Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

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.
Adam
Posts: 1253
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2041

Unread post by Adam » Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:58 am

rational_guy wrote:
Adam wrote: You forgot to add "False claim to the seat of Dai Mutlaq, without any evidence".
Adam
7th Dai did nass on 8th Dai in private, so according to your definition nass on 8th Dai is also not valid. Therefore you do not believe in any Dai after the 7th Dai.

DEAR RATIONAL GUY.
Incorrect. The 7th Dai did a PRIVATE Nass amoungst a few selected WITNESSES.
Fatemi Dawat site has deliberately misinterpreted the Risala text.
Please view this link for clarification:
http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/01/25/reason-2/

It actually means, that the Nass was performed in front of a few selected witnesses, but these witnesses were not ask to testify in Public.

It DOES NOT mean that there weren't any witnesses.




UnhappyBohra
Posts: 558
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:23 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2042

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:48 am

Adam wrote:
DEAR RATIONAL GUY.
Incorrect. The 7th Dai did a PRIVATE Nass amoungst a few selected WITNESSES.
Fatemi Dawat site has deliberately misinterpreted the Risala text.
Please view this link for clarification:
http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/01/25/reason-2/

It actually means, that the Nass was performed in front of a few selected witnesses, but these witnesses were not ask to testify in Public.

It DOES NOT mean that there weren't any witnesses.

Dude the whole point of having witnesses is for them to testify. One would say that defines them. If a witness is asked not to offer testimony, there is no point in having one. You astound with your stupidity.



kimanumanu
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2043

Unread post by kimanumanu » Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:50 am

So maybe there are witnesses for the 53rd too - they just have not been asked to testify in public.



Adam
Posts: 1253
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2044

Unread post by Adam » Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:39 pm

EXACTLY!

1. There were witnesses
2. Since everyone had already accepted the 8th Dai, there wasn't a need to testify in PUBLIC (although they did privately, which is what the text refers to).

The clear fact is, The KQ team has made a mistake in their translation.
اشهد means to solicit a witness (ask them to testify), and then the text is followed by the worh ظاهرا which means PUBLIC.





Adam
Posts: 1253
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2045

Unread post by Adam » Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:40 pm

kimanumanu wrote:So maybe there are witnesses for the 53rd too - they just have not been asked to testify in public.


EXACTLY!
If there are witnesses at least, then that IS according to Dawat Doctrine.

But he has clearly said there are no witnesses. Thus, it is against Dawat Doctrine = He's not the Mansoos.




Adam
Posts: 1253
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2046

Unread post by Adam » Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:45 pm

The Focus of the matter is. THERE WERE WITNESSES
Either they were not name in public, or not needed to testify in public.
The text is فما اشهد الشهداء ظاهرا

The text DOES NOT mean "he (7th Dai) didn't appoint any witnesses".

If Only KQ had checked the dictionary, and meaning and use of the work اشهد before launching is claim, he wouldn't have dug himself a deep hole he won't be able to get out of.



Adam
Posts: 1253
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2047

Unread post by Adam » Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:51 pm

By the way.
The Court has already requested for Non Bohra Arabic Scholars from different countries to translate this paragraph.
And they have all given evidence that the text means that THERE WERE WITNESSES.

And the court has already accepted this translation.
It's just a matter of time for KQ's total defeat.




abde53
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 5:01 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2048

Unread post by abde53 » Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:54 pm

Adam Bhai
Now you are saying all the bad things about SKQ. for 50 years he was our Mazoon, my question with all the bad things why our Muqqadas Moula did not know about it and if he knew about it as we hear that he was Ghayab Na Jankaar why he did not remove him from the 2nd highest rutba in Dawat.
What happends to all our Misaq and our faith and Dai and Mazoon. was I fooled for last 50 years by my Moula and his Mazoon?



anajmi
Posts: 13402
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2049

Unread post by anajmi » Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:56 pm

Imagine that. Someone who was the mazun of the Dai for 50 years is unable to understand a simple arabic sentence, how the hell are we supposed to believe that someone like Adam has understood ayahs of the Quran?



kimanumanu
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2050

Unread post by kimanumanu » Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:17 pm

And what does the dawat doctrine say regarding who can be a witness? Can I be a witness?



ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2051

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Sat Oct 11, 2014 2:57 pm

rational_guy wrote:On the second day of Eid, Syedna TUS did 99 qurbaani in Darus Sakina. Syedna’s tradition is that the meat from qurbani is packaged and hand-delivered with the message of Syedna’s doa to households of mumineen and Muslimeen by volunteers.
The meat from qurbani was sent to many poor bohras in Mumbra but there was a blanket farman from the local jamat (Off course under instructions from MS) that they should NOT accept the qurbani meat !! Some did accept it and some didn't out of fear.



MMH
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 2:22 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2052

Unread post by MMH » Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 pm

ghulam muhammed wrote:
rational_guy wrote:On the second day of Eid, Syedna TUS did 99 qurbaani in Darus Sakina. Syedna’s tradition is that the meat from qurbani is packaged and hand-delivered with the message of Syedna’s doa to households of mumineen and Muslimeen by volunteers.
The meat from qurbani was sent to many poor bohras in Mumbra but there was a blanket farman from the local jamat (Off course under instructions from MS) that they should NOT accept the qurbani meat !! Some did accept it and some didn't out of fear.

They did not accept because there are rumours that he mixes something in attar, water and all sorts of things and then you come under his influence and swear allegiance to him...so this is meat....very potent!!!



haqniwaat
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 6:06 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2053

Unread post by haqniwaat » Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:11 pm

Adam wrote:The Focus of the matter is. THERE WERE WITNESSES
Either they were not name in public, or not needed to testify in public.
The text is فما اشهد الشهداء ظاهرا

The text DOES NOT mean "he (7th Dai) didn't appoint any witnesses".

If Only KQ had checked the dictionary, and meaning and use of the work اشهد before launching is claim, he wouldn't have dug himself a deep hole he won't be able to get out of.
Well, apparently according to you and Mr. Mufaddal and company, Syedna Burhanuddin RA made a mistake by selecting and keeping a mazoon for 50 years even though he doesn't understand simple Arabic!
So the conclusion is that Mr. Mufaddal and all who support him are saying that Syedna Burhanuddin RA not only made a mistake but he made a very big mistake! And the great aali qadr had to correct it by throwing out the previous mazoon and spewing laanat on him!
Mr. Mufaddal has made a laughing stock of the Dawoodi Bohra faith and all the people in court are laughing there heads off!



dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 532
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2054

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:07 pm

bhai haqniwaat,

You are saying and even Syedna Qutbuddin's sons say that Muffadal bhaisaheb and others did adavat (envy) and bad mouthing of Syedna Qutbuddin for 2 to 3 decades. What I am at a loss to understand is as to why there where still marriages taking place directly between these two families in the last 2 to 3 decades.

The problem that ordinary folks like us are at a loss to undertand is the credibility of such claims when there are these inter-marriages.



anajmi
Posts: 13402
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2055

Unread post by anajmi » Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:49 pm

Syedna Burhanuddin RA made a mistake by selecting and keeping a mazoon for 50 years even though he doesn't understand simple Arabic!
This is going to be Adam's standard response. "Even the prophet kept 1, 2, 3 close to him. Similarly SBM kept SKQ close to him". Of course, this is the single most idiotic statement a person with an IQ, any IQ, can make. But Adam will make it in defense of his idols. And people like you, nahaqniwaat, deserve exactly that kind of a response.



haqniwaat
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 6:06 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2056

Unread post by haqniwaat » Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:24 pm

Thanks, anajmi. I know that deep down inside you love me as your brother.
Mr. Daal Chawal, I totally understand your point, but these are the inner workings of a very large family with more than 300 members. Usually, normal families do not like to divulge their inner disfunction to the outside world. But the fact is that these marriages were more for political harmony than amicable familial ties.
Anyone who knows about qasre aali will tell you that these divisions have been in place since even before Burhanuddin Mola RA reign but were exponentially made larger after Syedna Qutbuddin TUS was created mazoon.



Biradar
Posts: 866
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2057

Unread post by Biradar » Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:03 pm

anajmi wrote:
Syedna Burhanuddin RA made a mistake by selecting and keeping a mazoon for 50 years even though he doesn't understand simple Arabic!
This is going to be Adam's standard response. "Even the prophet kept 1, 2, 3 close to him. Similarly SBM kept SKQ close to him". Of course, this is the single most idiotic statement a person with an IQ, any IQ, can make. But Adam will make it in defense of his idols. And people like you, nahaqniwaat, deserve exactly that kind of a response.
Those, like the two-pence shill Adam (LA), who make the argument that the Prophet kept "1,2,3", should be asked, if, the Prophet gave any high rutba to them, called them "My Beloved Son", appointed them to the highest position after him, and took their names in any misaq he took, etc.

All these arguments about the nass are totally moot. First, the point which must be kept in mind is: what is the credibility of people making claims. One person was the mazoon for FIFTY YEARS. Most of us are not even that old. His name was taken from the first to the last misaq SMB (RA) took. The second claimant, was scheming against the mazoon, appointed by his own father, for decades. He was subverting his own father's clear and explicit appointed rutbas. He was spreading lies and falsehoods for decades, along with his infernal uncles and mentors. And, despite their machinations, SMB (RA) kept his mazoon for 50 years. Hence, the credibility of Mr. Muffadul and his infernal mentors is zero. They can not be believed by any one who has witnessed their evil and Iblisi behavior. That is all that is required for a person with a brain. These forged letters, so-called videos and audios are worthless as the credibility of Mr. Mufadul and his infernal uncles is zero.



Al Zulfiqar
Posts: 4609
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:01 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2058

Unread post by Al Zulfiqar » Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:34 pm

Adam wrote: It's just a matter of time for KQ's total defeat.
[/color]
you seem very eager to have KQ's case thrown out because then and only then will you get your cut. mufatlal is withholding all payments to his lackeys until he can conclusively win this case, whether in the meanwhile he is sucking up as much as loot as he can is immaterial.

you can continue to spread your deception and enjoy your passionate arse-licking but will have to wait to see even one white penny for your efforts until the case is won. you have a long wait traitor.



UnhappyBohra
Posts: 558
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:23 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2059

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:09 am

Adam wrote:EXACTLY!

1. There were witnesses
2. Since everyone had already accepted the 8th Dai, there wasn't a need to testify in PUBLIC (although they did privately, which is what the text refers to).

The clear fact is, The KQ team has made a mistake in their translation.
اشهد means to solicit a witness (ask them to testify), and then the text is followed by the worh ظاهرا which means PUBLIC.


What does testifying in private mean? Do they testify in their bathrooms to themselves or to a select few? And what would be the point of that? And what is this text that you are hawking? In the STS Waaz about private nass he went to great lengths to declare that a private nass without witnesses is possible. In fact that is what he said. "Today I am going to tell you about a private nass without witnesses!" Was he lying?



humanbeing
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:30 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2060

Unread post by humanbeing » Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:29 am

kothar-kare-to-chamatkar-dusre-kare-to-atyachaar



chocoman
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:37 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2061

Unread post by chocoman » Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:05 am

Adam, do me a favour by not replying here on the forum, people are just going to take your justification of any kind as a fool. Your image has been tossed wrecklessly with atrocious insults, in fact it has become so ubiquitous people like anajmi are getting on the band wagon (now, that's an insult) save some humility for yourself.



SBM
Posts: 6214
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2062

Unread post by SBM » Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:26 am

save some humility for yourself.
Chocoman
Abdes can not have humility by definition because they are dancing on their Master's tune...



Adam
Posts: 1253
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2063

Unread post by Adam » Sun Oct 12, 2014 12:22 pm

UnhappyBohra wrote:What does testifying in private mean? Do they testify in their bathrooms to themselves or to a select few? And what would be the point of that? And what is this text that you are hawking? In the STS Waaz about private nass he went to great lengths to declare that a private nass without witnesses is possible. In fact that is what he said. "Today I am going to tell you about a private nass without witnesses!" Was he lying?


The text i'm referring to is the base of the entire Fatemi Dawat case of Nass which they posted on their site - from Syedna Taher Saifuddin Risala.
http://fatemidawat.files.wordpress.com/ ... -1363h.jpg
I have written in detail about this.
They claim the text means that "there were no witnesses" for the Nass of the 8th Dai, when it fact, it doesn't mean that at all! It means the witnesses were not made public or asked to testify in Public. Other Dawat books - like Muntaza al Akhbar - confirm this.
The Word اشهد in Arabic means "to call to witness, call upon as a witness". Google it.

There entire claim is based on their incorrect translation! Such a weak foundation!

Which Syedna Taher Saifuddin Waaz are you talking about? No where does he talk about there being NO witnesses.

Talk facts. Or else. Stay ignorant.





haqniwaat
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 6:06 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2064

Unread post by haqniwaat » Sun Oct 12, 2014 1:57 pm

Qasim bs is now mukasir. The question is, the zahir mukasir or the batin mukasir? ! But no, due to the greatness of qasim bs, who so eloquently bashed Syedna Burhanuddin's mazoon for decades, both the zahir and batin rutbas have been joined in him - I bet you that's what the liars will now say. And watch how they will give him more respect for being mukasir. They will call it mufaddal bs' great miracle! 

And yes, Adam the Great, we are all ignorant and we are indebted to you for always telling the truth! I don't care about your texts wherever they are. All I know is that Syedna Qutbuddin TUS was mazoon of Syedna Burhanuddin RA, and when he says he is mansoos, I will believe him over any of your great shehzadas! Sorry, I'm just stupid that way!



rational_guy
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:21 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2065

Unread post by rational_guy » Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:03 pm

Adam wrote:
UnhappyBohra wrote:What does testifying in private mean? Do they testify in their bathrooms to themselves or to a select few? And what would be the point of that? And what is this text that you are hawking? In the STS Waaz about private nass he went to great lengths to declare that a private nass without witnesses is possible. In fact that is what he said. "Today I am going to tell you about a private nass without witnesses!" Was he lying?


The text i'm referring to is the base of the entire Fatemi Dawat case of Nass which they posted on their site - from Syedna Taher Saifuddin Risala.
http://fatemidawat.files.wordpress.com/ ... -1363h.jpg
I have written in detail about this.
They claim the text means that "there were no witnesses" for the Nass of the 8th Dai, when it fact, it doesn't mean that at all! It means the witnesses were not made public or asked to testify in Public. Other Dawat books - like Muntaza al Akhbar - confirm this.
The Word اشهد in Arabic means "to call to witness, call upon as a witness". Google it.

There entire claim is based on their incorrect translation! Such a weak foundation!

Which Syedna Taher Saifuddin Waaz are you talking about? No where does he talk about there being NO witnesses.

Talk facts. Or else. Stay ignorant.



You are mistranslating the word Ashada. This is what happens when people leave Haq na saheb. You twist (more like blatantly change) basic translations to suit their needs.



rational_guy
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:21 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2066

Unread post by rational_guy » Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:14 pm

Adam wrote:
UnhappyBohra wrote:What does testifying in private mean? Do they testify in their bathrooms to themselves or to a select few? And what would be the point of that? And what is this text that you are hawking? In the STS Waaz about private nass he went to great lengths to declare that a private nass without witnesses is possible. In fact that is what he said. "Today I am going to tell you about a private nass without witnesses!" Was he lying?


The text i'm referring to is the base of the entire Fatemi Dawat case of Nass which they posted on their site - from Syedna Taher Saifuddin Risala.
http://fatemidawat.files.wordpress.com/ ... -1363h.jpg
I have written in detail about this.
They claim the text means that "there were no witnesses" for the Nass of the 8th Dai, when it fact, it doesn't mean that at all! It means the witnesses were not made public or asked to testify in Public. Other Dawat books - like Muntaza al Akhbar - confirm this.
The Word اشهد in Arabic means "to call to witness, call upon as a witness". Google it.

There entire claim is based on their incorrect translation! Such a weak foundation!

Which Syedna Taher Saifuddin Waaz are you talking about? No where does he talk about there being NO witnesses.

Talk facts. Or else. Stay ignorant.



As usual you guys are misleading. I did google it.
istashada means to call upon as a witness not ashada
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=unEB ... da&f=false



haqniwaat
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 6:06 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2067

Unread post by haqniwaat » Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:23 pm

Ash'hada means to call upon someone as a witness. This verb is the IVth stem form in the Hans Wehr dictionary. The text says: فما اشهد الشهداء ظاهرا. Which means that witnesses were not called in public. And the next sentence says و ما نص عليه ظاهرا. Which means that he did not perform a nass in public.



maethist
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 3:28 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2068

Unread post by maethist » Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:59 pm

haqniwaat wrote:Ash'hada means to call upon someone as a witness. This verb is the IVth stem form in the Hans Wehr dictionary. The text says: فما اشهد الشهداء ظاهرا. Which means that witnesses were not called in public. And the next sentence says و ما نص عليه ظاهرا. Which means that he did not perform a nass in public.
That is correct.

It confirms Adam's translation. ashhada is Type IV verb and is intransitive, not requiring an object, as in this case, or transitive.
rational_guy wrote: istashada means to call upon as a witness not ashada
That is incorrect.

istashhada, also according to Hans Wehr Dictionary, is a Type X verb. It is a transitive verb requiring two objects.

It means to call as a witness someone (object 1) in something (object 2).



haqniwaat
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 6:06 pm

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2069

Unread post by haqniwaat » Sun Oct 12, 2014 4:27 pm

Okay, so ظاهرا from Hans Wehr means externally, outwardly, seemingly, presumably, ostensibly, allegedly. This does not necessarily mean in public. But the way it reads to me is that nobody is aware of any witnesses. So Adam is wrong again, just like he admitted that his party claims that nass IS retractable.



SBM
Posts: 6214
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Khuzema Qutbuddin (and related topics)

#2070

Unread post by SBM » Sun Oct 12, 2014 4:30 pm

Live broadcast of Misaq by SKQ camp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsnldDcE_pw