Shrinkage?

Shk. Mohammed bhai Raja and his wife Tasneem coming back to the fold of Mufaddal Moula’s TUS Dawat after being cajoled by the Qutbi leader, Khuzeima Qutbuddin. Shk. Mohammed bhai Raja and his wife are the parents-in-law of His Highness The Eminent Prince Husain Qutbuddin (pictured below).

Dear Mr. Qutbuddin,

I was just wondering about how you felt about your shrinkage of support. People are leaving your cause one by one, even those who are related to you. I recently learned that Shk. Mohammed Raja and his wife Tasneem whose daughter is married to your learned and most eminent son, Dr. Prince Husain Qutbuddin, have decided that your claims were not correct and came back to join the 53rd Dai Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohra community Aqa Moula Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS. I just wanted to know how you felt regarding this? Why are people so closely related to you realizing that they might have made the wrong choice?  If you could kindly shed some light on the matter it would be great. Also, how is your prince, Dr. Husain Qutbuddin taking this and what does he feel about his shrinkage, especially because his own father in law and mother in law don’t believe him or the stuff he has been putting all over Youtube regarding your legitimacy? Do you know why they turned away from your cause and what the reasons were for them doing so?

Thanks for reading this email and my kindest regards to you,

Farazdaq

Mumineen Mukhliseen?

http://www.zahrapediatrics.com/PatientPortal/MyPractice.aspx?UAID={6C50DC0D-5E05-42C6-83AF-064D5D982803}&TabID={3}

Dear Mr. Qutbuddin,

Dr. Moiz Poconos and his daughter Dr. Ramlah Vahanvaty use to sit and lead Dawat majlises in front of other Mumineen, take salaam from them, and tell them that they were better than them because they were from the royal family (Qasr-e Aali) and thus had the authority to lead. They were the first to flock to the Qutbi Dawat. Can you explain that when Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin’s message on qawmi libas was pretty clear regarding topi and rida then why would senior members of your family not follow those principles? http://www.zahrapediatrics.com/PatientPortal/MyPractice.aspx?UAID={6C50DC0D-5E05-42C6-83AF-064D5D982803}&TabID={3} As people who maintained their elite status within the Dawoodi Bohra stratified social system and reaped the benefits and privileges of that status, don’t you think that they should have led an example for the rest of their community members – especially in the preservation of cultural identity with qawmi libas? It seems like they were wearing two different hats – or not even wearing them at all. Why is there such a contrast in the leading members of your Qutbi Dawat and those between the Dawoodi Bohras? Why is it so different from what we are use to seeing under Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin? Is what Vanvaty wearing the another version of the new Qutbi rida – since she is a royal family member? I hope you can answer these questions soon as you and your son Husain Qutbuddin have been called to mubahala and we would all like to know your thoughts.

Shukran jazilan,

Mustafa ———

New Jersey Jamaat

http://www.zahrapediatrics.com/PatientPortal/MyPractice.aspx?UAID={6C50DC0D-5E05-42C6-83AF-064D5D982803}&TabID={3}

Your Fatimi Dawat and the 99% of Dawoodi Bohras You Left Behind?

Dear Mr. Qutbuddin,

I hope you are doing okay. I had a question for you and hope that you or one of your eminent learned children could answer. You have made claims that you are the Da’i. Doesn’t Da’i mean the one who calls, the one who does the Dawat. You have maintained that you are the one and only successor of Aqa Moula Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. If you are, then why did you leave the 99% of his followers behind. You made no strong willed attempt to call the Mumineen to your Dawat. Yes, you put up a youtube video and a website, but that hardly constitutes the workings of a true Dawat. Rather, within six days of Aqa Moula’s demise you sent the following message via whatsapp to all Mumineen regarding the funds and properties of Dawat and how Mumineen should stop using them immediately.

(The First Message and Correspondence from the Qutbi Dai to the Dawoodi Bohra followers which was distributed via whatsapp with email addresses that the Qutbi organization had taken from official Dawoodi Bohra Databases.)

Therefore, could you explain why this would be your first official correspondence as the Da’i to Mumineen? Why wasn’t there some sort of other correspondence explaining to us calmly and in a way we could understand how you are truly the 53rd Da’i. It seems to many that you are only doing Dawat to a select few and disregarding the rest of us. The Da’i has always been given the metaphor of being a shepherd herding his flock (ra’iyya). What good is it, if Moulana Mohammed Burhanuddin RA truly passed on the mantle of the Dawat to you, but then let his entire flock go to waste? It does not make logical sense that he would spend his entire life building such a beautiful community of believers, building such grand constructions, and consolidating a networked organization just to throw it away after his demise. I feel your only job should be calling the Mumineen, no? Then why does it seem that you’ve invested more efforts in trying to take control of properties, taking the community to court, and pursuing, what it would seem as can be described in no better words, temporal power? What about us – the 99%? What are we to do if you are truly the 53rd Da’i as you have maintained and sworn by the Quran? You seem to be going after us tooth and nail rather than explain to us like a loving father. I have heard in sabaq that Moulana Moiyyad was told by Imam to teach ‘ilm to Mumineen like a Bawa Mushfiq. You haven’t tried doing this to us. You have made no attempts to knock on our doors to ask us or convince us to believe in your cause. Isn’t the point of a Dawat for the salvation of Mumineen. It is as if we were simply disregarded by you.  If we were the followers of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA then why would you abandon us like you have. Is this the true nature of your Fatimi Dawat? I pray that you answer these questions soon because your actions have largely spoken against the integrity of your cause if it does exist.

Sincerely,

Hatim Rajnagarwala

Indore

Dr. Moiz Poconos?

Portrait of Dr. Moiz (Poconoswala) Mohyuddin. He is one of the first who left Dawat to join the ranks of Khuzeima Qutbuddin. He is also the Aamil of the Qutbi Jamaat in Poconos which has approximately two members outside his own intermediate family. It is rumored that  Khuzeima Qutbuddin will give him the position of his Mazoon in the new Qutbi Dawat. (Photo taken from Vitals.com).

Most recent review of him from Vitals.com read,

 |  Very unhappy  |  show details

by Lisa P. on Mar 21st, 2014

The doctor is getting old and seems to be losing his edge. He wrongly prescribed one medication without asking about my 7 year old daughter’s allergy history. We had to rush my daughter as 1). the medication caused her severe breathing problem and 2). the dose itself was too high for her age and weight. Thanks to the ER doctors for pumping the meds out of her and saving her life. I don’t like to write bad stuff about anyone but I want innocent kids to be saved by this doctor and his clinic. The doctor seems to lack better judgement anymore.

http://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_Moiz_Mohyuddin/reviews#ixzz3L5KYd2LT

---

Dear Mr. Qutbuddin,

I just wanted to know if you had read this article and wanted to inquire if you financially helped Dr. Moiz Mohyuddin of Poconos with the $1,000,000 he was responsible for paying for the settlement of a malpractice suit since he is a senior member of your religious hierarchy? http://www.poconorecord.com/article/20110808/News/108080314. Also his recent reviews have left patients with a little awkward feelings towards him and his judgement. Considering that he has had so many malpractice suits in which he has been found liable, and that recent patients say that he is “losing his edge,” do you really see him as fit for the position of Mazoon in your new Qutbi Dawat? I know your choices are slim amongst your hudood, but perhaps for the sake of your followers you could choose someone else?

Thanks and we hope to hear from you.

All best,

Hatim Saagwara

Dubai

I Call His Highness Prince Husain Qutbuddin To Mubahalah!

His Royal Highness the Prince Husain Qutbuddin, the founder and spokesperson of Fatemidawat.com, sporting a black trouser and black striped shirt with a Dawoodi Bohra traditional cap known as the topi. He is holding the pen his father blessed for him and prayed upon. In Fatimi fiqh, white was the color of the Fatimiyeen and black was considered the official color of the Banul Abbas. The contrast between black and white of Husain Qutbuddin is very stunning and he looks dashing in both outfits (see below).

His Highness Prince Dr. Husain Qutbuddin, a renowned academic, wearing white and preaching to the Qutbi Bohras and invoking mubahala.

Dear Mr. Qutbuddin,

      I am officially calling your son, His Royal Highness Prince Dr. Husain Qutbuddin to mubahala. In a You Tube video shortly after the demise of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA (while the community was still in mourning), you and later your beloved son, Husain Qutbuddin, invoked mubahala, to call the Dawoodi Bohras (your former community) to a debate about who was the correct Syedna (although historically this has no precedence in intercommunal affairs and originated between Muslims and Christians.) The history behind this word goes back to the time of the prophet Muhammad Rasullullah SAW. The word mubahala refers to an ayat in the Qur’an 3:61-62 which translates as,

“This revelation, and this wise admonition, we recite to you. Jesus is like Adam in the sight of God. He created Him of dust and said to Him ‘Be,’ and He was. This is the truth from your Lord; therefore, do not doubt it. To those who dispute with you concerning Jesus after the knowledge ye have received, say, ‘Come let us gather our sons and your sons, our wives and your wives, our people and your people. We will pray together and call down the curse of God (la’nat) on the ones who lie.”

I think your son, Prince Husain Qutbuddin, has memorized the Qur’an so you and he should be well aware of the historical origins of this ayat. What occurred is that in 631, a Christian delegation from Najran which consisted of seventy members came to Medina to debate religion with Rasullullah SAW. The debate, as is evident from the ayat above, was related to the divine nature of Jesus Christ and the belief that Islam was the only one true religion. Both parties got a little charged in the debate and so the Prophet Muhammad recited the ayat above and called the Christians of Najran to come the next day on the 15th of January 631. The calling to the mubahala included men (the sons), womenfolk (wives), and members of both communities. The point of the invocation was so that the disputing parties, Muslims and Christians, could invoke Khuda Taala to pray la’nat and curse the party who was not correct. Therefore, the devil is in the details. Calling mubahala is a serious matter in Islam and results in la’nat. Dr. Husain Qutbuddin and most of your followers have maintained that they have taken the moral high ground and refrained from la’nat and such deeming it an archaic practice. Yet you and your son, His Highness, called to pray la’nat on the Dawoodi Bohra establishment and hierarchy in order to purport you, Mr. Khuzeima Qutbuddin, as the head of the community with your continuous calls to mubahala. Besides the theological problems in calling other Muslims to such a debate, as this was an intracommunal matter, it also is very odd that you chose to do this while everyone was mourning the loss of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. Mubahala, according to the Quran, includes men from both sides, women from both sides, and followers from both sides as mentioned above. Therefore, you were ready to start a debate and pray la’nat on the 99.89 % of Dawoodi Bohras who don’t follow Mr. Qutbuddin (I assume you believe you are on the correct side) while they had just lost their spiritual father. Without saying too much, I hope you do understand the serious moral dilemma that this represents.

In any case, let us put that in the past. Today, I also invoke mubahala, and call your learned and eminent son, Husain Qutbuddin to mubahala as is according to your own Qutbi Bohra practices. I also invoke your  sons and our sons, your womenfolk and our womenfolk, your people and our people, to debate on this website to see who is right. I am sure that you will answer the call to mubahala now that I have invoked you.

Allah bless you all,

Yours truly,

Farazdaq

 (note to readers: please forward to info@fatemidawat.com so it might reach His Highness Prince Husain Qutbuddin and to other readers via social apps so that the call to mubahila is answered by the prince.)

Is This A Rida?

(Photo of the Qutbi Bohra Princess, Shehzadi Dr. Tahera Qutbuddin, giving a lecture in an American University in a chic Islamic style garment).

Dear Mr. Qutbuddin,

       Your daughter, Her Highness Shehzadi (princess) Dr. Tahera wrote in a chapter on the customs and practices of mumineen titled “The Da’udi Bohra Tayyibis: Ideology, Literature, Learning and Social Practice” in Farhad Daftary’s A Modern History of The Ismailis. In it she wrote the following:

“The Bohra mode of attire is similarly a mélange of the Islamic and the Indian. Women wear the Islamically mandated veil (which they call rida’) outside the home, comprised of a full-length skirt (lenga or ghaghra) and a triangular garment (parr or pardi) covering the head and bosom down to the hips; the parr has a flap that is sometimes used to cover the face. The rida’ has evolved into its present form in the last 30 years or so; earlier, Bohra women wore different versions of the veil………The wearing of traditional community dress (called qawmi libas or libas-i anwar) is de riguer at Bohra religious an social gatherings and is encouraged at all times. The emphasis is of a dual nature: observation of Islamic law and preservation of Bohra cultural identity. According to the legal or cultural nature of the directive, there are gradations in the required dress code. The veil, as mentioned earlier, is required for women since it is considered mandated by Islamic law.” (pg. 346-47)

Clearly what Dr. Tahera is wearing in this picture from a public talk that she gave in front of American students last year in March 2013 (almost a year before Aqa Moula’s RA demise) is not a rida’ (picture above). When she writes that women in the Bohra community wear the mandated rida’, and she defines it as a full length skirt and triangular garment (parr or pardi) above with a flap, then what she is wearing is definitely something else. What she is wearing is a skirt, with what appears to be a buttoned jacket (non triangular) top, and a headscarf which her interviewer marked was ‘loose.’ While her chosen garment is definitely Islamic and in line with Islamic principles, and there is no doubt that she is proud to wear it as her identity marker, the question remains on why did she choose not to wear the rida when it was a marker of Dawoodi Bohra identity? If you are the successor of Burhanuddin Moula RA why would you mandate one dress for all Bohra women (as is Princess Dr. Tahera’s words) but not hold the princess to the same standards? Are the elite allowed to wear what they want as long as it is Islamic? Are all Qutbi Bohra women encouraged to wear any Islamic styled garment that they like? Are you and Princess Dr. Tahera deliberately moving away from Burhanuddin Moula’s RA rida and creating a new Islamic styled women’s garment exclusive to Qutbi Bohra women? Thank you for reading this and I hope you are having a wonderful day. If you could take the time to answer these questions, I am sure many things would become clearer to people about your agendas and core philosophies with your faith and how they are different than the previous directives of the Dawoodi Bohras. Your visions and new policies regarding cultural dress and mandated clothing, especially for women, are of great interest. Many thanks.

Sincerely,

Amatullah Sunilwala

UK

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