Why did the shehzadas say nothing about this letter until now? Why not mention it in the first proclamation in London three years ago? And why leave it out from the lengthy 50-page “nass-nama kitaab” produced four months later, which included the alleged hospital “nass” report, as well as lots of “signs and portents”?
All three of the witnesses listed in this letter are deceased—none can testify to its authenticity.
Especially with today’s technology, it is not impossible to alter documents and recordings.
Syedna Burhanuddin’s Mazoon of 50 years is swearing an oath on the Quran that Syedna Burhanuddin did nass on him—who could be more trustworthy than the Dai and his Mazoon?
If Syedna Burhanuddin had done nass on Shehzada Mufaddal bhaisaheb in 1388H, why would he allow him to do sajda to Syedna Qutbuddin for 22 years afterward? Sajda equals ta’aat/obedience, an acknowledgement of aala maqaam.
… And why would Syedna Burhanuddin not inform Qutbuddin Mola? On the contrary, he confirmed his nass upon Syedna Qutbuddin on several occasions even after 1388 .
… And why would Syedna Burhanuddin not inform Mufaddal bhaisaheb himself, not then, and not for the next 47 years?
In Dawat history, it has never happened that the Dai would withhold the information of nass from his most trusted person, the mansoos, even when he wanted to keep the nass secret from everyone else. And why would he? What if the shahids all died, and the mansoos himself did not know he was the mansoos?
For example, when the 49th dai Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin did nass on Syedna Abdullah Badruddin, he said to the witnesses that they should only disclose this information after he passed away, “dupatto oraawo pachi zahir karjo,” but he called his mansoos Syedna Abdullah Badruddin the next day and told him of the nass upon him.
When the rutba of Mukasir became open when Syedi Saleh bhaisaheb passed away in 1993, why did Syedna Burhanuddin appoint Shehzada Husain bhaisaheb Husamuddin to the post, and not Shehzada Mufaddal bhaisaheb?
Shaikh Ebrahim Yamani is one of the witnesses/shahids listed on the letter. All through his life, his words and actions show his knowledge of Syedna Burhanuddin’s nass on Syedna Qutbuddin, not on someone else. Both before 1388 and after, he gave extra reverence to Syedna Qutbuddin, even expressing to him his anticipation of Syedna Qutbuddin’s Dai-ship. Why would he do so if he had secret knowledge of a different nass? Moreover, he wrote many publicly recited madehs for Syedna Qutbuddin, in one of which he says, for e.g., “tamay dawat ni raha na qutub chho” normally said only of the Dai.
A historical example of what we are witnessing today is the fitnat against the 27th Dai Syedna Dawood bin Qutub-Shah, where the majority of the family of the previous Dai, Syedna Dawood bin Ajab-Shah, turned against Syedna Dawood bin Qutub-Shah. They then invited Sulayman to spearhead their fitnat. Even Syedna Dawood bin Ajab-Shah’s official letter-writer (Katib) joined the fitnat na logo, and he claimed that Syedna Dawood bin Ajab-Shah had confided to him Sulayman’s name as successor on his deathbed. The Katib concocted a letter in Syedna Dawood bin Ajab-Shah’s name, with Syedna’s official stamp and seal, pronouncing nass on Sulayman. Many people believed this letter was genuine and left Syedna Dawood for Sulayman; the majority of the Yemeni mumineen at that time turned Sulaymani.