Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

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.
araz5253
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:18 pm

Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#1

Unread post by araz5253 » Thu Feb 19, 2015 3:50 am

Such a situation was initiated in 1591 when the 26th Syedna – Dawood Burhanuddin – died. A spat broke out between the two claimants and a case was filed at the Royal Court of Akbar by the claimant Dawood travelling all the way to Delhi from Gujarat while Sulaiman stayed put in Gujarat. The Mughal court declared that Dawood bin Qutubshah as the new Syedna but the other claimant Sulaiman bin Hasan eventually split into what is now known as Sulaymani Bohra.
Later a deputy leader in Yemen and Grandson of a previous Dai discovered documents showing that Sulaiman bin Hasan was the official successor with the seal of the previous Dai on the document, this was later rejected by Dawoodis claiming forgery<ref name="Mullahs" />

http://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/u ... 11674.aspx

Sceptical
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:38 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#2

Unread post by Sceptical » Thu Feb 19, 2015 10:50 am

araz5253 wrote:A spat broke out between the two claimants and a case was filed at the Royal Court of Akbar by the claimant Dawood travelling all the way to Delhi from Gujarat while Sulaiman stayed put in Gujarat
:roll:
Syedna Dawood Qutubshah RA didn't travel. Instead, he remained even hidden for years from his enemies.
Syedna Sheikh Adam RA was at that time one of his hudood and he led dawat in zahir with other hudoods.

Sulaiman travel many times from Yemen to Gujrat.

think
Posts: 1838
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:15 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#3

Unread post by think » Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:39 am

begs the question, who is right and who is wrong.
to know who is right refer quraan surah 91 ayat 7,8,9 and 10.

seeker110
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:01 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#4

Unread post by seeker110 » Thu Feb 19, 2015 2:20 pm

Or take a fat envelope and ask Modi .

Ozdundee
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:57 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#5

Unread post by Ozdundee » Thu Feb 19, 2015 10:36 pm

Sceptical wrote:
araz5253 wrote:A spat broke out between the two claimants and a case was filed at the Royal Court of Akbar by the claimant Dawood travelling all the way to Delhi from Gujarat while Sulaiman stayed put in Gujarat
:roll:
Syedna Dawood Qutubshah RA didn't travel. Instead, he remained even hidden for years from his enemies.
Syedna Sheikh Adam RA was at that time one of his hudood and he led dawat in zahir with other hudoods.

Sulaiman travel many times from Yemen to Gujrat.
Skeptical when you state Sy. Dawoodi did not travel and Sy Sulaiman travelled many times whose witnessed and the reliability of the record is it ? can it be independently verified

Kaka Akela
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:01 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#6

Unread post by Kaka Akela » Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:03 am

[quote] Ozdundee on Thu Feb 19, 2015 10:36 pm

Sceptical wrote:
araz5253 wrote:
A spat broke out between the two claimants and a case was filed at the Royal Court of Akbar by the claimant Dawood travelling all the way to Delhi from Gujarat while Sulaiman stayed put in Gujarat

:roll:
Syedna Dawood Qutubshah RA didn't travel. Instead, he remained even hidden for years from his enemies.
Syedna Sheikh Adam RA was at that time one of his hudood and he led dawat in zahir with other hudoods.

Sulaiman travel many times from Yemen to Gujrat.


Skeptical when you state Sy. Dawoodi did not travel and Sy Sulaiman travelled many times whose witnessed and the reliability of the record is it ? can it be independently verified[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bro Ozdundee: What skeptical said is incomplete, the complete story according to the history book of Mausam e bahaar is that Syedna Dawood went into seclusion for a period of time, Akbar badshah wanted to hear his side of the story as he had already heard the story from Suleiman. Syedna Shaikh adam Safiuddin went to Lahore, met with Akbar and got a farman for Syedna Dawood's safety as the subedar and other locals were bent upon harming the Dai. After he got that farman from akbar, Syedna Dawood did travel to Lahore with Akbar's military escort. Every morning he used to visit akbar's darbar and sit their reciting Quran, and Akbar got mesmerized with his piety and spirituality and after hearing his case made a decision in Syedna dawood's favor and sent him back to Ahmedabad with great qafila of his troops and awarded Syedna with many honors, also sending note to local subedars to not bother Syedna or his followers anymore.
this is full story. it is part of our history, I have no idea how you can verify independently other than reading history books. good luck in verification and if you discover something different let us know too.

zinger
Posts: 2043
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:40 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#7

Unread post by zinger » Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:20 am

Has anybody even seen the stupidity of the correspondent? needs to be slapped and brought back to his/her senses!!!

Moron has mixed up all the names. that alone was enough for me to trash this piece of news

Ozdundee
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:57 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#8

Unread post by Ozdundee » Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:34 am

Kaka A a bit of scrutiny in the interest of knowledge

so it is our story unbiased unadulterated?

obviously SulaimanI have their version

does one know if any archives have independent history referencing this matter from the logs or biographers of Akbar?

something you mention that is intriguing, Akbar was mesmerised and endorsed Sy Dawood , what if he was not mesmerised and did not endorse would we still recognise him Sy Dawood as Diai?

I know for million strong Dawoodi Bohra like my parents and ancestors the story is "fact" and convenient enough to soldier on but my ideology is.based on , some level of multiple witnesses, rational, logic and practicality.

Kaka Akela
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:01 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#9

Unread post by Kaka Akela » Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:28 pm

Br. Ozdundee:
I have no idea or knowledge about independent archived blogs or biographers or historians in the reign of Akbar badshah. I know that our dawat treasury has the farman of Akbar's decision in favor of Syedna Dawood in Persian, and I am sure the succeeding Dai(s) may have reiterated these events in their risalas which are available to scholars with raza of the current dai. I narrated the history of what I remember reading in this book in lisan e dawat a long time ago. I regret that I offended Bro Zinger who is more knowledgeable and remembers everything flawlesslyt but will not impart his knowledge here but only calls names after someones feeble attempt to offer what he remembers. thanks Bro Zinger.

Biradar
Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#10

Unread post by Biradar » Fri Feb 20, 2015 5:01 pm

Kaka Akela: I don't think zinger was criticizing you. His comment was on the original article in the "news"paper. Your answer is just fine, and I sure zinger agrees.

The question of verifying from independent sources is a good one, but very hard to do. The Mughals probably handled hundreds of cases and unless one has access to some archive with all cases documented, it would be very hard to verify. A more interesting question is to see what the Sulaimai documents say. Obviously, there will be some bias in historical records, but there is no need to question the overall story. One can dismiss things like "Akbar was mesmerized" as pious innovation, but the fact of the case, and the trip with the Sayedna made to Akhbar's court is very likely true.

Now, I have a general point. There are people who will raise these types of "independent evidence" question. I say, this is a good thing. However, lets start at the beginning, and ask the same about the origins of Islam. For example, is there any independent evidence as to the minute details recorded about the prophet's life in Islamic literature? (His earliest biography was written 80 years after he died, by a person who never met him). For example, are there independent unbiased records by non-Muslims? Brief answer: no.

Also, as we know, a large fraction of the hadith literature was forged. This led to the "science" of determining the chain of narration, and trying to figure out the character and trustworthiness of the narrators. Note that even if the characters involved were flawless, it does not mean that a particular hadith is true, as human memory can play tricks, and probably the stories got embellished in the re-telling.

Finally, skepticism, although good must stop somewhere. There must be someone we can trust, otherwise historical knowledge is impossible. An example: I ask the skeptic: Are you sure the guy your mom claims is your father, is really your father? Are there independent witnesses? Did you do DNA test to verify? Can you supply us with the results?

(Incidentally, I do not mean the last thing as an insult. All I want to point out is that we can question everything. At some point, one must stop and accept something based on preponderance of evidence. As far as I can tell, the overall historical narrative of the Bohras is accurate. There are obvious embellishments and exaggerations, but this is true for anything. Hence, it is best to believe but not to be too sure of one's knowledge, and accept that the state of incomplete and unsure knowledge is the best humans can strive for).

Ozdundee
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:57 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#11

Unread post by Ozdundee » Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:24 pm

Biradar thank you for reading my contributions to other topics and agreeing that all scriptures are not statemeets of evidence with solid proof.. Influence is best measured when the other person through self realisation endorses it. I am complementing you.
Finally, skepticism, although good must stop somewhere. There must be someone we can trust, otherwise historical knowledge is impossible. An example: I ask the skeptic: Are you sure the guy your mom claims is your father, is really your father? Are there independent witnesses? Did you do DNA test to verify? Can you supply us with the results?
let me respond to this and try to apply the response to reason for skeptism in doctrinal ideology , the response will be used by my opponents as facts but it is logical simulation .

if my father was abusive and exploitative, eat the better stuff and treat me like an outsider, I would ask my mother why dad is as is, is he my real dad or is not because he treats me like someone not his own. if my mother was of questionable character and my brother sisters were in fighting and splitting , some had blond hair I would be skeptical and want to know my roots.

so my reason is what I see today, dynasty, abuse ,oppression, amassing wealth, i or my matesor decendents even if we were most capable with merit cannot ever hope to be a da'i , mazoon, mukasir and these same oppressors censor ideology that is taught and propagated. Do my diai behave, dress, look like my true Syed the blond remark?

where I am not skeptical, my mother and father loved me like no other, my features are like them, I will inherit their legacy...etc etc

also I am not skeptical about my doctor, teacher, boss, local politician, mahatma gandhi, my Prophet regardless of historical commentary those who like him or not as overall he has created something I like....

Dawoodi diai. ..ummh. ..look around these blogs...really they deserve my unquestioned trust ....don't think so...if you or others have so be it the world is big enough

araz5253
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#12

Unread post by araz5253 » Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:13 am

See the book jonah blank he has also recorded that dawood travelled to delhi to get himself declared as dai and akbar prefered an Indian rather than a yemeni based. JOnah is clear on this.

Sceptical
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:38 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#13

Unread post by Sceptical » Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:28 am

araz5253 wrote:See the book jonah blank he has also recorded that dawood travelled to delhi to get himself declared as dai and akbar prefered an Indian rather than a yemeni based. JOnah is clear on this.
wrong. wrong and wrong. :shock: :shock:

1) travel :
Jonah Blank wrote about 26th Dai Syedna Dawood bin Ajab shah, not Qutub Shah (see p41) :
" Mughal offices continued to take anti-shia measures... so Syedna Daud ibn Ajabshah traveled to akbar's court to plead his case before the emperor personnally ... "

2 ) indian vs Yemeni : (see p42)
You did'nt read Blank's book. When he writes "in favor of an indian claimant", he is just quoting the Sulaimani version.
"The Sulaimanis contend that Daud (ibn Qutub Shah) was only supposed to be the placeholder for Sulaiman [...] the judhment of Akbar's tribunal is ascribed to prejudice in favor of an indian over a Yemeni one, and Sulaimanis believe [...] that their Dai was poisoned."

araz5253
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#14

Unread post by araz5253 » Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:49 am

So what the HT article itself has mistakes and has wrongly taken names, nevertheless the point to make here is that a past DAWEDAR went all the way to Delhi in those days to get himself declared as Dai and he was successful too, So why blame this current dawedar, whose case is also stronger than the other dawedar muffy?

And actually it proves that none of the dawedars were true nor recieved any "taed" from Imam,, they were making things up to fool the poor gullible bohras. Untill a Jafarbhai came and reformed most of the bohras to Sunni Islam. Actually this goes ever earlier , as even the so called later Imams were fraudulent representatives and had no authorization from Ahlebayt. The real Imamat actually ended with the death of Jafar Sadik AS AND politically it ended with Ali AS himself.

Sceptical
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:38 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#15

Unread post by Sceptical » Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:37 am

araz5253 wrote: And actually it proves that none of the dawedars were true nor recieved any "taed" from Imam,, they were making things up to fool the poor gullible bohras. Untill a Jafarbhai came and reformed most of the bohras to Sunni Islam. Actually this goes ever earlier , as even the so called later Imams were fraudulent representatives and had no authorization from Ahlebayt. The real Imamat actually ended with the death of Jafar Sadik AS AND politically it ended with Ali AS himself.
You are basing your allegation about Syedna Dawood RA on a non sense newspaper article and misquoting Blank's book. And now, you are trying to enlighten us that we are believing in "fake" Ismaili Imams ?
are you kidding? :lol:

araz5253
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#16

Unread post by araz5253 » Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:49 am

leave aside newspaper article, JOnah's books state it clearly , dont even care about the name of the dai ,the point is A dai went to Mughal court to get himself declared Dai using coercive means, Sulaiman did not do it. Akbar was already a heretic and even accepted all religions and made a new religion. So like now how Muffy does chaplusi of MOdi, or KQ of Bombay HC, So was the earlier dai.

Biradar
Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#17

Unread post by Biradar » Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:31 pm

Sceptical wrote:
araz5253 wrote: And actually it proves that none of the dawedars were true nor recieved any "taed" from Imam,, they were making things up to fool the poor gullible bohras. Untill a Jafarbhai came and reformed most of the bohras to Sunni Islam. Actually this goes ever earlier , as even the so called later Imams were fraudulent representatives and had no authorization from Ahlebayt. The real Imamat actually ended with the death of Jafar Sadik AS AND politically it ended with Ali AS himself.
You are basing your allegation about Syedna Dawood RA on a non sense newspaper article and misquoting Blank's book. And now, you are trying to enlighten us that we are believing in "fake" Ismaili Imams ?
are you kidding? :lol:
My friend Sceptical. I admire your patients to argue with a person with the intellect of a 12 year old. This fool, and his Master, know nothing, yet claim to know exactly what is true. It does not matter how many times you point out to him how ridiculous he sounds. He will continue to spout his nonsense, and repeat his errors. It is impossible to get anything through his thick, Salafi addled brain. I mean, his Master has been on this board for 15 years, but is still the same old ignorant fool. We should call these two the Know Nothing Party.

araz5253
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#18

Unread post by araz5253 » Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:38 pm

Mr Biradar are you an ignorant person to not understand the simple fact that how can a Dai goto a Mughal court to get himself declared Dai using coercive means, Akbar was already a heretic and even accepted all religions and made a new religion. So like now how Muffy does chaplusi of MOdi, or KQ of Bombay HC, So was the earlier dai. And so were the other claimants to Imamate.

Biradar
Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#19

Unread post by Biradar » Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:39 pm

Ozdundee wrote: also I am not skeptical about my doctor, teacher, boss, local politician, mahatma gandhi, my Prophet regardless of historical commentary those who like him or not as overall he has created something I like....
So, your only criteria to believe something is that you, Ozdundee, like it. That is fine, but please don't expect others to use you as an "Oracle of Truth". In fact, what you show is that you are not interested in the truth, but just want to "feel good". In this case, nothing can satisfy you, except your own delusions of what makes you happy. For truth, as we know, is sometimes a bitter pill to swallow. If you always want to live in a fairy-tale feel-good land, then please do so. But, when other Bohras want to do the same, please allow them that freedom. When people say they "like" burning others alive, cutting their heads off, don't question them. Stop bothering them about something they like, or, provide firm and incontestable proof for all your beliefs. If you can't, best remain silent.

Biradar
Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#20

Unread post by Biradar » Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:42 pm

araz5253 wrote:Mr Biradar are you an ignorant person to not understand the simple fact that how can a Dai goto a Mughal court to get himself declared Dai using coercive means, Akbar was already a heretic and even accepted all religions and made a new religion. So like now how Muffy does chaplusi of MOdi, or KQ of Bombay HC, So was the earlier dai. And so were the other claimants to Imamate.
Again and again you are corrected, but you keep persisting on your errors. The judgement of Akhbar or the courts is irrelevant. The point is that Bohras were being prosecuted by members of your own Know Nothing Party. Hence, the da'i had to seek redress from the rulers of those time. Even if Akhbar has said something against the Sayedna, it would not matter. He would still remain the da'i. This is exactly the same what happened with S. Qutbuddin Shaeed. He was murdered by Aurangzeb (LA). Does not mean the Sayedna was wrong. Just that Augranzeb (LA) bought him self a ticket to burn in hell for eternity.

anajmi
Posts: 13403
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#21

Unread post by anajmi » Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:30 pm

The bottom line is that for some reason, a Dai needs validation from some existing entity cause for centuries, apparently, the witness of the hidden Imam hasn't been of any use in times of dispute!!

araz5253
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#22

Unread post by araz5253 » Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:24 pm

Mr Biradar, the point is still not getting in your abde brain that your Dai had to cajole\bribe a Miyabhai to get himself declared as the Dai, Muffy did the same and staged a farce succession ceremony to declare himself as Dai using his own fathers debilitated body as a prop,and KQ went ahead expects the same using courts. Reg Aurangzeb(Rah) then I am 100 % sure that mr Qutbuddin might have done some heresies for which he was executed as punishment, the bohra history does not give the detailed charges but only says he was killed because of being "rafdi"\shia , this is a false accusation as there were many rafdis serving in high position in courts , there were shia \rafdi relatives of Aurangzeb Rah. too. Btw your lanats only turn back to yourself and actually get good hasanah for AUrangzeb Rah in hereafter! Inshallah!

anajmi
Posts: 13403
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#23

Unread post by anajmi » Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:32 pm

The easiest thing for a bohra biradar to do is to call laanat on someone. He might not believe in God and might consider the religion to be madness, but will never fail to use the same religion and God to invoke laanat. The hypocrisy of these fools is mind boggling.

Ozdundee
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:57 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#24

Unread post by Ozdundee » Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:25 pm

Biradar when I said .,, they have created institution or services I like, I think readers will understand why and when to raise doubt.....you have taken the argument off track into beheadings goodness me , but as I am enjoying the topic and don't want to derail I will pause and not brawl.

What is mind blowing revelation and thanks to the contributors that Dawoodi Bohra legacy is based on a political negotiation between a Mogul emperor and an Indian priest from Gujarat . How can I or others now ever accept anything scripted since then ? Most things will be cover ups and innovations to justify their survival and years and years of flavouring to create a sect that we now know and I have experienced live in times of Smb , sms and Skq .

This is not that I agree Suleiman is rightful or not, I don't know his story in depth but it could have been anyone ,

noor5253
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:36 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#25

Unread post by noor5253 » Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:44 am

araz5253 wrote:Mr Biradar, the point is still not getting in your abde brain that your Dai had to cajole\bribe a Miyabhai to get himself declared as the Dai, Muffy did the same and staged a farce succession ceremony to declare himself as Dai using his own fathers debilitated body as a prop,and KQ went ahead expects the same using courts. Reg Aurangzeb(Rah) then I am 100 % sure that mr Qutbuddin might have done some heresies for which he was executed as punishment, the bohra history does not give the detailed charges but only says he was killed because of being "rafdi"\shia , this is a false accusation as there were many rafdis serving in high position in courts , there were shia \rafdi relatives of Aurangzeb Rah. too. Btw your lanats only turn back to yourself and actually get good hasanah for AUrangzeb Rah in hereafter! Inshallah!
This jerk has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he is surely the yazid of the times.
You are not even a Bohra in any sense if you can give hasanah to the Yazid Aurangzeb.

So, any Bohras who will debate with you henceforth know for sure that you are todays yazid and not a bohra nor a shia but a TRUE Wahabi.
(At least we got that cleared up.....)
Regarding hasanah for Aurangzeb, he is calling out to you to accompany him in Hell .. Maybe you can be his sex slave.

araz5253
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#26

Unread post by araz5253 » Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:12 am

Mr noor are you Allah to judge who is in hell\heaven? Quran records that Jews and Christian claimed themselves to be jannati and said jahanami to prophet pbuh, but the fact happened to be viceversa, similarly who knows qutubuddin was correctly executed for heresy, humiliated in this world and also in hellfire in the next? And Aurangzeb RA a true king Awliya Allah in the shade of throne? Inspite of his ayyash father he was a pure and true Muslim atleast tried to be , his kith and kin did not prevent him to make the word of Allah supreme
In fact I have seen that wahhabi muslims are always humble and do not become Allah by claiming that they are jannati, the which is the essense of Iman. They are the torchbearers of AML Bil maroof and nahi anil munkar which makes them an eyesore for all heretics.
Last edited by araz5253 on Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sceptical
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:38 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#27

Unread post by Sceptical » Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:16 am

araz5253 wrote:he was a pure and true Muslim atleast tried to be
so what is pure Muslim ?
Auranzeb and like your other Wahabi friends : intolerance towards other religion? decapitate your opposants because they are Shia? is this true Islam for you?

araz5253
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#28

Unread post by araz5253 » Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:18 am

see my updates to the above post and thats a false accusation, many of his relatives were shias, even hindus.

Biradar
Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#29

Unread post by Biradar » Sun Feb 22, 2015 3:19 pm

Ozdundee wrote:Biradar when I said .,, they have created institution or services I like, I think readers will understand why and when to raise doubt.....you have taken the argument off track into beheadings goodness me , but as I am enjoying the topic and don't want to derail I will pause and not brawl.
My friend, as you have shown, your beliefs are only based on what you like. You are unable to provide one iota of proof for what you like. Hence, they can be dismissed without any further consideration. It was a mistake on my part to engage a person like you in the first place. However, you have revealed your lack of intellect, and hence are no longer worth of taking seriously. Regards.

zinger
Posts: 2043
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:40 am

Re: Unique case: From Akbar’s court in 1591 to Bombay HC

#30

Unread post by zinger » Mon Feb 23, 2015 12:59 am

Kaka Akela wrote:Br. Ozdundee:
I have no idea or knowledge about independent archived blogs or biographers or historians in the reign of Akbar badshah. I know that our dawat treasury has the farman of Akbar's decision in favor of Syedna Dawood in Persian, and I am sure the succeeding Dai(s) may have reiterated these events in their risalas which are available to scholars with raza of the current dai. I narrated the history of what I remember reading in this book in lisan e dawat a long time ago. I regret that I offended Bro Zinger who is more knowledgeable and remembers everything flawlesslyt but will not impart his knowledge here but only calls names after someones feeble attempt to offer what he remembers. thanks Bro Zinger.
kakaji, i have no issue with you. what have i done to offend you?
my ire was towards the correspondent, not to you. if you felt that i was calling you names, then let me assure you with all sincerity that i was not. let me also apologise to you if you felt that and if i have offended you, but once again, i am not insulting you in any way at all

that said, i have admitted i have very limited knowledge compared to many others here and i really dont understand what you meant by "calls names after someones feeble attempt to offer what he remembers. thanks Bro Zinger.".. if it WRT to the point above, then i assure you once again, my barb is not to you at all, but i apologise again if i have hurt your feelings