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.
lawgraduate
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:31 pm

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

#1501

Unread post by lawgraduate » Tue Mar 03, 2015 11:00 am

actually mubhahila is wrong word, call it manazara, munazara is some thing when a team of both party meet up and discuss and find solution on the basis of dalaail, mubhahila is just against kuffare, while manazara can be done amoung muslims as well.

mufaddal is too busy cleaning his newly gifted rolls roys so he wont come for manazara soon
Attachments
11017548_10153052136726826_1827384518189054648_n.jpg
Last edited by lawgraduate on Tue Mar 03, 2015 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

think_for_yourself
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:12 pm

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

#1502

Unread post by think_for_yourself » Tue Mar 03, 2015 11:15 am

fustrate_Bohra wrote:
Adam wrote:
ترك الجواب على الجاهل جوابه (ignoring and idiot, is his reply)
KQ didn't deserve a reply to his Mubahila.
His Dawedaari has no base, and it has already been torn to shatters.

Dawedar MS is coward and he knows that he will be torn to shatters if he accepts Mubahila so he chose to remain hidden behind Abde/Amtes like you all.



Treating someone who disagrees with you, with respect, is another thing.

Have you every gone to Madina or Karbala?

The dua that is recited says this:
اني معكم معكم لا مع عدوكم
I am with you, with you! Not with your enemies

اني حرب لمن حاربكم
I am the enemy of your enemies.

Respecting someone who for over 10 years has openly insulted the 52nd and 51st Dai in raw filth - that's a Munafiq right there. Taizoon Shakir. That's you.

The true munafiq is one who did adawat of Burhanuddin Aqa by doing adawat of his mazoon during Burhanuddin Moula's lifetime. Mufaddal Saifuddin that's you, by your own admission. Ghulam Mohammed is inconsequential. Sorry GM, your transgressions are nothing compared to the anaconda who has swallowed up haq in one giant gulp.

Adam
Posts: 1260
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

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

#1503

Unread post by Adam » Fri Mar 06, 2015 11:17 am

@Crater Lake
Noorie I pray that you see the light and accept the dai uz zaman Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin TUS. A court's incorrect judgement (IMO brought about by pressure from the White House via Modi - thanks to the Pre-presidential-visit wheeling and dealing) will not shake my faith that Nass was conferred on Syedna Qutbuddin and he is the dai uz zaman. A hundred losses in human courts will not shake the faith of those who are with Haq. T


What a pathetic answer.
1. It's you guys who had full faith in the courts.
2. What is the basis of your unshakeable faith?
Is it because simply KQ said so? (even though a private Nass is against Dawat doctrines)

Or do you have any other evidence for this un shakeable faith?


My advice to KQ, you've already lost in UK, Gujarat, and lost the children. Back down before it's too late. No court is going to believe anyone without a shred of evidence to their claim. It will save you embarrassment.

@think_for_yourself

The true munafiq is one who did adawat of Burhanuddin Aqa by doing adawat of his mazoon during Burhanuddin Moula's lifetime.


So, what you you term someone "who did adawat of Burhanuddin Aqa by doing adawat of his MANSOOS during Burhanuddin Moula's lifetime."?
A Munafiq or Qutbi Bohra?

SBM
Posts: 6429
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

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

#1504

Unread post by SBM » Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:10 pm

,
and lost the children
Really Adam
So is he taking the children with him to India?

UnhappyBohra
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:23 pm

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

#1505

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:18 pm

Adam wrote: So, what you you term someone "who did adawat of Burhanuddin Aqa by doing adawat of his MANSOOS during Burhanuddin Moula's lifetime."?
A Munafiq or Qutbi Bohra?
Sorry Adam, self-declared mansoos does not count. MS made himself mansoos through deception and assistance from deceivers such as Dr. Moiz. Opposition of MS would be the duty of a true mumin. You did not answer my question. You deflected it by posing a another question, the answer to which only supports my argument. You are out of form Adam, you should go back to mindless activities such as cooing to @Crater Lake.

alam
Posts: 713
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:15 pm

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

#1506

Unread post by alam » Fri Mar 06, 2015 11:12 pm

Unhappy Bohra,
Wouldn't some say that SKQ too is a self-declared mansoos? Nobody else heard it from SMB about his nass either.

Haqq_Prevails
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:51 pm

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

#1507

Unread post by Haqq_Prevails » Sat Mar 07, 2015 3:32 am

alam wrote:Unhappy Bohra,
Wouldn't some say that SKQ too is a self-declared mansoos? Nobody else heard it from SMB about his nass either.
Bro Alam,
the whole problem is people fail to realize that SKQ was the mazoon of SMB and he would not betray him ever. Unfortunately these goonda mawalis have degraded the rutba of mazoon systematically over last 25 years and destroyed the foundation of this dawat. The younger generation is more averse to accepting the mazoons word, elders who have seen the early days of SMB and STS can tell who is WRONG NUMBER, but are too old and dependant to raise their voices.

Adam
Posts: 1260
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

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

#1508

Unread post by Adam » Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:36 am

@UnhappyBohra
You did not answer my question

Which question is that? You can PM me just in case I missed it.

Sorry Adam, self-declared mansoos does not count.

Hmm.
1. Written document signed by the Dai
2. 12 Witnesses
3. Audio recording (Hospital)
4. Video & Audio recording (Raudat Tahera)
5. Multiple audiences with Dai & Mansoos over 3 years
6. Confirmation from the Mazoon at the time, by congratulating the Mansoos, on his Website and by his own chilren.

Is that what you call self-declared?
What do you call KQ's declaration then? Saqeefah?

@alam
Unhappy Bohra,
Wouldn't some say that SKQ too is a self-declared mansoos? Nobody else heard it from SMB about his nass either.


Well said & very True.

@Haqq_Prevails
Bro Alam,
the whole problem is people fail to realize that SKQ was the mazoon of SMB and he would not betray him ever.

1. Mazoon can go astray. That is a fact. Ali bin Ibrahim is a fact.
2. Do you have a verbal confirmation from Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin to this fact? No.
3. We listen to the Dai. It is the Dai's responsibility to declare his Mansoos. The Mansoos (whether Mazoon or other) has no right to decalre himself. If he does, then he's the Dawedaar.
4. What about the Mukasir of the Dai? He can go astray, but not the Mazoon? Please cite your sources for cherry picking arguments.



Rightlyguided
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:13 am

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

#1509

Unread post by Rightlyguided » Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:29 pm

Wow .. effortlessly undone by Adam...
As Mufaddal moula TUS rightly farmayu...
They dug a hole and fell in it themselves.

ContentedBohra
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 7:02 pm

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

#1510

Unread post by ContentedBohra » Sat Mar 07, 2015 5:51 pm

Adam, it is interesting to me that you are basing your argument about SKQ nass by saying that private nass is not allowed in dawat doctrines. It comes across to me as if you agree that SMB RA may have said this to SKQ but that it is not counted under dawat doctrines. STS RA's risala clearly says that private Nass was performed by the 7th Dai Syedna Ahmad bin Mubarak on 8th Dai Syedna Husain bin Ali. What is your argument against this?

In your response, that MS is not a self declared dai you quote several items but I question their credibility:
1. Purported written document names witnesses who are no longer available.
2. 12 Witnesses bear resemblance to a saqifa like conspiracy
3. How can one be sure of the authenticity of Audio recording (Hospital) in light of what we know happened in Raudat Tahera
4. This forum has played a great role in proving that what happened in Raudat Tahera was a major conspiracy in which Dr. Moiz and all the shahzadas were conspirators. They lied and took advantage of SMB RA's poor health. This is nicely summarized in the Haq su che video.
5. Isn't it clear now that the conspirators took advantage of SMB RA's health, and forced a show of SMB and MS on same stage to imply a message.

It all boils down to how trustworthy are these people who produce the said letters, audios and videos.

Against this is the testimony of one person who was trusted as Mazoon al-Mutlaq by Burhanuddin Aqa throughout his zamaan as Dai al-Mutlaq. For fifty long years Burhanuddin Mola trusted SKQ as his Mazoon.

I would believe in what is said by the Mazoon of Burhanuddin Mola any day over the testimonies of others who are way below him.

Haqq_Prevails
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:51 pm

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

#1511

Unread post by Haqq_Prevails » Sat Mar 07, 2015 5:57 pm

Adam wrote:@UnhappyBohra
You did not answer my question

Which question is that? You can PM me just in case I missed it.

Sorry Adam, self-declared mansoos does not count.

Hmm.
1. Written document signed by the Dai
2. 12 Witnesses
3. Audio recording (Hospital)
4. Video & Audio recording (Raudat Tahera)
5. Multiple audiences with Dai & Mansoos over 3 years
6. Confirmation from the Mazoon at the time, by congratulating the Mansoos, on his Website and by his own chilren.

Is that what you call self-declared?
What do you call KQ's declaration then? Saqeefah?

@alam
Unhappy Bohra,
Wouldn't some say that SKQ too is a self-declared mansoos? Nobody else heard it from SMB about his nass either.


Well said & very True.

@Haqq_Prevails
Bro Alam,
the whole problem is people fail to realize that SKQ was the mazoon of SMB and he would not betray him ever.

1. Mazoon can go astray. That is a fact. Ali bin Ibrahim is a fact.
2. Do you have a verbal confirmation from Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin to this fact? No.
3. We listen to the Dai. It is the Dai's responsibility to declare his Mansoos. The Mansoos (whether Mazoon or other) has no right to decalre himself. If he does, then he's the Dawedaar.
4. What about the Mukasir of the Dai? He can go astray, but not the Mazoon? Please cite your sources for cherry picking arguments.


Before readers fall for this trap which seems so convincing by Adam, let's examine the evidence and the history.

1) Written document Signed by the Dai - Remember Syedna Dawood bin Ajabshah's Khatib was also bribed by the Sulemani's and the children of Syedna Dawood bin Ajabshah to create a fake nass letter in favor of Suleiman, but we as Dawoodi bohras, chose to believe the then Mazoon Syedna Dawood bin Qutubshah. The similarities of that era and today's era are quite glaring, history repeats itself and those who don't learn from history pay with their souls. So given the circumstances in which this letter has emerged, and the way Mufatlal described the incident where he did not remember the day, date or even the year of such a momentous event of his life is quite telling that it is fake. As I argue other points below, the credibility of the Shehzadas is zero compared to that of the Mazoon of 50 years.

2) 12 Witnesses - I am not counting how you got 12, but it doesn't matter. Look at the credibility of each witness and the circumstances. Dr. Moiz has been caught red handed lying in front of thousands in Raudat Tahera. The You Tube video "Haq Su Che" quite effortlessly proves it. All those near him knew what was going on, so they are all party to the conspiracy. The Raudat incident clearly shows how the power hungry Shehzada's manipulated their own sick father for their benefit and put up a charade. Can you trust anything else they say? As per one statement Qaid Chor and Malikul Bistar claimed Aqa Moula did nass on Mufatlal and told them to reveal only after he passed away, if that was true why did Moula suddenly change his mind when he suffered a debilitating stroke after which he lost most of his speech. It is clear the Shehzadas got a golden opportunity to implant their stooge, implement their plan and firm the grip they had on the community. Something they had been preparing for many years. Something which was started in the early days of SMB by their mentor Yusuf Najmuddin.

3) Audio Recording (Hospital) - If Abdul Qadir has the presence of mind to make an audio of Moula's statement why did he not make a video? He probably did and has it. The only reason he cannot show it is because it shows Moula's state and poor health. He was being prompted and asked to read from a paper in front of him. For those who think that the Dai is above all worldly limitations, please do remember that even Laeena Aaisha took advantage of Rasulullahs poor health and gave raza to her father Abu Bakr, based on which 80% of Muslemeen today beleive he is their first khalifa. So again learn from History.

4) Video and Audio Recording (Raudat Tahera) - I have already established that it was the biggest charade pulled off by the conspirators, in which they took advantage of the emotions of the grief stricken mumineen and showed them what they wanted them to see. Moula is being asked to read from a piece of paper and he does not finish the crucial sentence, either he is aware that what he is being asked to read is not right or he is too sick to read it. The great interpreter Dr. Moiz did the evil task and defied Moula by blatantly lying in front of him, multiple times!

5) Multiple Audiences with Dai and Mansoos over 3 years - I don't understand what are you trying to say here, but it was quite clear that Moula was being brought in front of the public by the zada's as per their need. The manipulation was quite evident. Specially during the first Moharram after the stroke, the be-adabi done by Mufatlal was shameful. Talking at the same time as Moula was speaking, then Dr. Moiz or his son Abdul Qadir finally came and took away the mike from front of Moula because it was getting late. All this not only shows the poor health and lack of complete awareness of Aqa Moula, but also shows how Mufatlal and conspirators were exploiting that condition. You have to be blind to not see and recognize such egregious behavior.

6) Confirmation from the Mazoon at the time, by congratulating the Mansoos, on his Website and by his own children - I will let Qutbuddin moula TUS answer that himself. You will get ample opportunity to cross examine him in 2 weeks time. He has the courage to say the truth and stand up for it, he will come to court and testify. Whereas Mufatlal, the coward and liar he is, will most likely avoid coming to court and use all excuses in the world to come and testify. I challenge Mufatlal - the Qabzedaar that if he has the balls, come to court, swear by the Holy Quran to tell the truth and testify!

To continue here is the arguments to the other points Adam raises to my own post:

1) You calling Ali bin Ibrahim the Mazoon doesn't make him the mazoon. It is a lie, he was never in the aala rutba of ezan. The systematic campaign of last 25 years to degrade the rutba of Mazoon has taken deep roots and calling Ali bin Ibrahim the mazoon is only another attempt at degrading the aala rutba of ezan. Mufatlal himself said on takhat that he knew for last so many years that Qutbuddin Moula TUS was creating problems for Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA - nauzobillah. So Mufatlal is accepting, that while he was supposedly giving misaaq for so many years he didn't believe in the mazoon. In fact there is evidence and testimony from Taizoon bhaisab that he was actively running the campaign of Zahir-Batin, meaning 2 different mazoon's, one for real and another fake one in public?? If as Mufatlal claims, the Mazoon was doing befarmani of Burhanuddin moula, why would he continue to keep him in the post for 50 years? This be-adabi which was going on under the very nose of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA was quite evident. Aamils would get scarce or leave town when the Mazoon visited. I have witnessed that many times. Khidmat's and ziyafat's of Mazoon moula would be discouraged. I have witnessed that too. To the intelligent it was evident that this was being done by those in power and was contrary to what Burhanuddin moula was saying repeatedly in his misaaq.

2) For 50 years Qutbuddin moula TUS stayed steadfast in his khidmat of Burhanuddin moula acting as a shield. All this dushmani was directed at the Dai himself (instigated by Yusuf Najmuddin clan), but because they couldn't attack the Dai directly they diverted everything on the mazoon, thereby becoming a shield for the Dai. After Yusuf Najmuddin passed away, his children including Jhooti Sharaf (Mufatlal's wife) continued the campaign.

3) You are right, the Dai is the only one who has the right to nominate his mansoos, and he did that 50 years ago. Hear the audio of Burhanuddin moula from the first misaaq majlis of 1385H, hear what he says in the shaan of his mazoon, then look at the audio/video of 2011 and think for yourself, would a Dai leave the most important task of his tenure till the very end when he has lost his speech? All the aalim understood the ishara done in 1385H and started doing sajda to the mansoos, including Mufatlal and the other zada's. They continued to do the sajda for 25 years and then they stopped, because they had started to conspire against the Dai's wishes and become Qabzedaars. The Dai has the right to do the nass in whatever way he pleases, he does so with the ilhaam and taeed of the imam. So if he chooses, he can do a private nass with no witnesses, it has happened before in our history and endorsed by Syedna Taher Saifuddin AQ himself. Of course Mufatlal has his own version and denies the same, and manipulates the meaning to suit his claim.

4) Mukasir is a very aala rutba, but unlike the rutba of Dai and mazoon it is not a "Mutlaq" rutba, that means it does not have absolute raza. The rutba of mazoon is under the Dai, but is much higher than the Mukasir, and given a difference of opinion between the Mazoon and Mukasir, an intelligent person will automatically align himself with the higher rutba of the Mazoon.

In our 800 year history of duat mutlaqeen, a mazoon has always accepted a nass done on someone other than himself, if the nass on Mufatlal was valid the Mazoon would have done tasleem and I wouldn't be calling him Mufatlal!

lawgraduate
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:31 pm

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

#1512

Unread post by lawgraduate » Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:24 am

I humbly urge court of law to first decide if MB was dai e mutlaq? was his life in line with previous duats? was he capable of dealing with dawat affairs? how come corruption was rampant in his regime? how did he collected all these wealth in a short span of 50 years? was his life according to principles of sharia and guidelines of previous duats?

only after deciding all these court of law should look upon his successor issues, and if he wasn't in line with all these principles, all dawat properties should be handed back to the people of community ASAP.

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

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

#1513

Unread post by noor5253 » Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:47 am

Haqq_Prevails wrote:
Adam wrote:@UnhappyBohra

Which question is that? You can PM me just in case I missed it.


Hmm.
1. Written document signed by the Dai
2. 12 Witnesses
3. Audio recording (Hospital)
4. Video & Audio recording (Raudat Tahera)
5. Multiple audiences with Dai & Mansoos over 3 years
6. Confirmation from the Mazoon at the time, by congratulating the Mansoos, on his Website and by his own chilren.

Is that what you call self-declared?
What do you call KQ's declaration then? Saqeefah?

@alam


Well said & very True.

@Haqq_Prevails

1. Mazoon can go astray. That is a fact. Ali bin Ibrahim is a fact.
2. Do you have a verbal confirmation from Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin to this fact? No.
3. We listen to the Dai. It is the Dai's responsibility to declare his Mansoos. The Mansoos (whether Mazoon or other) has no right to decalre himself. If he does, then he's the Dawedaar.
4. What about the Mukasir of the Dai? He can go astray, but not the Mazoon? Please cite your sources for cherry picking arguments.


Before readers fall for this trap which seems so convincing by Adam, let's examine the evidence and the history.

1) Written document Signed by the Dai - Remember Syedna Dawood bin Ajabshah's Khatib was also bribed by the Sulemani's and the children of Syedna Dawood bin Ajabshah to create a fake nass letter in favor of Suleiman, but we as Dawoodi bohras, chose to believe the then Mazoon Syedna Dawood bin Qutubshah. The similarities of that era and today's era are quite glaring, history repeats itself and those who don't learn from history pay with their souls. So given the circumstances in which this letter has emerged, and the way Mufatlal described the incident where he did not remember the day, date or even the year of such a momentous event of his life is quite telling that it is fake. As I argue other points below, the credibility of the Shehzadas is zero compared to that of the Mazoon of 50 years.

2) 12 Witnesses - I am not counting how you got 12, but it doesn't matter. Look at the credibility of each witness and the circumstances. Dr. Moiz has been caught red handed lying in front of thousands in Raudat Tahera. The You Tube video "Haq Su Che" quite effortlessly proves it. All those near him knew what was going on, so they are all party to the conspiracy. The Raudat incident clearly shows how the power hungry Shehzada's manipulated their own sick father for their benefit and put up a charade. Can you trust anything else they say? As per one statement Qaid Chor and Malikul Bistar claimed Aqa Moula did nass on Mufatlal and told them to reveal only after he passed away, if that was true why did Moula suddenly change his mind when he suffered a debilitating stroke after which he lost most of his speech. It is clear the Shehzadas got a golden opportunity to implant their stooge, implement their plan and firm the grip they had on the community. Something they had been preparing for many years. Something which was started in the early days of SMB by their mentor Yusuf Najmuddin.

3) Audio Recording (Hospital) - If Abdul Qadir has the presence of mind to make an audio of Moula's statement why did he not make a video? He probably did and has it. The only reason he cannot show it is because it shows Moula's state and poor health. He was being prompted and asked to read from a paper in front of him. For those who think that the Dai is above all worldly limitations, please do remember that even Laeena Aaisha took advantage of Rasulullahs poor health and gave raza to her father Abu Bakr, based on which 80% of Muslemeen today beleive he is their first khalifa. So again learn from History.

4) Video and Audio Recording (Raudat Tahera) - I have already established that it was the biggest charade pulled off by the conspirators, in which they took advantage of the emotions of the grief stricken mumineen and showed them what they wanted them to see. Moula is being asked to read from a piece of paper and he does not finish the crucial sentence, either he is aware that what he is being asked to read is not right or he is too sick to read it. The great interpreter Dr. Moiz did the evil task and defied Moula by blatantly lying in front of him, multiple times!

5) Multiple Audiences with Dai and Mansoos over 3 years - I don't understand what are you trying to say here, but it was quite clear that Moula was being brought in front of the public by the zada's as per their need. The manipulation was quite evident. Specially during the first Moharram after the stroke, the be-adabi done by Mufatlal was shameful. Talking at the same time as Moula was speaking, then Dr. Moiz or his son Abdul Qadir finally came and took away the mike from front of Moula because it was getting late. All this not only shows the poor health and lack of complete awareness of Aqa Moula, but also shows how Mufatlal and conspirators were exploiting that condition. You have to be blind to not see and recognize such egregious behavior.

6) Confirmation from the Mazoon at the time, by congratulating the Mansoos, on his Website and by his own children - I will let Qutbuddin moula TUS answer that himself. You will get ample opportunity to cross examine him in 2 weeks time. He has the courage to say the truth and stand up for it, he will come to court and testify. Whereas Mufatlal, the coward and liar he is, will most likely avoid coming to court and use all excuses in the world to come and testify. I challenge Mufatlal - the Qabzedaar that if he has the balls, come to court, swear by the Holy Quran to tell the truth and testify!

To continue here is the arguments to the other points Adam raises to my own post:

1) You calling Ali bin Ibrahim the Mazoon doesn't make him the mazoon. It is a lie, he was never in the aala rutba of ezan. The systematic campaign of last 25 years to degrade the rutba of Mazoon has taken deep roots and calling Ali bin Ibrahim the mazoon is only another attempt at degrading the aala rutba of ezan. Mufatlal himself said on takhat that he knew for last so many years that Qutbuddin Moula TUS was creating problems for Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA - nauzobillah. So Mufatlal is accepting, that while he was supposedly giving misaaq for so many years he didn't believe in the mazoon. In fact there is evidence and testimony from Taizoon bhaisab that he was actively running the campaign of Zahir-Batin, meaning 2 different mazoon's, one for real and another fake one in public?? If as Mufatlal claims, the Mazoon was doing befarmani of Burhanuddin moula, why would he continue to keep him in the post for 50 years? This be-adabi which was going on under the very nose of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA was quite evident. Aamils would get scarce or leave town when the Mazoon visited. I have witnessed that many times. Khidmat's and ziyafat's of Mazoon moula would be discouraged. I have witnessed that too. To the intelligent it was evident that this was being done by those in power and was contrary to what Burhanuddin moula was saying repeatedly in his misaaq.

2) For 50 years Qutbuddin moula TUS stayed steadfast in his khidmat of Burhanuddin moula acting as a shield. All this dushmani was directed at the Dai himself (instigated by Yusuf Najmuddin clan), but because they couldn't attack the Dai directly they diverted everything on the mazoon, thereby becoming a shield for the Dai. After Yusuf Najmuddin passed away, his children including Jhooti Sharaf (Mufatlal's wife) continued the campaign.

3) You are right, the Dai is the only one who has the right to nominate his mansoos, and he did that 50 years ago. Hear the audio of Burhanuddin moula from the first misaaq majlis of 1385H, hear what he says in the shaan of his mazoon, then look at the audio/video of 2011 and think for yourself, would a Dai leave the most important task of his tenure till the very end when he has lost his speech? All the aalim understood the ishara done in 1385H and started doing sajda to the mansoos, including Mufatlal and the other zada's. They continued to do the sajda for 25 years and then they stopped, because they had started to conspire against the Dai's wishes and become Qabzedaars. The Dai has the right to do the nass in whatever way he pleases, he does so with the ilhaam and taeed of the imam. So if he chooses, he can do a private nass with no witnesses, it has happened before in our history and endorsed by Syedna Taher Saifuddin AQ himself. Of course Mufatlal has his own version and denies the same, and manipulates the meaning to suit his claim.

4) Mukasir is a very aala rutba, but unlike the rutba of Dai and mazoon it is not a "Mutlaq" rutba, that means it does not have absolute raza. The rutba of mazoon is under the Dai, but is much higher than the Mukasir, and given a difference of opinion between the Mazoon and Mukasir, an intelligent person will automatically align himself with the higher rutba of the Mazoon.

In our 800 year history of duat mutlaqeen, a mazoon has always accepted a nass done on someone other than himself, if the nass on Mufatlal was valid the Mazoon would have done tasleem and I wouldn't be calling him Mufatlal!

From yiur nessage it seems you are one of the 20 people who were with KQ in bakersfield whenbthe whole world was in Mumbai for Burhanuddin maula RA last Ashara Mubaraka..

Are you one of the two brothers who are the constant chamchas of KQ? You probably are.. That means after KQ and his ilk you are the most poisonous ones..

All your hujjats are cherry picked to suit your lord KQs davedaari..

But remember no amount of MBAs or Doctorates can help you.. You can go on picking different hadiths or Kalaam to suit your agenda.. But taking from Your name Haqq will prevail..

lawgraduate
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:31 pm

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

#1514

Unread post by lawgraduate » Sun Mar 08, 2015 5:14 am

Take the #verses of #Allah seriously. We cannot count His favors upon us.
Attachments
aaaaa.jpg

Adam
Posts: 1260
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

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

#1515

Unread post by Adam » Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:57 pm

@ContentedBohra
Adam, it is interesting to me that you are basing your argument about SKQ nass by saying that private nass is not allowed in dawat doctrines. It comes across to me as if you agree that SMB RA may have said this to SKQ but that it is not counted under dawat doctrines. STS RA's risala clearly says that private Nass was performed by the 7th Dai Syedna Ahmad bin Mubarak on 8th Dai Syedna Husain bin Ali. What is your argument against this?

1. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA, would never do something against Dawat Doctrine.
2. Private Nass is NOT valid according to Dawat Doctrine. No such private Nass has ever taken place in ENTIRE HISTORY, nor in the 7th Dai's time. The Qutbi's have misinterpreted this entire concept.
I have discussed this many times before, check this link:
http://dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewtop ... start=2040

I have written in detail about this. A few snippets:

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!


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.


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.


This has been argued on other sites as well.
http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/01/25/reason-2/

You can have a look at this website for an entire synopsis:
http://qutbibohras.blogspot.com/p/summar.html


In your response, that MS is not a self declared dai you quote several items but I question their credibility:
1. Purported written document names witnesses who are no longer available.
2. 12 Witnesses bear resemblance to a saqifa like conspiracy
3. How can one be sure of the authenticity of Audio recording (Hospital) in light of what we know happened in Raudat Tahera
4. This forum has played a great role in proving that what happened in Raudat Tahera was a major conspiracy in which Dr. Moiz and all the shahzadas were conspirators. They lied and took advantage of SMB RA's poor health. This is nicely summarized in the Haq su che video.
5. Isn't it clear now that the conspirators took advantage of SMB RA's health, and forced a show of SMB and MS on same stage to imply a message.

It all boils down to how trustworthy are these people who produce the said letters, audios and videos.

Against this is the testimony of one person who was trusted as Mazoon al-Mutlaq by Burhanuddin Aqa throughout his zamaan as Dai al-Mutlaq. For fifty long years Burhanuddin Mola trusted SKQ as his Mazoon.

I would believe in what is said by the Mazoon of Burhanuddin Mola any day over the testimonies of others who are way below him.



1. You may question their credibility, but you can't question the fact that they were all with Syedna RA for THREE years after the Public Nass had taken place. And Syedna seemed very happy with them.
You can question their credibility, and the credibility of every single witness that has witnessed anything over the entire Fatemi History.
Question all you want, but at least you will agree that KQ's claim HAS NO CREDIBILITY - because it's against Dawat doctrines.

2. Saqeefah elected their own leader, and also were very clear that Rasulullah hadn't appointed any of them. In Raudat Tahera, the Dai himself appointed his Mansoos, and went on to live 3 years with him by his saide.
KQ is more like the self appointed in Saqeefah.
3. Test it. And i'm sure the court will do too.
4. Nonsense. The Haq Su che video has been refuted many times. Taizoon Shakir has manipulated the video, put pieces out of context, and doesn't post the entire audio of the event. There was much said and done.

Refer this link:
http://qutbibohras.blogspot.com/2014/12 ... s-haq.html

5. Nonsense.
If you look back at history, Syedna was never taken advantage of. He is very much at peace with his Mansoos by his side.
Look at this site:
http://qutbibohras.blogspot.com/2014/07 ... story.html

I would believe in what is said by the Mazoon of Burhanuddin Mola any day over the testimonies of others who are way below him.

Wrong. I would believe what the DAI Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin said and did. Period.
That's where you Qutbis go wrong.


@Haqq_Prevails /Qutbi Child

1) Written document Signed by the Dai - Remember Syedna Dawood bin Ajabshah's Khatib was also bribed by the Sulemani's and the children of Syedna Dawood bin Ajabshah to create a fake nass letter in favor of Suleiman, but we as Dawoodi bohras, chose to believe the then Mazoon Syedna Dawood bin Qutubshah.


1)WRONG. The Dawoodi Bohras followed Syedna Dawood bin Qutub Shah because they were aware of the Nass that took place on him by the Dai. NOT because he was the Mazoon.

2) Raudat Tahera video - Read above, and see the entire video. The only thing manipulated is KQ's sick brain.

3) Audio Recording (Hospital) - If Abdul Qadir has the presence of mind to make an audio of Moula's statement why did he not make a video? He probably did and has it. The only reason he cannot show it is because it shows Moula's state and poor health. He was being prompted and asked to read from a paper in front of him. For those who think that the Dai is above all worldly limitations, please do remember that even Laeena Aaisha took advantage of Rasulullahs poor health and gave raza to her father Abu Bakr, based on which 80% of Muslemeen today beleive he is their first khalifa. So again learn from History.


3) Whether the video exists or not is irrelevant. Talk about what DOES EXIST.
What exists is clear as day.
Your example about Aisha is nonsense. Aisha may have done fitnat during the last few moments, but by NO MEANS did Rasulullah SAW say the wrong thing, or do Nass on the wrong person.
If that's what you claim happened to Syedna RA, then your belief is totally messed up.
If you acgtually think Moula RA "fell for it" by reading out what his conspirators wrote on the paper. You are crazy.

3 years after "they took him for a ride", he is still with every single one of them, and very happy with them. The only person missing was Mr KQ.

4) Read above

5) Read above
http://qutbibohras.blogspot.com/2014/07 ... story.html

6. Great. I'd love to see KQ make a fool of himself at court.
Syedna doesn't need to come to court, he's already delegated the work to his team.
It's KQ who's the Dawedaar, and it's KQ who needs to prove his case. We just need to sit back and enjoy the show :)


1) You calling Ali bin Ibrahim the Mazoon doesn't make him the mazoon. It is a lie,


I didn't call him the Mazoon. Muntaza says he was second in position, and Syedna Taher Saifuddin has clarified that he was the Mazoon. Unless you want to accuse Syedna Taher Saifuddin of lying?

All your imagined conspiracies, have nothing to do with Nass.
Even if there was a conspiracy, does KQ have ANY evidence for the Nass? NOPE.

3) You are right, the Dai is the only one who has the right to nominate his mansoos, and he did that 50 years ago. Hear the audio of Burhanuddin moula from the first misaaq majlis of 1385H,

All I hear was appointing him as Mazoon. Nothing about Mansoos. NOTHING.
I have heard similar words for Yusuf Bs, and other Shehzadas over the years. Can they also claim to be Dai?

I have heard Syedna RA refer to Syedna Mufaddal TUS much more than KQ. Syedna RA has called Syedna Mufaddal TUS "Qurratul Ayn".
There's no need for a comparison and analysing of words.
Unless there is a clear Nass, no one has the right to do guess work.

5) About Mazoon Mutlaq
Please read these links for information on that.
http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/ ... of-mutlaq/

In our 800 year history of duat mutlaqeen, a mazoon has always accepted a nass done on someone other than himself, if the nass on Mufatlal was valid the Mazoon would have done tasleem

In 800 years.
Ali bin Ibrahim refused to accept the Dai/Mansoos.
BTW, KQ when Mazoon, did accept the Nass. He even called to congratulate Syedna Mufaddal TUS.


@ ZINGER
I hope you are making a list of all the nice words these Qutbis have to say about Syedna Mufaddal TUS.




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

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

#1516

Unread post by Sceptical » Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:03 pm

Adam has more knowledge than the Dai itself... :roll:
as usual, no solid reference...

byculla
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:40 am

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

#1517

Unread post by byculla » Sun Mar 08, 2015 5:37 pm

Adam - No matter how hard you try to refute but the fact remains that private nass is valid and that is exactly what STS has said in the risala sharifa.

You mention "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"

NOPE - completely incorrect. On the contrary to prove his nass, Syedna wrote a hakikat kitaab. If witnesses were testified in private then what was the need to take pains to write Hakikat kitab ? STS did join his zikr on authority of bayaan of Syedi Aminji bin Jalal.

The wordings of Mutazaul Akhbar suggest "public nass" not private nass for 8th Dai. You are conjuring up the 2 to make up your own version (so is the 53 reasons site). I think fatemidawat version is much more believable to me. If STS would have meant to talk about just private nass with witnesses - it was a well known fact as was widely known in the case of 49th dai. Where was the "secret" here ? When he mentioned "secret" he was meaning private nass without witnesses - something not previously known to readers before. In fact the risala exactly mentions this - "Here, I will reveal to you a hitherto undisclosed report about a confidential, private nass conferred by a Dai whose virtues are eminent and celebrated, upon a Dai who was just like him".

Nowhere in Mutazaul Akhbar is it mentioned that the 7th dai asked his witnessess to keep it secret. It just mentions he did nass in front of hudood and mumineen. Sorry Adam Mutazaul Akbhar suggests a public nass not a private one for 8th dai and it is indeed at loggerheads here with STS risala. If I have to chose between them, I would believe STS risala.

One should also note that in case of 49th dai's nass on 50th dai Syedna Abdullah badruddin RA which was a private nass with witnesses, Syedna Taher Saifuddin himself was the witness.

ContentedBohra
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 7:02 pm

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

#1518

Unread post by ContentedBohra » Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:34 am

Adam,

You make several points regarding validity of private nass under dawat doctrines, which have been also made in the two websites referred by you. My understanding is that these websites are on anonymous basis and those who write on them do not reveal their identities. They also indicate that their website is not endorsed by MS. Same is the case with you. So in the matter of ilm, particularly in case of such an important issue of interpreting STS RA's risala, without knowing who is saying this and what is their qualification how can I even consider their viewpoints. This comes back to the same question of credibility. Will I listen to Mazoon of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin or will I listen to anyone who writes on the web.

Frankly, I am amazed that MS, his brothers and his amil say so many negative things about Syedna Qutbuddin TUS, but when it comes to debate they do not come forward.

I agree with you on one thing that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin Saheb RA would never do anything contrary to dawat doctrine. When I combine this with the fact that SMB RA trusted SKQ TUS as his Mazoon for 50 years, and it is this Mazoon who is saying that SMB RA appointed him as his successor, it proves to me both the things that there was indeed a private nass and it is allowed under dawat doctrine.

I completely disagree with you about Raudat Tahera incident. After going through the audio and video many times, I am much dismayed that Dr. Moiz was disregarding what SMB RA was saying and instead announcing nass on MS. In addition, when you and others cite the three years of MS being side by side of SMB RA, it resembles very much to what people say about awwal and Rasulullah SAW. It does smell like saqeefah - lead people to circumstantially assume that MS was appointed.

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

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

#1519

Unread post by araz5253 » Mon Mar 09, 2015 1:20 am

Burhanuddin died without clearly appointing a successor , infact he wanted this to happen , Dont try to make him a hero just because people are fighting for his evil legacy. He was cunning he wanted all the power while he was alive and gave false promises of gaddi to both dawedars and what happens after he dies does not matter as he himself knows where he is going in the hereafter.

DisillusionedDB
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:20 am

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

#1520

Unread post by DisillusionedDB » Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:31 am

It's surprising how much this subject has been analysed / dissected / autopsied / post-mortemed on this forum. But the MS supporters will keep harping that nass was clearly done on MS and the KQ supporters will keep harping that nass was ambiguous and fraudulently carried out. Arguments on this subject have reached the end of their tether. What one can do is just wait for the courts to decide. Even then, it will boil down to a matter of belief for the bohra aam aadmi as to whom they wish to follow.

natkhat pari
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:56 am

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

#1521

Unread post by natkhat pari » Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:22 am

18 march will skq be present for cross examition personally .
As senior citizen can do video conference.
If skq will come under police protection will he first do ziyarat in rozat tahera

lawgraduate
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:31 pm

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

#1522

Unread post by lawgraduate » Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:21 am

natkhat pari wrote:18 march will skq be present for cross examition personally .
As senior citizen can do video conference.
If skq will come under police protection will he first do ziyarat in rozat tahera
I think he should come, but any ways I am waiting for a book from KQ which will finally end all speculations, in history our duat use to write qasida and books when it was needed to guide people, I hope KQ write some thing like this and publish it in which he must explain all action on MB and what exactly was going on in last 50 years, it will clear every thing and all doubts.

Adam
Posts: 1260
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

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

#1523

Unread post by Adam » Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:43 pm

@Sceptical
Adam has more knowledge than the Dai itself... :roll:
as usual, no solid reference...

Well, when Nifaq enters one, ilm protects itself.
The Qutbis are a perfect example.

@byculla
Finally a Qutbi who knows a bit about texts, and seems to know a bit of Arabic. The others, even though some are the kids themselves, don't seem to be too well versed!
NOPE - completely incorrect. On the contrary to prove his nass, Syedna wrote a hakikat kitaab. If witnesses were testified in private then what was the need to take pains to write Hakikat kitab ? STS did join his zikr on authority of bayaan of Syedi Aminji bin Jalal.


INCORRECT:
1. Yes there were witneses.
2. These witnesses were not made public, and they did not testify in public. But THERE WERE WITNESSES.
3. The Haqiqat Kitaab confirmed the ilm of the Dai. BUT, the Nass did not take place without witnesses.
4. The ibarat of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA and Muntaza add up to the same.
5. The Risala says the Nass was between witnesses in private, and the Muntaza says the Nass was taken place between "Hudood, Mukliseen, Muqeneen".

The texts in the Risala is this
فما اشهد الشهداء ظاهرا
Let's translate that.
"He did not solicit any witnesses in public". (If you disagree with this translation, please provide your own one).

اشهد means to solicit a witness - to ask them to testify. That means, there WERE witnesses, but they were not asked to testify (or not needed to)
ظاهرا is also a key word. It means "in public". By using the words "in public" in turn mean, that if something didn't happen in public, it did happen in private. Or else, the extra words, "in public" were not necessary..
Instead, it should have just read "he did not solicit any witnesses".

I think fatemidawat version is much more believable to me.

Naturally! You're a Qutbi and blind to the simple truth.

What is being discussed is simple Arabic. You don't need to rach your brains too much.

Muntaza was written under the guidance of Syedna Abdeali Saifuddin - and it is in line with Syedna Taher Saifuddin's risala
If you Qutbi's reject its teachings, there's no limit to how low you'll can stoop to.



qjbj
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:47 pm

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

#1524

Unread post by qjbj » Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:50 pm

Adam wrote:, there's no limit to how low you'll can stoop to.
[/color]
Not as low as calling a female "Hey baby" and lying. These two basic traits of yours should lead all not to believe a word you are saying. Once a liar, nothing can be trusted just like your master MS and his brothers.

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

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

#1525

Unread post by kimanumanu » Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:08 pm

Adam: If the witnesses were not sought nor were they made public, how in the world did the author of the articles you quote KNOW that there were witnesses?

byculla
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:40 am

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

#1526

Unread post by byculla » Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:09 pm

Adam - you first need to decide between yourself and your friends at 53 reasons and sort out your own differences.

You tell - Nass did have witnesses and they testified privately and that the kitab was written by Syedna Husain to confirm his ilm.
You write "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"

53 reasons and SMB RA bayan in 1426 explicitly says that the "people did not know" contrary to this, you allege "people had already accepted".

The fact is that the kitab was written with the express and the sole reason to prove his nass. Read below excerpt from 53 reasons site from SMB RA bayan in 1426 Ashara Mubaraka waaz

“Syedi Amin b Jalal QA says…..the reason for writing Kitab ul Idhaah wal Bayaan, was that the Dai who wrote the kitaab, the Dai before him did not openly perform nass (te na aage na Dai guzra te nass ZAAHERAN noti keedi) the people did not know…..this Dai, Syedna Hussain RA, the author of this kitaab, he thought, ‘How do I show others that nass has been conferred upon me?’. These are wise and articulate people. So I chose the same path chosen by Idris Nabi.”

In Muntazaul Akhbar, as you say (and we both agree with the text of the kitaab), nass was performed in front of "Hudood" and "Mumineen Mukhleseen". If the "Hudood" of that time were already aware of the nass as it was done "privately" as you allege, why would Syedna again write Hakikat Kitaab to prove his nass ? Why would he go at lengths to write a Hakikat kitab to prove to them something that they are already aware of ?

Haqq_Prevails
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:51 pm

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

#1527

Unread post by Haqq_Prevails » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:36 am

Adam,

In one of your replies you addressed me as "Qutbi Child", let me tell you that I am honored. Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin is my 'Roohani Bawa'. My knowledge is very limited, and you still cannot even answer my arguments convincingly, you stand no chance of debating in front of any of Qutbuddin moula's children. If you are who someone alleged "Taha Hakimuddin", then I don't think you would have the guts to come face to face with any Qutbuddins. You and your clan is known to make hamlas from behind.
When you are challenged, you like your master Mufatlal hide behind excuses. If your Mufatlal is so great, why is he so shit scared of facing Qutbuddin Moula in a debate? I can imagine Mufatlal is probably getting nightmares about coming to court, and the scary cat will hide behind the ghagra of Jhooti Sharaf, he will not come to court and testify!

natkhat pari
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:56 am

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

#1528

Unread post by natkhat pari » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:28 am

Aprox after every miliniunm there is nass conterverse in Bhora comunity .
Our present generation is not aware of true history .
What is taught in maderesa are history to our convenince.
Last Surat ashara a 9 year kid who was sitting next to me was shouting " ya imam us zaman"
While waiting for dedaar.
On enquire he told me our moula is true imam us zaman
what we were taught after 16 years in haqiqat kitab is spoon fed to 9 year kid.
We are never told about battel of jamal. Siffin

Fateh
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:25 am

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

#1529

Unread post by Fateh » Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:30 am

Yes i also favor these two dawedar should have to do debate in masjid in front of abdes. Why they are spending baitul mal in court?This actions of both prove that both are haramkhor.Aur ye baat yeh bhi sabit karati hai ke ALLAH ke ghar der hai andher nahi hae.Poori duniya janati hai ke haram ki kamai akkir kaha jati hai?Teen teen pedhi se logo ko dara ker,unke religious emotions ke sath khilwad karke kamai hui haram ki daulat ek baar to rang dikhayegi hi.Aur ye jo mein likhata hun wo bade dukh aur dard mahesus karke likhata hun.Meri sachhi or imandar quam ko ye paiso ke lalachio ne kya se kya bana diya.Khuda meri quam ko sacha rahaber ata farmaye or huq rah dikhaye.

ContentedBohra
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 7:02 pm

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

#1530

Unread post by ContentedBohra » Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:31 pm

So Adam what are your credentials to interprete STS RA risala. Do you realize that STS RA himself taught this risala and dawat doctrines to both SMB RA and SKQ TUS? What makes you think you can understand it better by checking the meaning on google? Who is digging the hole here?

Dai is a living testimony that imam exists. We see it in SKQ all the time when he is on takht, when he says that he is the successor of SMB RA with Quran in his hands, in his duas and in his wasila. MS needs a written script before he can say anything. The co-conspirator of MS know of this limitation and they will ensure that he does not come to court. Otherwise, "su nu su thai jaase".