Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Tuesday—the second day of the final hearing in the Syedna succession row—narrowed down the scope of the hearing to three major issues and directed the counsels for the plaintiff, Syedna Taher Fakhruddin, to deal with them.
The first issue was why Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin, Syedna Fakhruddin’s father, remained silent from 2011 to 2014, the period when Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin took over the administration of the community as his father, the 52nd Dai, was unwell.
The second issue was whether the usage of the word ‘Maula’ by family members to address Syedna Qutbuddin during the lifetime of the 52nd Dai necessarily implied that they accepted that he was the next Dai.
The third issue was whether the reverential act of doing sajda (prostration) to Syedna Qutbuddin prior to 2011 by family members was also an indicator that he was the successor of the 52nd Dai.
Justice Gautam Patel, who since 2014 has been hearing the suit filed by Syedna Qutbuddin—which was continued by his son Syedna Fakhruddin after his demise—told senior counsel Anand Desai that the time gap from 2011 to 2014 was going to be crucial. Why, he questioned, did PW1 (Syedna Qutbuddin) not protest when the appointment of the defendant (Syedna Mufaddal) as 53rd Dai was publicly announced if, as he claimed, he himself had been conferred with nass (appointment through divine inspiration of Imam uz Zaman) decades earlier? Justice Patel said that he expected Desai to address the issues, which the counsel agreed to do in the course of his submissions.
The bench then asked Desai to address the matter in two parts, namely the factual and doctrinal aspects, and break up the factual aspects into three separate parts, comprising the actual pronouncement of the nass, the narrative and the other indicators which would be used to prove Syedna Fakhruddin’s stand.
While responding to the query as to why Syedna Qutbuddin, who in December 1965 had been conferred nass privately by the 52nd Dai, kept it a secret, Desai said it was done in compliance with the instructions of the 52nd Dai.
“I’m still struggling with this part of the narrative, which seems increasingly problematic. If there is this kind of widespread declaration on the position of PW1, what is the explanation for the actual nass being kept secret?” the bench sought to know.
Desai assured the bench that he would address the issue, and continued the overview of the arguments started on Monday. He first pointed to the alamat (letterhead) bestowed upon Syedna Qutbuddin in 1958 by the 51st Dai. Desai submitted that the alamat, in the form of a verse from the Qur’an which read “You will be a blessing”, showed that Syedna Qutbuddin was already deemed to be a Dai after the 52nd Dai.
The counsel further submitted that the word ‘Maula’, by which Syedna Qutbuddin was referred to during the lifetime of the 52nd Dai, was used by Prophet Mohammad for himself and his brother Hazrat Ali while announcing the latter as his successor. Hence, he submitted, it was an established fact among family members that Syedna Qutbuddin would be the next Dai, and thus was addressed as Maula.
However, as an expert in Arabic had said ‘Maula’ did not necessarily imply master or leader, the bench asked Desai to clarify. While agreeing with this, Desai drew the attention of the bench to the letters written by various persons, including Syedna Mufaddal to Syedna Qutbuddin, wherein the 51st and 52nd Dais were referred to as Bewe Maula (both maula) and he was also called Maula. Desai said that when seen in the context of Bewe Maula, addressing Syedna Qutbuddin as Maula indicated that he was assumed to be the Dai-to-be.
Desai also pointed to a few letters written between 1968 and early 2000. He also referred to a letter by a scribe of the 51st and 52nd Dai, where he told Syedna Qutbuddin that he was the Haroon of the 52nd Dai. The reference was to the historical fact of Prophet Haroon being the successor of Prophet Moses.
In the second session, the overview revolved around sajda (prostration). The bench sought to know whether the sajda being done to the Dais was an act of worship or reverence. Was it a common practice for the community to do sajda of whoever they respected or was it only restricted to the Dais?
Desai submitted that there was a difference in sajda, and that the sajda of worship was only for Allah while the sajda of reverence was observed only for the Imam uz Zaman, Dai or Dai-to-be. He submitted that the fact that sajda was done before Syedna Qutbuddin during the lifetime of the 52nd Dai by family members indicated that it was common knowledge that he was going to be the next Dai.