claim that you appeal to rationale. Your holding up the Quran and swearing that you are the Da’i, although seemingly brave and noble, does not seem to be theologically justified to me. Of course, there can be a thousand neo-theological explanations to why you found the need to make such claims publicly, however, none of them should void the basic fundamentals laid out and taught to us several times by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin like the one regarding the indication of haq na sahib during the fitnat of Majdu. I wonder if you could possibly shed some light on these questions through your website or through this site to explain your actions since such a public declaration was made and broadcasted on the internet.

Shukran for reading this and I hope to hear from you soon,

Aqil Calcutawala

________, India