Your Problem With Moulana Taher Saifuddin RA?

(Left) His Holiness Dr. Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA (Right) Al-Maula al-Hayy al-Muqaddas Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin TUS

His Highness Prince Dr. Aziz Qutbuddin, the youngest son of the claimant of the Qutbi community. Dr. Aziz recently gave a quotation in the Indian tabloid newspaper, the Mumbai Mirror, saying “it’s unfortunate that Shehzada Mufaddal Saifuddin and his representatives are resorting to threats and social pressure to maintain their control over the community, “It is sad that a joyous occasion such as a marriage is used to apply this kind of pressure. We pray that the community is united once more and that this turmoil comes to an end.” I should note that the prince is currently married to the third woman he has had a relationship with in the last eight years. His second relationship that recently failed was with an Egyptian non-Dawoodi Bohra woman who he had met while studying in Cairo. The Qutbi Bohras are not allowed to marry unless within the community so several attempts were made directly by his family to convert this Egyptian Muslim girl. She even accompanied the Qutbuddins on a trip to Karbala Moalla with the late Syedna Burhanuddin during the inauguration proceedings of the Kufa mosque in 2010 in an attempt to convert her from her religion and have her accept the Dai so Aziz could marry her. He could not marry her otherwise because it was not allowed. However, when she did not convert Aziz was instructed by his family to break off relations with her and then later married his current wife.

Dear Mr. Qutbuddin,

I am a little confused by your eminent son Aziz’s recent statement in the tabloid newspaper called the Mumbai Mirror. He is quoted as saying, “it’s unfortunate that Shehzada Mufaddal Saifuddin and his representatives are resorting to threats and social pressure to maintain their control over the community, “It is sad that a joyous occasion such as a marriage is used to apply this kind of pressure. We pray that the community is united once more and that this turmoil comes to an end.”

What I am confused about is that Aziz is painting Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS as someone who uses the social pressure of disassociating the few hundred members of the Qutbi religion to garner support. However does it not make sense that members of any religion who choose to change their religion would no longer be able to use their former religion’s facilities? Furthermore, should the use of Dawoodi Bohra facilities which are exclusive and largely maintained and paid for by funds that come from community members, be available to non-members? I would think not. This policy also makes a lot of sense because in the end, the Dawoodi Bohra religious creed is a Shii’ version of Islam which means that the belief in the central figure of the Imam, or in this case his Da’i who is believed by Dawoodi Bohras to lead the community for the Imam, is the single most important tenet of the religion. It is what forms their identity. You can’t say you are a Dawoodi Bohra unless you believe in the central figure of the Dai just as you can’t say you are a Shi’a and not believe in the Imam. In the history of Shiism when people differed in the religious identity of the Imam, groups splintered off and formed their own religion. Hence we have Ithna Asharis, Ismailis, Nizaris, Zaydis, Sulaymanis, Alawis etc. The groups that splintered off severed ties with their old community and created new ones. This is a known historical fact.  They did not demand that they still be part of the old religion and try to congregate in the same places with the same old people. Obviously this would make no sense. Therefore, in the Mumbai Mirror article it seems that Aziz is trying to show that this type of policy, which makes absolute sense within the Shii context, is somehow a new practice and tactic being employed by Mufaddal Saifuddin. The article is biased and a horrible form of journalism because it is trying to paint the majority of Dawoodi Bohras as being irrational and somehow placing the blame on the split of the three hundred or so people on the belief system of the community members. It also implies that for some reason the Qutbi Bohras would not maintain such a practice, however, the Qutbis who believe very much in Syedna Taher Saifuddin and his policies will have to agree that the policies of not mingling and regulating the involvement of dissident members from the larger Dawoodi Bohra community was something that Syedna Taher Saifuddin fought for in the judicial court system in which you, Khuzaima Qutbuddin, have placed so much faith.

Therefore, Mr. Qutbuddin, if possible I would like to ask you a few questions.

1) In a court case dated to January 9 1962 of the Late Syedna Taher Saifuddin vs. the State of Mumbai, Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA was taken to court by people who had left the community and had the same plaints that Aziz was expressing in the article. The court ruled,

Coming back to the facts of the present petition, the position of the Dai-ul-Mutlaq, is an essential part of the creed of the Dawoodi Bohra sect. Faith in his spiritual mission and in the efficacy of his ministration is one of the bonds that hold the community together as a unit. The power of excommunication is vested in him for the purpose of enforcing discipline and keep the denomination together as an entity. The purity of the fellowship is secured by the removal of persons who had rendered themselves unfit and unsuitable for membership of the sect. The power of excommunication for the purpose of ensuring the preservation of the community, has therefore a prime significance in the religious life of every member of the group. A legislation which penalises this power even when exercised for the purpose above-indicated cannot be sustained as a measure of social welfare or social reform without eviscerating the guarantee under Art. 25(1) and rendering the protection illusory.

Several other cases were fought to prevent the Dai and his community of Dawoodi Bohras from exercising rights to ensure its preservation by not allowing dissident members to use community facilities and to take an active part in the community. I didn’t bother to list them here because I think you get the point. The court which the Qutbis believe is the beacon of justice upheld this practice several years ago. Therefore, why is Aziz defaming a deputy of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin for not solemnizing a wedding when according to Dawoodi Bohra creed, community members are generally encouraged to marry only within the community and do not marry outsiders unless they convert. It is obvious that a minority community would need to uphold such practices for its survival. So simply stated, the three hundred or so Qutbi Bohras are no longer part of the 1.2 million Dawoodi Bohra community because they changed their religious identity when they chose not to follow Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin. They chose a leader that was not appointed by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin according to the beliefs of the rest of the community. They did this consciously and so why would they be upset that suddenly they weren’t allowed to use the facilities or receive the services of their former Dawoodi Bohra community and its clergy? This was the hard choice they made when they chose to follow you, Mr. Qutbuddin. I am not understanding Aziz’s outcry here except as a cheap tactic to still paint Dawoodi Bohras in a prejudice typcasted ideology like they have previously tried to do for Dawoodi Bohra women. It is starting to seem pretty desperate, however, Aziz and your family claim that you are the true waris of Syedna Taher Saifuddin and Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. So why do you find their practices, in the words of Dr. Aziz, “unfortunate,” and “sad?”

2) The second point I would like to make is that in the case of marriage, your family followed the same policy when it came to Aziz. Some time in 2009 while Aziz was studying in Egypt he fell in love with an Egyptian Muslim woman whose name I have omitted for the sake of her privacy. Aziz carried on the relationship for some time to the extent that you and your family made an attempt to convert the girl to the Dawoodi Bohra religion. In 2010 when Aqa Moula Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA visited Karbala, this Egyptian girl traveled from Egypt to Karbala with Aziz’s sisters and during her visit there the sisters dressed her in ridas that they had made for her especially for this trip. In the end, after she did not convert, Aziz was told by you and your family to end the relationship. Therefore, even the Qutbuddins believe that marriage normally does not take place to people outside the community and therefore you did not let Aziz marry this girl. Could this be the reason for Aziz’s outburst in the Mumbai Mirror?

So considering these two points above, again I don’t understand why your eminent prince Aziz said those quotations in the Mumbai Mirror. What was his point? Of course, the progressives and dissidents of the community have stood by their creed that this practice of exclusion of former members of the community is outdated and should not happen. They believe that people should marry whoever they choose and do what they want and no one should have control over their religious position and social behavior. They maintain that they do not have to believe in the Dai and they can still identify as being a Bohra. Well – within a shii context – this obviously doesn’t make sense and the debate with this ideology can be saved for another time.  But why have you and your family resorted to the same ideology as the dissidents? As I said before, you can’t call yourself a Shi’a if you don’t believe in the present Imam. Dawoodi Bohras cannot be Dawoodi Bohras (in the religious and spiritual sense) unless they believe in the Imam or Dai. Atleast this was the policy of Taher Saifuddin Moula and Burhanuddin Moula and dissidents can debate that as much as they want but the policy of the Duat has been this way. However, why now have you and your family made this an issue?  Do you or Prince Aziz have a problem with Taher Saifuddin Moula’s policies? Or is it your bitter hatred with Mufaddal Moula that led Aziz to not think before he spoke, since it is probably pretty obvious to him that Taher Saifuddin Moula had went to court several times over the same issue. Where does this place the Qutbis now in terms of ideologies? Even more, why do you have a problem with these policies when you enforced the same policies for your son?

If someone could back to me on this I would greatly appreciate it. I think you can email an answer on this website.

My best to you and Prince Aziz,

Abde Syedna TUS,

Hashim M.