Sticky: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

The one and only free public forum for Bohras. The focus of this forum is the reform movement, the Dawoodi Bohra faith and, of course, the corrupt priesthood. But the discussion is in no way restricted to the Bohras alone.
malgudidays
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:47 am

Re: Sticky: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#2491

Unread post by malgudidays » Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:00 am

objectiveobserver53 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:30 am
dal-chaval-palidu wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:32 am


I agree with him. Looks like he just asked a question. If you don't know, say that you don't know the details.

Don't accuse him of being somebody's agent...I understand that you are speaking in your personal capacity, but still ... No need to call him an MS agent.
You are kidding right DCP? Read his post again....that kind of language only originates from those who have drunk the koolaid.

Sorry to say this, but people like you are nowhere close to Saifuddin Insaf, Hamdanis, Luqmanis, Zulfiqar Husain or the Four Great Ulemas of Jamea... who posed real threat/challenge to the ruling family... a truly objective person would question both parties on their merits and faults.. not engage in personal slander, like you just did...

objectiveobserver53
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:29 pm

Re: Sticky: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#2492

Unread post by objectiveobserver53 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:07 am

malgudidays wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:00 am
objectiveobserver53 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:30 am


You are kidding right DCP? Read his post again....that kind of language only originates from those who have drunk the koolaid.

Sorry to say this, but people like you are nowhere close to Saifuddin Insaf, Hamdanis, Luqmanis, Zulfiqar Husain or the Four Great Ulemas of Jamea... who posed real threat/challenge to the ruling family... a truly objective person would question both parties on their merits and faults.. not engage in personal slander, like you just did...
Sorry to disappoint. I am not competing with the personalities mentioned. I have weighed both sides objectively and arrived at my decision thank you.

UnhappyBohra
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:23 pm

Re: Sticky: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#2493

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:08 am

Heh heh I also think we have Lord of the Flies masquerading as Malgudi Days here. A wolf in sheep’s clothing one may say..... on Thane Street or otherwise..... :roll:

malgudidays
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:47 am

Re: Sticky: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#2494

Unread post by malgudidays » Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:02 am

objectiveobserver53 wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:07 am
malgudidays wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:00 am



Sorry to say this, but people like you are nowhere close to Saifuddin Insaf, Hamdanis, Luqmanis, Zulfiqar Husain or the Four Great Ulemas of Jamea... who posed real threat/challenge to the ruling family... a truly objective person would question both parties on their merits and faults.. not engage in personal slander, like you just did...
Sorry to disappoint. I am not competing with the personalities mentioned. I have weighed both sides objectively and arrived at my decision thank you.
Nobody is, but most of the anti-establishment folks over here identify themselves with them, and it does not behove somebody who claims to be objective observer to be so blatantly biased, prejudiced and spiteful.

malgudidays
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:47 am

Re: Sticky: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#2495

Unread post by malgudidays » Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:03 am

UnhappyBohra wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:08 am
Heh heh I also think we have Lord of the Flies masquerading as Malgudi Days here. A wolf in sheep’s clothing one may say..... on Thane Street or otherwise..... :roll:
Get well soon.

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Sticky: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#2496

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:59 pm

malgudidays wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:40 pm
objectiveobserver53 wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:15 pm

Yes and professor stewarts point was that to claim that the Nizaris would believe such a thing renders the book as a non-credible source.
Well, Seems like Professor missed the point by a long shot.

Time to hold Thanewale baba accountable, because, Iqa Sawa'iqa al-irgham was written by Imam Aamir alayhis'Salaam as a refutation to the refutation of Hidayata Amiriyya by Nizari Dai's in Syria... to address the Mustali-Nizari Schism...

Should not Taher Qutbuddin/Fakhruddin who claims to be the representative of the Imam from the progeny of Imam Amir---Imam Al Tayyab
apologize or at least condemn the blasphemous statement made by his witness, that this refutation by Imam Amir alayhis'salaam is preposterous and non-credible?

FYR

http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/17927
bhai/ben malgudidays, OO53

I am lost in this debate of yours.

OO53 says:

Professor stewart's point was that to claim that the Nizaris would believe such a thing renders the book as a non-credible source.

Where did he (Prof. Stewart) say that? The only reference that I have seen is the Udaipur times article.

Below is from the Udaipur times article:
---------------------------- start of the quote from the article ------------------------
Day 4: December 3
Prof. Stewart, in response to a question on the revocability of Nass (designation of a successor) stated that it is inconceivable in the Ismaili faith that a Nass can be equated to an ordinary bequest and it cannot be subject to the same rules.

Defendant’s Counsel Iqbal Iqbal Chagla showed Prof Stewart a passage from a book regarding the controversy of Nass on the 19th Imam. Prof Stewart said he does not trust this book as it contains an outrageous statement that the first and second Imams Hassan and Hussein, one killed the other.
------------------------------------- end of the quote from the article

The claim is just that a book (which could have been distorted over time) made the above statement, and hence it is not credible.

Nizari, Ismailis, Bohra, Shia, Sunni, all would agree that a book which says the above is not credible.

So please explain how we got from the above to the specific claim by the Nizaris? Am I missing something? If so, please educate. Thanks.

UnhappyBohra
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:23 pm

Re: Sticky: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#2497

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:23 am

malgudidays wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:03 am
UnhappyBohra wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:08 am
Heh heh I also think we have Lord of the Flies masquerading as Malgudi Days here. A wolf in sheep’s clothing one may say..... on Thane Street or otherwise..... :roll:
Get well soon.
I am in excellent health. Not quite sure why you would say this unless you think I am someone that I am not! I am a card carrying “MS follower” for what it’s worth but you would never know who I am. Were it not for the threat of social boycott and pressure from family, I would have thrown my card away a long time ago. Anyone that you can imagine me to be, I am not. So good luck to you!! I am sure that annoys the hell out of you.

malgudidays
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:47 am

Re: Sticky: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#2498

Unread post by malgudidays » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:57 am

dal-chaval-palidu wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:59 pm
malgudidays wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:40 pm


Well, Seems like Professor missed the point by a long shot.

Time to hold Thanewale baba accountable, because, Iqa Sawa'iqa al-irgham was written by Imam Aamir alayhis'Salaam as a refutation to the refutation of Hidayata Amiriyya by Nizari Dai's in Syria... to address the Mustali-Nizari Schism...

Should not Taher Qutbuddin/Fakhruddin who claims to be the representative of the Imam from the progeny of Imam Amir---Imam Al Tayyab
apologize or at least condemn the blasphemous statement made by his witness, that this refutation by Imam Amir alayhis'salaam is preposterous and non-credible?

FYR

http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/17927
bhai/ben malgudidays, OO53

I am lost in this debate of yours.

OO53 says:

Professor stewart's point was that to claim that the Nizaris would believe such a thing renders the book as a non-credible source.

Where did he (Prof. Stewart) say that? The only reference that I have seen is the Udaipur times article.

Below is from the Udaipur times article:
---------------------------- start of the quote from the article ------------------------
Day 4: December 3
Prof. Stewart, in response to a question on the revocability of Nass (designation of a successor) stated that it is inconceivable in the Ismaili faith that a Nass can be equated to an ordinary bequest and it cannot be subject to the same rules.

Defendant’s Counsel Iqbal Iqbal Chagla showed Prof Stewart a passage from a book regarding the controversy of Nass on the 19th Imam. Prof Stewart said he does not trust this book as it contains an outrageous statement that the first and second Imams Hassan and Hussein, one killed the other.
------------------------------------- end of the quote from the article

The claim is just that a book (which could have been distorted over time) made the above statement, and hence it is not credible.

Nizari, Ismailis, Bohra, Shia, Sunni, all would agree that a book which says the above is not credible.

So please explain how we got from the above to the specific claim by the Nizaris? Am I missing something? If so, please educate. Thanks.
Dear DCP,

To believe that Professor Devin Stewart was a netral and objective witness in this case will be naive.

Iqa Sawa'iqa al-irgham is a credible book, not only as per Mustali's but even Nizaris ascribe it's authorship to Imam Amir (as)
and consider it authentic.

Read the article below to understand their stated position.

http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/17927

Professor cherry picked the content of the book to discredit it... and PR-managed media only ran what would work in STF's favour.
and SMS Haters, latched on to it...

Reality is that currently, STF & Co. is claiming, Nass once conferred cannot be revoked, while SMS & Co. is saying not true and Nass can be changed...
To support their claim they have referenced this Risala of Imam Amir as which was released to address Mustali-Nizari Schism.
How is this possible and what theological reasons can be given, should be best explained by respective Dai's... STF & Co. are going for Not a credible risala argument...which works in their favour and honestly keeps their claim relevant(if they succeed in proving that Nass was earlier done on SKQ) Nobody would dare ask anything to SMS & Co. to avoid answering such questions and hide many other explosive things that have come up during this case... both STF and SMS gave a joint request to limit only 25 attendants in the court... also media has been barred from publishing everything...

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Sticky: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#2499

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:27 pm

malgudidays wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:57 am
dal-chaval-palidu wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:59 pm


bhai/ben malgudidays, OO53

I am lost in this debate of yours.

OO53 says:

Professor stewart's point was that to claim that the Nizaris would believe such a thing renders the book as a non-credible source.

Where did he (Prof. Stewart) say that? The only reference that I have seen is the Udaipur times article.

Below is from the Udaipur times article:
---------------------------- start of the quote from the article ------------------------
Day 4: December 3
Prof. Stewart, in response to a question on the revocability of Nass (designation of a successor) stated that it is inconceivable in the Ismaili faith that a Nass can be equated to an ordinary bequest and it cannot be subject to the same rules.

Defendant’s Counsel Iqbal Iqbal Chagla showed Prof Stewart a passage from a book regarding the controversy of Nass on the 19th Imam. Prof Stewart said he does not trust this book as it contains an outrageous statement that the first and second Imams Hassan and Hussein, one killed the other.
------------------------------------- end of the quote from the article

The claim is just that a book (which could have been distorted over time) made the above statement, and hence it is not credible.

Nizari, Ismailis, Bohra, Shia, Sunni, all would agree that a book which says the above is not credible.

So please explain how we got from the above to the specific claim by the Nizaris? Am I missing something? If so, please educate. Thanks.
Dear DCP,

To believe that Professor Devin Stewart was a netral and objective witness in this case will be naive.

Iqa Sawa'iqa al-irgham is a credible book, not only as per Mustali's but even Nizaris ascribe it's authorship to Imam Amir (as)
and consider it authentic.

Read the article below to understand their stated position.

http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/17927

Professor cherry picked the content of the book to discredit it... and PR-managed media only ran what would work in STF's favour.
and SMS Haters, latched on to it...

Reality is that currently, STF & Co. is claiming, Nass once conferred cannot be revoked, while SMS & Co. is saying not true and Nass can be changed...
To support their claim they have referenced this Risala of Imam Amir as which was released to address Mustali-Nizari Schism.
How is this possible and what theological reasons can be given, should be best explained by respective Dai's... STF & Co. are going for Not a credible risala argument...which works in their favour and honestly keeps their claim relevant(if they succeed in proving that Nass was earlier done on SKQ) Nobody would dare ask anything to SMS & Co. to avoid answering such questions and hide many other explosive things that have come up during this case... both STF and SMS gave a joint request to limit only 25 attendants in the court... also media has been barred from publishing everything...
A few replies/questions related to the highlighted section of your replies.

I understand that Prof. Stewart is from STF side. And, I will not say I am completely objective either; most of us come to this forum with our biases. Should do us all a favor to remember that :D

----------------------------- you say -------------------
Reality is that currently, STF & Co. is claiming, Nass once conferred cannot be revoked, while SMS & Co. is saying not true and Nass can be changed...
-------------------------------------------------
That itself should make us wonder. SMS said for the longest time that no nass was done on SKQ. Now he is desperately trying to prove that a nass once done can be changed. What does that say?

As I see it, it means that very likely a credible nass was done on SKQ, and that is why a large part of the strategy of SMS hinges on showing that a nass once done can be changed. That is just my thinking.

----------------------------- you say -------------------
Nobody would dare ask anything to SMS & Co. to avoid answering such questions and hide many other explosive things that have come up during this case... both STF and SMS gave a joint request to limit only 25 attendants in the court... also media has been barred from publishing everything...
-------------------------------------------------

I am not privy to anything, but my sense is the following: STF and FD have all the interest in this case getting more visibility and coming to a conclusion quickly. So the restrictions, and that nobody in the community talks about it is all likely from SMS side.

I personally have at least a few specific questions fro SMS. I wish they/SAIF53/Adam anybody can answer. 3 to start with:

1.) STF said about 3+ years back that SMB was without any significant food or water for 48 hours before entering the London hospital. Is that true? Can you tell the community about it?

2.) You said nass was never done on SKQ. Why are you trying to prove so hard now that a nass once done can be changed? Why? Also, why would you quote a book written by a person called al-majdu when SMB said that his (al-majdu's) word should be taken with caution?

3.) Please give your version of the response related to this book which says that between Imam Husain and Imam Hasan, one Imam killed the other.

malgudidays
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:47 am

Re: Sticky: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#2500

Unread post by malgudidays » Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:39 am

dal-chaval-palidu wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:27 pm
malgudidays wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:57 am


Dear DCP,

To believe that Professor Devin Stewart was a netral and objective witness in this case will be naive.

Iqa Sawa'iqa al-irgham is a credible book, not only as per Mustali's but even Nizaris ascribe it's authorship to Imam Amir (as)
and consider it authentic.

Read the article below to understand their stated position.

http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/17927

Professor cherry picked the content of the book to discredit it... and PR-managed media only ran what would work in STF's favour.
and SMS Haters, latched on to it...

Reality is that currently, STF & Co. is claiming, Nass once conferred cannot be revoked, while SMS & Co. is saying not true and Nass can be changed...
To support their claim they have referenced this Risala of Imam Amir as which was released to address Mustali-Nizari Schism.
How is this possible and what theological reasons can be given, should be best explained by respective Dai's... STF & Co. are going for Not a credible risala argument...which works in their favour and honestly keeps their claim relevant(if they succeed in proving that Nass was earlier done on SKQ) Nobody would dare ask anything to SMS & Co. to avoid answering such questions and hide many other explosive things that have come up during this case... both STF and SMS gave a joint request to limit only 25 attendants in the court... also media has been barred from publishing everything...
A few replies/questions related to the highlighted section of your replies.

I understand that Prof. Stewart is from STF side. And, I will not say I am completely objective either; most of us come to this forum with our biases. Should do us all a favor to remember that :D

----------------------------- you say -------------------
Reality is that currently, STF & Co. is claiming, Nass once conferred cannot be revoked, while SMS & Co. is saying not true and Nass can be changed...
-------------------------------------------------
That itself should make us wonder. SMS said for the longest time that no nass was done on SKQ. Now he is desperately trying to prove that a nass once done can be changed. What does that say?

As I see it, it means that very likely a credible nass was done on SKQ, and that is why a large part of the strategy of SMS hinges on showing that a nass once done can be changed. That is just my thinking.

----------------------------- you say -------------------
Nobody would dare ask anything to SMS & Co. to avoid answering such questions and hide many other explosive things that have come up during this case... both STF and SMS gave a joint request to limit only 25 attendants in the court... also media has been barred from publishing everything...
-------------------------------------------------

I am not privy to anything, but my sense is the following: STF and FD have all the interest in this case getting more visibility and coming to a conclusion quickly. So the restrictions, and that nobody in the community talks about it is all likely from SMS side.

I personally have at least a few specific questions fro SMS. I wish they/SAIF53/Adam anybody can answer. 3 to start with:

1.) STF said about 3+ years back that SMB was without any significant food or water for 48 hours before entering the London hospital. Is that true? Can you tell the community about it?

2.) You said nass was never done on SKQ. Why are you trying to prove so hard now that a nass once done can be changed? Why? Also, why would you quote a book written by a person called al-majdu when SMB said that his (al-majdu's) word should be taken with caution?

3.) Please give your version of the response related to this book which says that between Imam Husain and Imam Hasan, one Imam killed the other.
They are not accepting Nass was done on SKQ, it is one of the issue framed by the court based on the suit filed by plaintiff and initial response by the defendant.

It's like, we are not accepting nass was ever conferred upon you, but even if you claim so to be, of which only you are the witness of, SMB conferred nass upon me which is valid and hence that means Nass was changed, and there is precedence for that.. look here is the book Iqa Sawa'iqa al-irgham.

UnhappyBohra
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:23 pm

Re: Sticky: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#2501

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:22 pm

malgudidays wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:39 am
dal-chaval-palidu wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:27 pm


A few replies/questions related to the highlighted section of your replies.

I understand that Prof. Stewart is from STF side. And, I will not say I am completely objective either; most of us come to this forum with our biases. Should do us all a favor to remember that :D

----------------------------- you say -------------------
Reality is that currently, STF & Co. is claiming, Nass once conferred cannot be revoked, while SMS & Co. is saying not true and Nass can be changed...
-------------------------------------------------
That itself should make us wonder. SMS said for the longest time that no nass was done on SKQ. Now he is desperately trying to prove that a nass once done can be changed. What does that say?

As I see it, it means that very likely a credible nass was done on SKQ, and that is why a large part of the strategy of SMS hinges on showing that a nass once done can be changed. That is just my thinking.

----------------------------- you say -------------------
Nobody would dare ask anything to SMS & Co. to avoid answering such questions and hide many other explosive things that have come up during this case... both STF and SMS gave a joint request to limit only 25 attendants in the court... also media has been barred from publishing everything...
-------------------------------------------------

I am not privy to anything, but my sense is the following: STF and FD have all the interest in this case getting more visibility and coming to a conclusion quickly. So the restrictions, and that nobody in the community talks about it is all likely from SMS side.

I personally have at least a few specific questions fro SMS. I wish they/SAIF53/Adam anybody can answer. 3 to start with:

1.) STF said about 3+ years back that SMB was without any significant food or water for 48 hours before entering the London hospital. Is that true? Can you tell the community about it?

2.) You said nass was never done on SKQ. Why are you trying to prove so hard now that a nass once done can be changed? Why? Also, why would you quote a book written by a person called al-majdu when SMB said that his (al-majdu's) word should be taken with caution?

3.) Please give your version of the response related to this book which says that between Imam Husain and Imam Hasan, one Imam killed the other.
They are not accepting Nass was done on SKQ, it is one of the issue framed by the court based on the suit filed by plaintiff and initial response by the defendant.

It's like, we are not accepting nass was ever conferred upon you, but even if you claim so to be, of which only you are the witness of, SMB conferred nass upon me which is valid and hence that means Nass was changed, and there is precedence for that.. look here is the book Iqa Sawa'iqa al-irgham.
Except that Iqa Sawa’qa al-irgham has at least 99 versions of it’s manuscript and the one MS and gang brought to court precisely had the problematic claim around murderous imams. So it is not as if the defendant can claim that - while some versions may have been corrupted HE has the uncorrupted version!

Also ANYbody who has any knowledge of how imamat is determined, should know that it is determined AT birth - according to our doctrine. How are you going to change THAT?! MS has basically forsaken our doctrine by this claim. Or perhaps his followers are following a new one. Whatever MS and followers may claim to be, they are not Dawoodi Bohras.

How can you bring something to court without reading the whole text?!! Talk about cherry picking! It seems as though they could only find this currupted text to substantiate their claim...whoever said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing must have had these dumbasses in mind.

Also since Malgudi days brought it up... Dr Stewart unequivocally established many precedents of private nass. So yes, SKQ is more than credible as a witness to a nass on himself.

malgudidays
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:47 am

Re: Sticky: Dawoodi Bohra's Succession of Dai Case in Mumbai High Court

#2502

Unread post by malgudidays » Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:23 am

UnhappyBohra wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:22 pm
malgudidays wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:39 am


They are not accepting Nass was done on SKQ, it is one of the issue framed by the court based on the suit filed by plaintiff and initial response by the defendant.

It's like, we are not accepting nass was ever conferred upon you, but even if you claim so to be, of which only you are the witness of, SMB conferred nass upon me which is valid and hence that means Nass was changed, and there is precedence for that.. look here is the book Iqa Sawa'iqa al-irgham.
Except that Iqa Sawa’qa al-irgham has at least 99 versions of it’s manuscript and the one MS and gang brought to court precisely had the problematic claim around murderous imams. So it is not as if the defendant can claim that - while some versions may have been corrupted HE has the uncorrupted version!

Also ANYbody who has any knowledge of how imamat is determined, should know that it is determined AT birth - according to our doctrine. How are you going to change THAT?! MS has basically forsaken our doctrine by this claim. Or perhaps his followers are following a new one. Whatever MS and followers may claim to be, they are not Dawoodi Bohras.

How can you bring something to court without reading the whole text?!! Talk about cherry picking! It seems as though they could only find this currupted text to substantiate their claim...whoever said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing must have had these dumbasses in mind.

Also since Malgudi days brought it up... Dr Stewart unequivocally established many precedents of private nass. So yes, SKQ is more than credible as a witness to a nass on himself.
I don't think any of the suppossed 99 version says that nauzobillah one Imam killed another..rather all the versions mention that some people are of this belief and then reprimands them... and whether one likes it or not this risala is indeed commissioned by Imam Amir as, as far change of nass is considered. Stf followers should ask him and sms followers should ask him..they are both claiming to be Dai of Imam... they should explain how is this possible theologically.. just declaring the book non credible is chickening out...