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

[dal-chaval-palidu]

If you type Badri Lacewala in google, one of the links that comes up takes us to the facebook page of Sahar Sheikh. I am posting 2 screen shots from that page.

What is this that he is referring to? He says: "In hon'able highcourt, Bombay, isn't it sinful to attempt to corrupt the judiciary law? Mr.Badri Lacewala and @shahzadehussain son of present Sydena Muffadal Saifuddin are involved? What should be done if audio and video proof are possesed? What if ones life is in danger? Views??"

Does anyone have any idea about what is going on?


Is this guy credible? I hope that no harm comes to him. Is this in anyway even related to the Badri Lacewala disappearence? Did he try to do something wrong, and "disappeared" to prevent any arrest? Remote chance, but who knows.

[momeenbhai]

The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel has scheduled the further cross-examination of Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb for five further days on 20th and 21st June, and on 3rd, 4th, and 5th July 2018.

[momeenbhai]

any update? just want to see Indian judiciary stand.

[dal-chaval-palidu]

There is a wikipedia page on the Chandabhoy Galla Case. It looks recent, and the English is somewhat sub-par.

Wonder why somebody made an entry on it now. How authentic are all the claims in it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandabhoy_Galla_Case
---------------------------------------------- below is the current write-up ------------------------------------------


The Chandabhoy Galla Case is celebrated case in the history of religion where a human being is challenged for representing God on earth being infallible and immaculate. The case was filed during British rule in India by Sir Thomas Strangman, the Advocate General of Mumbai at the behest of Adamjee Pirbhai family members against Dawoodi Bohra 51st Dai Syedna Taher Saifuddin. The case was filed in 1917AD and decided in 1921AD. The claim was based on the belief of Imam as representative of the Prophet, and through him the representative of God, having withdrawn from the world, someone must represent him, and so ultimately the Deity on earth. The Dai, according to community religious belief, is that representative. The ownership of the Chandabhoy ‘Galla’( box kept for religious offerings) was challenged on the plea of improper succession. Issues raised, however, were of far greater significance than the properties included in the case. The ownership was decided in favor of Syedna, arguing succession proper.[1][2]

The case was also historic in the sense that similar case was put up in the court of Mughal emperor Akbar, in year 1591AD, where representation was challenged on the legal point of proper accountability and proper succession resulting in royal farman(order) issued in favor of 27th Dai Dawood Bin Qutubshah.[3] In 2014, similar case moved to the high court in Mumbai to decide, valid succession of 53rd Syedna (Dai) of the Dawoodi Bohra community.[4] Sir Thomas Strangman observes in his book "Indian Courts and Characters", the case is remarkable not only for its length, but for the amazing claims put forward on behalf of the 'Mullaji'(Syedna Taher), the like of which have never been put forward in any Court of Law.[5]

In the Chandabhoy Galla Case, It was contended that 47th Dai Syedna Abdul Qadir Najmuddin was not validly appointed as Dai al Mutlaq. If this contention was upheld by the court, then the position of all subsequent Dai al Mutlaqs would be put into question. Syedna Taher Saifuddin's claim to be the Dai al Mutlaq was dependent upon the court deciding that Syedna Najmuddin was validly appointed. The court upheld the succession of Taher Saifuddin proper. Considering all the circumstances, the judge held that all the properties in respect of which the declaration was sought were devoted to charitable purposes and that the Mullaji(Syedna Taher) was a trustee thereof.[6]

During Proceeding of the case, remark of British judge Mr. Justice Marten is important on clarifying religious trust. The judge observed "high-ranking people could be trusted not to commit criminal breach of trust; but that did not mean that they were beyond the pale of the law. For example, His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, could not conceivably commit a criminal offence; but he was nevertheless subject to the criminal law, and this fact involved no slur. So, too, in theory the Mullaji Saheb was amenable to the criminal and civil law of this country, though it was unthinkable that he would commit any offence. But the existence of this civil restraint is no more a slur upon an honest trustee, than the existence of criminal restraint is upon an honest citizen. The test of a trust is not whether the alleged trustee can ever commit a breach of trust, which is what the defendants' contention in effect amounts to."[7]

During testimony of Syedna Taher, he clarified about knowledge classes of 'Zahir', 'Tavil' and, 'Hakikat' present in community. First two are known to many but third one namely 'Hakikat' content some religious truths known to very few. Some of which are known to only 2 or 3 persons in community, and there is also knowledge which is available with Dai only, and he gets it from his predecessor Dai.[8]

[dal-chaval-palidu]

Update from Fatemi Dawat Legal.

http://fatemidawatlegal.com/category/bo ... tory-suit/

.........................

Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb was then shown another extract from the same book (al-Hidaya al-Amiriyya) by Mr. Chagla and asked whether he agrees that the 20th Imam says in that book that circumstances may dictate that an appointment of a successor to the Imam or Dai that is already made by nass, might not be appropriate. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb disagreed with that suggestion and replied that the book does not say that.

Mr. Chagla asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether he had heard of a Hasan bin Ali Khan bin Taj. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb responded that he had, and that this person was a leader of a revolt against the 29th Dai. Mr. Chagla then produced an extract from a book al-Muzayyanah al-Muwashhah fi Sirah Syedna Dawood bin Qutubshah, which Mr. Chagla asked if it was authored by the same Hasan bin Ali Khan bin Taj.

Mr. Chagla showed Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb an English translation of an extract from that book and asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb to verify the correctness of the translation. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb responded that he could not tell without seeing the entire book. Mr. Chagla then showed Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb the original book.

Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb, having seen the book, noted that there is a notation on the last page that says that the book is defective and there was an endorsement to that effect in the original book. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb also pointed out that that the translation is based on an inaccurate transcription done by the Defendant in which an important word has been added that is not in the original text. The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel marked the inaccuracy in blue ball pen in the Court’s copy of the exhibit and then asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether the discrepancy changes the meaning, or results in an obvious and meaningless error. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb said that this additional word which has been added gives a completely different meaning to the text to justify an incorrect translation that suggests that there is an option to change (nass), whereas this is not what the original says. Mr. Chagla asked if he could identify the word that he said had been added or altered, which Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb identified.

The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel has scheduled the further cross-examination of Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb for three days on 3rd, 4th, and 5th July 2018.

-------------------------------------------------------------

If the above stated is accurate, can some legal minds tell us how the court would react to it? Would the court take a serious view of this?

Or, is this a case of a book which only exists with only those 2 sides (MS and STF), and hence in the worst case it becomes a case of "they said, we said"? Or, can they ask for the original and test the addition of the word to alter its meaning?

And if STS said in court a 100 years back that nass cannot be changed, does that not override anything else said about 200-300 years back?

[ajamali]

Take a step back and look at the bigger picture here. Once again MS produced a book by a dushman as evidence - and a book that is so unreliable that they were able to produce two versions of it!! Yet in previous sessions they were reluctant to enter into evidence the bayan of the51st and 52nd dai. At the same time they are not hesitant to invoke the names of said dais when it serves their purpose!

Update from Fatemi Dawat Legal.

http://fatemidawatlegal.com/category/bo ... tory-suit/

.........................

Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb was then shown another extract from the same book (al-Hidaya al-Amiriyya) by Mr. Chagla and asked whether he agrees that the 20th Imam says in that book that circumstances may dictate that an appointment of a successor to the Imam or Dai that is already made by nass, might not be appropriate. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb disagreed with that suggestion and replied that the book does not say that.

Mr. Chagla asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether he had heard of a Hasan bin Ali Khan bin Taj. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb responded that he had, and that this person was a leader of a revolt against the 29th Dai. Mr. Chagla then produced an extract from a book al-Muzayyanah al-Muwashhah fi Sirah Syedna Dawood bin Qutubshah, which Mr. Chagla asked if it was authored by the same Hasan bin Ali Khan bin Taj.

Mr. Chagla showed Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb an English translation of an extract from that book and asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb to verify the correctness of the translation. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb responded that he could not tell without seeing the entire book. Mr. Chagla then showed Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb the original book.

Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb, having seen the book, noted that there is a notation on the last page that says that the book is defective and there was an endorsement to that effect in the original book. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb also pointed out that that the translation is based on an inaccurate transcription done by the Defendant in which an important word has been added that is not in the original text. The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel marked the inaccuracy in blue ball pen in the Court’s copy of the exhibit and then asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether the discrepancy changes the meaning, or results in an obvious and meaningless error. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb said that this additional word which has been added gives a completely different meaning to the text to justify an incorrect translation that suggests that there is an option to change (nass), whereas this is not what the original says. Mr. Chagla asked if he could identify the word that he said had been added or altered, which Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb identified.

The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel has scheduled the further cross-examination of Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb for three days on 3rd, 4th, and 5th July 2018.

-------------------------------------------------------------

If the above stated is accurate, can some legal minds tell us how the court would react to it? Would the court take a serious view of this?

Or, is this a case of a book which only exists with only those 2 sides (MS and STF), and hence in the worst case it becomes a case of "they said, we said"? Or, can they ask for the original and test the addition of the word to alter its meaning?

And if STS said in court a 100 years back that nass cannot be changed, does that not override anything else said about 200-300 years back?

[HJK]

Take a step back and look at the bigger picture here. Once again MS produced a book by a dushman as evidence - and a book that is so unreliable that they were able to produce two versions of it!! Yet in previous sessions they were reluctant to enter into evidence the bayan of the51st and 52nd dai. At the same time they are not hesitant to invoke the names of said dais when it serves their purpose!

Update from Fatemi Dawat Legal.

http://fatemidawatlegal.com/category/bo ... tory-suit/

.........................

Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb was then shown another extract from the same book (al-Hidaya al-Amiriyya) by Mr. Chagla and asked whether he agrees that the 20th Imam says in that book that circumstances may dictate that an appointment of a successor to the Imam or Dai that is already made by nass, might not be appropriate. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb disagreed with that suggestion and replied that the book does not say that.

Mr. Chagla asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether he had heard of a Hasan bin Ali Khan bin Taj. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb responded that he had, and that this person was a leader of a revolt against the 29th Dai. Mr. Chagla then produced an extract from a book al-Muzayyanah al-Muwashhah fi Sirah Syedna Dawood bin Qutubshah, which Mr. Chagla asked if it was authored by the same Hasan bin Ali Khan bin Taj.

Mr. Chagla showed Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb an English translation of an extract from that book and asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb to verify the correctness of the translation. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb responded that he could not tell without seeing the entire book. Mr. Chagla then showed Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb the original book.

Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb, having seen the book, noted that there is a notation on the last page that says that the book is defective and there was an endorsement to that effect in the original book. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb also pointed out that that the translation is based on an inaccurate transcription done by the Defendant in which an important word has been added that is not in the original text. The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel marked the inaccuracy in blue ball pen in the Court’s copy of the exhibit and then asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether the discrepancy changes the meaning, or results in an obvious and meaningless error. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb said that this additional word which has been added gives a completely different meaning to the text to justify an incorrect translation that suggests that there is an option to change (nass), whereas this is not what the original says. Mr. Chagla asked if he could identify the word that he said had been added or altered, which Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb identified.

The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel has scheduled the further cross-examination of Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb for three days on 3rd, 4th, and 5th July 2018.

-------------------------------------------------------------

If the above stated is accurate, can some legal minds tell us how the court would react to it? Would the court take a serious view of this?

Or, is this a case of a book which only exists with only those 2 sides (MS and STF), and hence in the worst case it becomes a case of "they said, we said"? Or, can they ask for the original and test the addition of the word to alter its meaning?

And if STS said in court a 100 years back that nass cannot be changed, does that not override anything else said about 200-300 years back?

You just know the 3 or 4 odd answers which are given here by the FD people. Dont jump to conclusions without even knowing what happened before and after that.

[dal-chaval-palidu]

okay Sir, pray tell us what happened before and after that.

[ajamali]

okay Sir, pray tell us what happened before and after that.

Good point. We have not heard a peep from MS about what’s going on in court. Could it be because they have declared Fateh Mubeen 17 times already?
Score for transparency - Fatemi Dawat: 1 MS: Negative 1 (for spreading false glorious victory messages!)

[chocoman]

Is it true that Malekul Ashtar B.S is claiming daihood and has also set up a small community of his followers in US? Please advise

[momeenbhai]

no updates from hajamali?

[momeenbhai]

Is it true that Malekul Ashtar B.S is claiming daihood and has also set up a small community of his followers in US? Please advise

was in US for last 2 weeks heard nothing about it.

[ajamali]

Is it true that Malekul Ashtar B.S is claiming daihood and has also set up a small community of his followers in US? Please advise

was in US for last 2 weeks heard nothing about it.

Because if Malik happened to declare himself dai (a cockamamie notion if ever there was one....) You would definitely hear about it.....especially if you were in the US....cause these days you need to be co-located on a 5000 mile wide continent to hear about these things....because social media does not exist.... Moron!

[momeenbhai]

was in US for last 2 weeks heard nothing about it.

Because if Malik happened to declare himself dai (a cockamamie notion if ever there was one....) You would definitely hear about it.....especially if you were in the US....cause these days you need to be co-located on a 5000 mile wide continent to hear about these things....because social media does not exist.... Moron!

I always depend on ground news, because kazzab like you are known for fake news these days. what a moron.

[momeenbhai]

Hajamali your master deleted law website?

Seems like its not working today.

[kseeker]

What's your take on it?

Here is the paper for reference:

ConflictingImamates(1).pdf

(Again: Ahmed Ali Raj says that there is no need for this principle for da'i al-mutlaq. I strongly disagree. The position of the da'i al-mutlaq in the time of satr is on par with the imam, except in some theoretical ways. Hence, what applies to an imam, applies to a da'i al-mutlaq in satr).

The Dai-al-Mutlaq is the highest rank today who are not behind a veil therefore his position is the highest until the Imam's zahoor. Saying that just because he is the highest ranked person in sight means that his responsibilities and position is at par with the Imam is completely incorrect. I am sure you know the Imam has 4 other ranks under him which are above the Dai-al-Mutlaq who are in pardah with him .. the gap between these two ranks is massive... the Dai is not Masoom.. the Dai is not all knowing of the earth.. the Dai can make mistakes, the Dai can change Nass (this was not to support Muffy - he's a crook), The Dai cannot call for Jihad, The Dai cannot collect Khumus (which the past 3 have been shamelessly doing), The Dai is NOT part of the Misaq (Misaq is only for Imam)...

You are a very learned person and I do respect you.. Till date the 4 Sheikhs are cursed... this hatred is not because they did not believe in Dais after number 46, thousands have done that.... it is because they claimed they had books which could prove it; books which STS had gone on a rampage to burn and destroy... thus the need to call them mad, fools, the devil and say laanat on them.... and also because they humiliated Yousuf Najmuddin ; that was not a very wise move...

[momeenbhai]

Hajamali your master deleted law website?

Seems like its not working yet.

[momeenbhai]

The Dai is NOT part of the Misaq (Misaq is only for Imam)...


This is why I always just give misaaq to Imam, rest is taqiya on my part.

[momeenbhai]

I am under misaaq of Haq naa Imam and waiting for his zuhoor to destroy these demi gods created in recent years by some fools.

[Reporter]

High fraud at high court...

[Moiz_Dhaanu]

What needs to be done so that this be investigated by proper authorities like CBI?

This is some serious allegation, and that too with hard hitting evidence..DMBS is royally screwed now, unless he wiggles out of this one too like a snake.


If this does not wake up the gullible bohras from their "Slumber of Inaction" and of those who are on the sidelines (still unsure of the Imposter DMBS) , then only Allah can help them now

[momeenbhai]

for bohra this all will be HOLY because its for the HOLY CAUSE of saving dawat.

[dal-chaval-palidu]

Even today this case is in the news. Anybody can translate this newspaper article into english?

And why are the Indian authorities NOT taking any action?

Anybody talking about this among the gathering of Bohra's in Indore?

[objectiveobserver53]

Even today this case is in the news. Anybody can translate this newspaper article into english?

And why are the Indian authorities NOT taking any action?

Anybody talking about this among the gathering of Bohra's in Indore?

MS tried to buy the judge off?! Why am I not surprised.

[yfm]

What is the latest on the Court Case? Muffadal verses Qutbi Case.

[allbird]

So who is the dai ?? its been 5 years now. How long do we have to wait. Please someone declare select new dai for Bohras NOW....

[objectiveobserver53]

So who is the dai ?? its been 5 years now. How long do we have to wait. Please someone declare select new dai for Bohras NOW....

The judge is slowly beginning to see that dhongi baba has massively pulled wool over the eyes of half a million innocents. Cross examination of STF is nearing an end. MS hope that they would win the case on the basis of just the cross examination has been shattered. MS kingmakers will have to nominate someone to come and lie through their teeth in the court of law. Inshaallah Truth shall prevail soon. Ameen.

[Mamluk-E-Syedna]

Why has the FD website removed all items rated to Legal Update on this case? Since you seem to imply that you know as to what happened at the recent cross examination of STF, why not provide an update here? You also seem to imply that judge has agreed to have a proxy for SMS come to the court on his behalf for testifying. Is that true? Looking forward to your quick response.

[Babu Shia]

Biradar Mamluk-E-Syedna : Dawedar TF and party has lost the legal case and ran away from public .

[UnhappyBohra]

Biradar Mamluk-E-Syedna : Dawedar TF and party has lost the legal case and ran away from public .

Not true. The case continues to be argued in Bombay High Court. STF’s cross examination is nearing conclusion. He has answered over a thousand questions truthfully. It will be Dawedar MS’s turn (or his nominee’s ) to be cross examined soon. Inshaallah Truth will prevail.