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 Court

#1681

Unread post by lawgraduate » Sat Apr 11, 2015 2:58 pm

Listen I tell you the whole story of this dawat succession.

TS wanted KQ to become 53rd dai, in intial MB also wanted KQ to become his sucessor, but latter on when dawat started gaining more and more power and money, MB got idea that he should promote his own family for leadership rather then giving away leadership to his half brother, now again he was really scared that if he will break his promise to TS, KQ might revolt and he might bring the whole dawat thing down, so to avoid this situation he kept KQ mazoon and also on other hand kept promoting his son mufaddal, he knew he is going to face tuff time explaining nass to people if KQ revolts, now when his last breath came nearerhe had nothing to lose, so he did nass on his son as per his own plans going against his late father will.

now KQ was in shock about his brother deed but since he has no chance to go against him or else he will be beaten to death by bohras he started critisizing mufaddal rather then blamming to MB.

this whole story is crystal clear for those who can link all the events in last 100 years.

in this whole story IMAM AND ISLAM is absent, its all about personal gains and family desputes.



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

#1682

Unread post by lawgraduate » Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:01 pm

so in short according to TS KQ is 53rd dai and according to MB mufaddal is 53rd dai, now its upto people whom they want to follow. :D in both cases you are not following any spiritual leader.



Qadir
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:28 am

#1683

Unread post by Qadir » Sun Apr 12, 2015 3:28 am

aflatoon wrote:
What you say if it is true then you are casting doubts about burhanuddin moula's authority
by saying that he knew about SKQ's fitnati nature in 1980 and still didn't remove him from the position of mazoon (which was very easy for him as at that time he had very good hold on the masses) and allowed his name to be said in every misaaq of alive and his name to be written on rukku chitti of dead person for good 33 years.
Similarly STS also didn't remove the four omaras of jamea in his time. It was burhanuddin moula who removed them from their position.

Also, if burhanuddin moula would have removed him then it would be like he didn't gave KQ a chance to become good and faithful to dawat.

He wanted to change KQ and removing him from his position would not do any good but create a question that why did he made him mazoon in first place.



alivasan
Posts: 320
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 9:28 am

#1684

Unread post by alivasan » Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:22 am

Every day on this forum some stupid (acting like insider) come to forum and post why burhanuddin did and why not, hell lot of what if he did that and did not ,else what ..audience will find boring beyond one point and instead of justifications runs like ramblings here there..qadir I think is badri Mahal goon related to rajabali coming to defend his ayyash masters..so inside story and bla..bla.bla



alivasan
Posts: 320
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 9:28 am

#1685

Unread post by alivasan » Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:32 am

lawgraduate wrote:Listen I tell you the whole story of this dawat succession.

TS wanted KQ to become 53rd dai, in intial MB also wanted KQ to become his sucessor, but latter on when dawat started gaining more and more power and money, MB got idea that he should promote his own family for leadership rather then giving away leadership to his half brother, now again he was really scared that if he will break his promise to TS, KQ might revolt and he might bring the whole dawat thing down, so to avoid this situation he kept KQ mazoon and also on other hand kept promoting his son mufaddal, he knew he is going to face tuff time explaining nass to people if KQ revolts, now when his last breath came nearerhe had nothing to lose, so he did nass on his son as per his own plans going against his late father will.

now KQ was in shock about his brother deed but since he has no chance to go against him or else he will be beaten to death by bohras he started critisizing mufaddal rather then blamming to MB.

this whole story is crystal clear for those who can link all the events in last 100 years.

in this whole story IMAM AND ISLAM is absent, its all about personal gains and family desputes.
Nice script..bla..bla..keep your wild imagination with you law graduate. Audience on forum read factual info and not ur wild imagination let loose.



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

#1686

Unread post by Adam » Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:21 am

This Post is created because Crater Lake doesn't seem to be able to answer anything upfront or in the PM's. She is constantly "rescued" by the Forum, by diverting the topic. In the end, Crater Lake doesn't have the guts to reply.
[DELETED]
=======================
Dear Crater Lake lady,
What you are referring to has been very clearly clarified in the following post:
http://qutbibohras.blogspot.com/2014/12 ... s-haq.html
I will quote the information since you're terrified of reading the truth.

Crater Lake:
Adam it's really quite simple....Aqa Moula was saying Ya Sayyadas shohada and Moiza bhaisaheb LIED. Mind you, he did not just not say anything. He actually said Aqa Moula fulan fulan farmave che - something about rutba nu sharaf aapey che. He manufactured what Burhanuddin Aqa was saying out of thin air.
Answer:
13:44 - Syedna RA holds the mic again and says: "Sh mohammed mei, Sh Mohammed mei"... "banaya che ... rutba ma charhaya che".
Comments:
Moula RA is saying that “he Burhanuddin, he is Sh Mohammed”, that it is him who is making this statement and appointing Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS as his mansoos. Moula RA knew that there would be detractors and naysayers and is reminding them that I am the one saying this.
Taizoon incorrectly uses the word "ne" instead of "mei".
Duat Mutlaqeen have also referred to themselves as "Shaikh". [Ref: (1)]

14:00 - ... (more words by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA... from these, the words that sound like "be hi wa be walihi" can be heard)... (then 26 seconds later) at 14:26, some unclear words that may sound like “Ya syed...” can be heard.
14:48 - Syedna Mufaddal TUS begins his bayaan by saying "bismillah" and Dr Moiz Bs intervenes and repeats what Moula RA said prior to that "chela farmayu bi ilhamillah va be ilhaam e waliyehi..tamney aa sharaf apiye che".
Comments:
Taizoon tries to compare Dr Moiz Bs words "chela farmayu bi ilhamillah va be ilhaam e waliyehi..tamney aa sharaf apiye che" with the muffled words that sound like "ya sayed.." to accuse Dr Moiz Bs as a liar who is twisting words. In fact, what Taizoon ignores is that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is speaking for 26 seconds prior to that, from which, the words words that sound like "be hi wa be walihi" can be heard, thus, it is most likely that Dr Moiz Bs was summarizing these 26 seconds of Syedna's words when he said the following "chela farmayu bi ilhamillah va be ilhaam e waliyehi..tamney aa sharaf apiye che".
1. The part you are referring to is the same as Taizoon's video. Dr Moiz Bs is actually relating the what was being said over the course of 1 minute.
There may be some words that sound like "Ya Syed", but that comes at 14:26. MUCH PRIOR TO THIS (13:44). Moula had already said the words "rutba ma charhaya che", which is what Dr Moiz Bs then repeated. Yes, Aqa Moula may have been saying words that sound like "Ya Sayyid". So, he did NOT "manufacture what Burhanuddin Aqa was saying out of thin air". Instead he was conveying it.

Crater Lake:
And really MS did not even remember the day or the YEAR in which he was made Dai?!! Come on! Is that credible to anyone?
Read for more answers:
http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/ ... d-mandate/

1) Dates doesn't invalidate that the event took place
2) Khuzaima can't even remember his own dates (read the link)
3) Not remembering dates doesn't invalidate Nass.
4) A Private Nass without Tawqeef (KQ's claim), does go against Fatemi beliefs.

Crater Lake:
Also it is quite evident to me that Burhanuddin Moula is questioning what he was just asked to read: Su naam che? Mohammed naam che? Su naam che ehnu? It is very evident that he did not even know who was standing in front of him. How could he have knowingly done nass on MS!!
Let's go back to the video shall we?
You keep talking about 1 instance over the entire 1 hour program. Why don't you talk about the instances before and after that that all add up to Nass. Totally SEVEN times in the entire video that Nass took place. Quoting from the link:
We should analyze the entire Raudat Tahera Nass exactly how it took place, instead of cherry picking certain moments out of context.

It must be highlighted that in Raudat Tahera, Moula RA performed Nass twice. Once at the beginning where the words "Hijabiyat" were used, and once later on when the shawl was being draped. In the video, there are 6 instances of where senetences related to Nass were mentioned before "The Paper" and before the Majlis (in blue), and 1 instance after "The Paper".

In the video, Syedna's words are heard clearly twice (in green) where the words "rutba ma charhaya che" and "Mufaddal Bhai ne Nass nu taaj" are crystal clear. This confirms that it wasn't any ordinary sharaf being bestowed on any random person.
Crater Lake:
MS's fuzziness about the details regarding the night Aqa Moula showed him a diary written by a third person as a form of nass!! Really! That's how a nass is done? Show a third person diary without saying anything when both the concerned parties are present face to face!! It's laughable!
1. Nass is done through Nass & Tawqeef. Performing Nass and having witnesses. So yes, this IS HOW Nass is done. Not like delusional Mr Private Nass with no evidence KQ.

2. SMB Moula had already informed the witnesses in 1388H, and this document was attested by SMB Moula himself. It's not a "third person", it is Sh Ibrahim Yamani's writing (who happened to me Moula's diwan), writing in SMB's word, on behalf of himself, the FIRST PERSON, and finally attested by him, which is confirming that he confirms the contents of the document.
So yes, that IS how Nass is done.
Show a third person diary without saying anything when both the concerned parties are present face to face!! It's laughable!
Laughable? Really?
This is almost identical to what happened during the 44th Dai, Syedna Mohammed Ezzuddin's time.
A) Syedna Mohammed Ezzuddin made 2 Sheikhs witness to the Nass (before informing his Mansoos)
B) When Syedna Ezzuddin was ill, he called his Mansoos, Syedna Taiyeb and informed him that he has prepared a Nass document and had placed it in a particular box. If anything happened, the document was in there he said. (He doesn't tell him the contents of the document)
C) On another occasion in Ramadan, he called Syedna Taiyeb, and gave him the document and told him to read it. Syedna Taiyeb was taken back by its contents, as in it was the Nass on him.

Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin's nass is very similar.
Is the History of Duat "laughable" to you now?

فليضحكوا قليلا و ليبكوا كثيرا
But even more important than the proof of the negative for MS is that I believe Burhanuddin Moula's Mazoon of 50 years when he says nass was done on him.
1. The Mazoon of Syedna RA confirmed the Nass during Syedna's lifetime. In Toronto, Thane, and on his website. Even Abdeali (KQ's mazoon) did so. So yes, I do believe the Mazoon of Syedna Burhanuddin.
2. After the demise of the Dai, the Dai must reinstate the Rutba's of the Hudood, from the Mazoon downwards. Therefore, KQ wasn't the "Mazoon" at the time.
3. The Dai's words superceeds everyone elses words, including KQ's


Crater Lake:
Also, just because Burhanuddin Moula could not even tell who was in front of him ("Su naam che? Mohammed naam che ehnu?") does not mean that he could not break out of the fog of medication or the debilitating effects of the stroke itself - m o m e n t a r i l y to question what he had just read. Yes you cannot deny that he stopped mid sentence. Don't try to push your BS tasavvur on me. The fact is that he did stop and question what he had just been made to read. He never did finish even reading the sentence.
As a result, never once did we even hear him read, let alone say of his own volition, in a public event, a full sentence that would indicate that he had done nass on MS. The only words that are purportedly his, are those that are without video, that were played BEFORE the Cromwell video. I have already said that they are not credible.
1. There are multiple times in the video where the words adding to Nass are said.
2. There is a document.
3. There are witnesses.
4. There is an audio that does have a full sentence "Dawat na rutba ma Mufaddal Bhai ne qaim Karu chu".

That is substantially more than ABSOLUTELY nothing (that KQ has).

Crater Lake:
You talk about a "public event"; isn't your leader the one who believes that Nass doesn't need to be public nor private (with witnesses)
As a result I have to believe the Mazoon's word.
1. You don't "have to believe" anyone's word. You choose to, because of your predetermined history of affection for KQ.
2. Do you think Syedna or any Imam or Dai would leave their followers in the Dark? Leaving them to guess who's next, and "as a result" whom to believe?

Crater Lake:
And yes indeed SKQ had no business showing up in the jamaat of liars after their nass dawa. He did right by staying away.
So why did he come to Saify Mahal to do Salaam? The "liars" were there as well. Or did it suddenly occur to him after many months, that he needed to do Salaam to the Dai?

Crater Lake:
In my lifetime SMB has not given me a single reason to doubt him.
Really? Is that how weak your Iman is? All based on your own flaud mind?
Even if he did give you a reason, you still shouldn't have doubted him. Isn't that what Kitab ul Himmah teaches us?
You wouldn't have done too well as a Mumin during Fatemi Imam's time either.
==================================
Much has been said. Instead of attempting to answer the above, try answering these questions sweet and simple.

1) Was Syedna RA able to speak ANYTHING clearly during the Raudat Taher event? YES or NO?
2) Was Syedna able to read? YES or NO?
3) Was Syedna able to understand what he was reading? YES or NO?
4) Was Syedna able to understand what was going on around him? YES or NO?
5) Were the words "Mufaddal Bhai ne Nass nu taaj" said by Syedna? YES or NO?
6) Were the words "rutba ma charaya che" said during the event? YES or NO?
7) Did Syedna accept the Najwa from the Shehzadas, and also say "khuda barakat apey" in the end? YES or NO?

Answer these simple questions, and we can take it forward.
[/color]



Crater Lake
Posts: 292
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:46 pm

#1687

Unread post by Crater Lake » Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:12 am

Adam wrote:This Post is created because Crater Lake doesn't seem to be able to answer anything upfront or in the PM's. She is constantly "rescued" by the Forum, by diverting the topic. In the end, Crater Lake doesn't have the guts to reply.
[DELETED]
=======================
Dear Crater Lake lady,
What you are referring to has been very clearly clarified in the following post:
http://qutbibohras.blogspot.com/2014/12 ... s-haq.html
I will quote the information since you're terrified of reading the truth.

Crater Lake:
Adam it's really quite simple....Aqa Moula was saying Ya Sayyadas shohada and Moiza bhaisaheb LIED. Mind you, he did not just not say anything. He actually said Aqa Moula fulan fulan farmave che - something about rutba nu sharaf aapey che. He manufactured what Burhanuddin Aqa was saying out of thin air.
Answer:
13:44 - Syedna RA holds the mic again and says: "Sh mohammed mei, Sh Mohammed mei"... "banaya che ... rutba ma charhaya che".
Comments:
Moula RA is saying that “he Burhanuddin, he is Sh Mohammed”, that it is him who is making this statement and appointing Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS as his mansoos. Moula RA knew that there would be detractors and naysayers and is reminding them that I am the one saying this.
Taizoon incorrectly uses the word "ne" instead of "mei".
Duat Mutlaqeen have also referred to themselves as "Shaikh". [Ref: (1)]

14:00 - ... (more words by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA... from these, the words that sound like "be hi wa be walihi" can be heard)... (then 26 seconds later) at 14:26, some unclear words that may sound like “Ya syed...” can be heard.
14:48 - Syedna Mufaddal TUS begins his bayaan by saying "bismillah" and Dr Moiz Bs intervenes and repeats what Moula RA said prior to that "chela farmayu bi ilhamillah va be ilhaam e waliyehi..tamney aa sharaf apiye che".
Comments:
Taizoon tries to compare Dr Moiz Bs words "chela farmayu bi ilhamillah va be ilhaam e waliyehi..tamney aa sharaf apiye che" with the muffled words that sound like "ya sayed.." to accuse Dr Moiz Bs as a liar who is twisting words. In fact, what Taizoon ignores is that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is speaking for 26 seconds prior to that, from which, the words words that sound like "be hi wa be walihi" can be heard, thus, it is most likely that Dr Moiz Bs was summarizing these 26 seconds of Syedna's words when he said the following "chela farmayu bi ilhamillah va be ilhaam e waliyehi..tamney aa sharaf apiye che".
1. The part you are referring to is the same as Taizoon's video. Dr Moiz Bs is actually relating the what was being said over the course of 1 minute.
There may be some words that sound like "Ya Syed", but that comes at 14:26. MUCH PRIOR TO THIS (13:44). Moula had already said the words "rutba ma charhaya che", which is what Dr Moiz Bs then repeated. Yes, Aqa Moula may have been saying words that sound like "Ya Sayyid". So, he did NOT "manufacture what Burhanuddin Aqa was saying out of thin air". Instead he was conveying it.

Crater Lake:
And really MS did not even remember the day or the YEAR in which he was made Dai?!! Come on! Is that credible to anyone?
Read for more answers:
http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/ ... d-mandate/

1) Dates doesn't invalidate that the event took place
2) Khuzaima can't even remember his own dates (read the link)
3) Not remembering dates doesn't invalidate Nass.
4) A Private Nass without Tawqeef (KQ's claim), does go against Fatemi beliefs.

Crater Lake:
Also it is quite evident to me that Burhanuddin Moula is questioning what he was just asked to read: Su naam che? Mohammed naam che? Su naam che ehnu? It is very evident that he did not even know who was standing in front of him. How could he have knowingly done nass on MS!!
Let's go back to the video shall we?
You keep talking about 1 instance over the entire 1 hour program. Why don't you talk about the instances before and after that that all add up to Nass. Totally SEVEN times in the entire video that Nass took place. Quoting from the link:
We should analyze the entire Raudat Tahera Nass exactly how it took place, instead of cherry picking certain moments out of context.

It must be highlighted that in Raudat Tahera, Moula RA performed Nass twice. Once at the beginning where the words "Hijabiyat" were used, and once later on when the shawl was being draped. In the video, there are 6 instances of where senetences related to Nass were mentioned before "The Paper" and before the Majlis (in blue), and 1 instance after "The Paper".

In the video, Syedna's words are heard clearly twice (in green) where the words "rutba ma charhaya che" and "Mufaddal Bhai ne Nass nu taaj" are crystal clear. This confirms that it wasn't any ordinary sharaf being bestowed on any random person.
Crater Lake:
MS's fuzziness about the details regarding the night Aqa Moula showed him a diary written by a third person as a form of nass!! Really! That's how a nass is done? Show a third person diary without saying anything when both the concerned parties are present face to face!! It's laughable!
1. Nass is done through Nass & Tawqeef. Performing Nass and having witnesses. So yes, this IS HOW Nass is done. Not like delusional Mr Private Nass with no evidence KQ.

2. SMB Moula had already informed the witnesses in 1388H, and this document was attested by SMB Moula himself. It's not a "third person", it is Sh Ibrahim Yamani's writing (who happened to me Moula's diwan), writing in SMB's word, on behalf of himself, the FIRST PERSON, and finally attested by him, which is confirming that he confirms the contents of the document.
So yes, that IS how Nass is done.
Show a third person diary without saying anything when both the concerned parties are present face to face!! It's laughable!
Laughable? Really?
This is almost identical to what happened during the 44th Dai, Syedna Mohammed Ezzuddin's time.
A) Syedna Mohammed Ezzuddin made 2 Sheikhs witness to the Nass (before informing his Mansoos)
B) When Syedna Ezzuddin was ill, he called his Mansoos, Syedna Taiyeb and informed him that he has prepared a Nass document and had placed it in a particular box. If anything happened, the document was in there he said. (He doesn't tell him the contents of the document)
C) On another occasion in Ramadan, he called Syedna Taiyeb, and gave him the document and told him to read it. Syedna Taiyeb was taken back by its contents, as in it was the Nass on him.

Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin's nass is very similar.
Is the History of Duat "laughable" to you now?

فليضحكوا قليلا و ليبكوا كثيرا
But even more important than the proof of the negative for MS is that I believe Burhanuddin Moula's Mazoon of 50 years when he says nass was done on him.
1. The Mazoon of Syedna RA confirmed the Nass during Syedna's lifetime. In Toronto, Thane, and on his website. Even Abdeali (KQ's mazoon) did so. So yes, I do believe the Mazoon of Syedna Burhanuddin.
2. After the demise of the Dai, the Dai must reinstate the Rutba's of the Hudood, from the Mazoon downwards. Therefore, KQ wasn't the "Mazoon" at the time.
3. The Dai's words superceeds everyone elses words, including KQ's


Crater Lake:
Also, just because Burhanuddin Moula could not even tell who was in front of him ("Su naam che? Mohammed naam che ehnu?") does not mean that he could not break out of the fog of medication or the debilitating effects of the stroke itself - m o m e n t a r i l y to question what he had just read. Yes you cannot deny that he stopped mid sentence. Don't try to push your BS tasavvur on me. The fact is that he did stop and question what he had just been made to read. He never did finish even reading the sentence.
As a result, never once did we even hear him read, let alone say of his own volition, in a public event, a full sentence that would indicate that he had done nass on MS. The only words that are purportedly his, are those that are without video, that were played BEFORE the Cromwell video. I have already said that they are not credible.
1. There are multiple times in the video where the words adding to Nass are said.
2. There is a document.
3. There are witnesses.
4. There is an audio that does have a full sentence "Dawat na rutba ma Mufaddal Bhai ne qaim Karu chu".

That is substantially more than ABSOLUTELY nothing (that KQ has).

Crater Lake:
You talk about a "public event"; isn't your leader the one who believes that Nass doesn't need to be public nor private (with witnesses)
As a result I have to believe the Mazoon's word.
1. You don't "have to believe" anyone's word. You choose to, because of your predetermined history of affection for KQ.
2. Do you think Syedna or any Imam or Dai would leave their followers in the Dark? Leaving them to guess who's next, and "as a result" whom to believe?

Crater Lake:
And yes indeed SKQ had no business showing up in the jamaat of liars after their nass dawa. He did right by staying away.
So why did he come to Saify Mahal to do Salaam? The "liars" were there as well. Or did it suddenly occur to him after many months, that he needed to do Salaam to the Dai?

Crater Lake:
In my lifetime SMB has not given me a single reason to doubt him.
Really? Is that how weak your Iman is? All based on your own flaud mind?
Even if he did give you a reason, you still shouldn't have doubted him. Isn't that what Kitab ul Himmah teaches us?
You wouldn't have done too well as a Mumin during Fatemi Imam's time either.
==================================
Much has been said. Instead of attempting to answer the above, try answering these questions sweet and simple.

1) Was Syedna RA able to speak ANYTHING clearly during the Raudat Taher event? YES or NO?
2) Was Syedna able to read? YES or NO?
3) Was Syedna able to understand what he was reading? YES or NO?
4) Was Syedna able to understand what was going on around him? YES or NO?
5) Were the words "Mufaddal Bhai ne Nass nu taaj" said by Syedna? YES or NO?
6) Were the words "rutba ma charaya che" said during the event? YES or NO?
7) Did Syedna accept the Najwa from the Shehzadas, and also say "khuda barakat apey" in the end? YES or NO?

Answer these simple questions, and we can take it forward.
[/color]
Adam sent me an intrusive email after he did not take the hint that I WAS BUSY when I did not read his PM. I do have a life outside this forum, a VERY interesting and busy life and I do not get paid to come here and post, like you do... :roll:

Adam, like I said, we have exhausted this topic and I will not be coming to this forum again after this post. I will only say this. You should read your argument again and reflect upon whetjher you even believe yourself. You have tweaked those words of Burhanuddin Moula that you could tweak and when you cannot explain "naam su che? Mohammed naam che? su naam che?" You say: "Ignore it!!! Just look at the grand show we put up! How can you not believe it?" So you are saying that Burhanuddin Moula was identifying himself in front of thousands of his ardent followers one second(which in itself is ludicrous) and then in the next second he forgot his own name and in that state he did nass on Mufaddal Bhaisaheb :lol: AND that he WANTED to do nass-e-jali on Mufaddal Bhaisaheb BUT he waited until after his stroke.... :lol:

You are saying that the Mazoon was not the Mazoon after Burhanuddin Moula's wafat. You are correct. He was the Dai. I heard Burhanuddin Moula give him the rutba but I never heard him take it away. So he was his Mazoon until his last breath and the Dai thereafter due to the nass on him.

You can keep twisting facts here and spinning your stories but it is evident that the people on this forum are too smart for you and my work in dispelling your falsehoods is done. Thanks Unhappy, Objective, SBM, MMH, Kimanu, etc. for your support and for calling out Adam and James' BS. Sorry I have not had time to catch up on the threads but based on Adam's email, it appears that you guys called out some of their tall-tales. Now I need to get back to my life.



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

#1688

Unread post by Adam » Mon Apr 13, 2015 10:18 pm

@Crater Lake
Typical coward.
Why so scared of answering very simple and clear untwisted questions?
Repeat
1) Was Syedna RA able to speak ANYTHING clearly during the Raudat Taher event? YES or NO?
2) Was Syedna able to read? YES or NO?
3) Was Syedna able to understand what he was reading? YES or NO?
4) Was Syedna able to understand what was going on around him? YES or NO?
5) Were the words "Mufaddal Bhai ne Nass nu taaj" said by Syedna? YES or NO?
6) Were the words "rutba ma charaya che" said during the event? YES or NO?
7) Did Syedna accept the Najwa from the Shehzadas, and also say "khuda barakat apey" in the end? YES or NO?


Answer these simple questions or remain a liar.



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

#1689

Unread post by lawgraduate » Mon Apr 13, 2015 11:42 pm

Adam wrote:@Crater Lake
Typical coward.
Why so scared of answering very simple and clear untwisted questions?
Repeat
1) Was Syedna RA able to speak ANYTHING clearly during the Raudat Taher event? YES or NO?
2) Was Syedna able to read? YES or NO?
3) Was Syedna able to understand what he was reading? YES or NO?
4) Was Syedna able to understand what was going on around him? YES or NO?
5) Were the words "Mufaddal Bhai ne Nass nu taaj" said by Syedna? YES or NO?
6) Were the words "rutba ma charaya che" said during the event? YES or NO?
7) Did Syedna accept the Najwa from the Shehzadas, and also say "khuda barakat apey" in the end? YES or NO?


Answer these simple questions or remain a liar.
All your answers are YES but MB himself was dai e Imam e zaman? answer is NO. now go figure. injustice and loot was common in his era which is continuing till today.

start thinking.



Qadir
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:28 am

#1690

Unread post by Qadir » Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:02 am

Maybe SMB would be asking mumineen:

Tamara Dai nu su naam che? Mohammed naam che? Su naam che?(Asking mumineen to repeat his name)

You never know what the whole sentence could be.



mnoorani
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:05 am

#1691

Unread post by mnoorani » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:06 am

Qadir wrote:Maybe SMB would be asking mumineen:

Tamara Dai nu su naam che? Mohammed naam che? Su naam che?(Asking mumineen to repeat his name)

You never know what the whole sentence could be.
Thats what people have been trying to tell you that the Late Sayedna did not wanted to name Mufaddal as his successor but he kept on uttering the lines you mentioned above. Why on earth would he ask tamaara dai nu su naam che. Was he so disillusioned that he did not know that he was a dai and his name was Mohammed ? Did his sons feed him certain medicines so that he remained drowsy and just mumbled rubbish. One thing is certain he was forced the mike and still did not utter Mufaddals name.Then the mike is snatched from the feebled and totally confused Dai . Imagine the state of mind and health the Ilah Al Ardh was in at that time.



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

#1692

Unread post by anajmi » Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:57 am

It is amazing how the ghaib na jannaar, Al-Hayy Al-Muqaddas, wasn't able to compile one full sentence before he died, and yet manages to lead these morons astray even after his death!!



alam
Posts: 712
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:15 pm

#1693

Unread post by alam » Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:28 pm

Qadir wrote:Maybe SMB would be asking mumineen:

Tamara Dai nu su naam che? Mohammed naam che? Su naam che?(Asking mumineen to repeat his name)

[b]You never know what the whole sentence could be[/b]



There is an effort by interested parties to mislead an entire community due to the incomplete sentence structure that leads someone to accurately conclude:
"You never know what the whole sentence could be"

____________ "su naam Che? Mohammed naam Che? Su naam Che?"_______________


Tamara Rasul nu su naam Che? "su naam Che? Mohammed naam Che? Su naam Che?" Mohammed che ne? Khaaw qasam ane Kahoe naa'm
"

This sentence is open to interpretation to any Tom dick and Harry, or Adam, Crater or anajmi, as is other data points used to support your own inclination and POV.

There seems to be an effort of running a parallel court deliberation in this forum - perhaps as a test run for court debate , or to gather info about the kinds of arguments to expect in court from the opposite side. So keep it up, Crater you are doing a swell job, and Adam, for keeping Crater on her feet! Nice going Taha Hakimuddin (and James and Johnny come lately Qadir)

Keep going - it's not even a debate, although it's presented as one , yet fascinating to watch the pursuit. The cat becomes the mouse, the mouse becomes the cat - they keep changing their roles - but the debate becomes totally irrelevant. It's fun to read all this , never know who's running or who's chasing. Nice bed- time story.



mnoorani
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:05 am

#1694

Unread post by mnoorani » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:54 pm

Adam wrote:@Crater Lake
Typical coward.
Why so scared of answering very simple and clear untwisted questions?
Repeat
1) Was Syedna RA able to speak ANYTHING clearly during the Raudat Taher event? YES or NO?
2) Was Syedna able to read? YES or NO?
3) Was Syedna able to understand what he was reading? YES or NO?
4) Was Syedna able to understand what was going on around him? YES or NO?
5) Were the words "Mufaddal Bhai ne Nass nu taaj" said by Syedna? YES or NO?
6) Were the words "rutba ma charaya che" said during the event? YES or NO?
7) Did Syedna accept the Najwa from the Shehzadas, and also say "khuda barakat apey" in the end? YES or NO?


Answer these simple questions or remain a liar.
So you do agree that there never was a post or rutba of a mansoos in the entire history of Dawat. This post was made just to legalise a position of a son of a dai by the other sons of the dai from the same mother. As not even a single person from the Dawat hierarchy was present, like a Mazoon or a Mukasir or even any Shaikh in the hospital bed. But only the sons of the Dai who have no hierarchy in the dawaat. They call themselves the self invented titled of a prince ,the shahzaada. A big question is why was the Saifee hospital avoided and instead the hajat rawaan himself was taken to a foreign land to be treated !!!!! Was the Ilah al Ardh not worthy to be treated by mumins and instead had to rely on kaafirs and yahudis and nasranis for his own health. WHERE DID HIS PHOONK GO THEN ???? did it come out of another orifice?



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

#1695

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:33 pm

A very simple and straight forward logic which the brain washed abdes refuse to realise is that ALL the "Witnesses" in the Nass drama were "Interested parties", they wanted to retain the billions of dollars wealth within their own family hence, NO neutral witness was present during the alleged fake Nass !!



dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 503
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

#1696

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:09 am

Qadir wrote:My Maternal Great Grandfather was a Sheikh of high level and Hafiz e Quran.

He used to go to Saifee Mahal for Haqiqat na sabak given by Al Hayyal Muqaddas Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (R.A.).

My mother informed me that in 1980s he used to tell that Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin (T.U.S.) was the mansoos of burhanuddin moula and that KQ used to do fitnat which SMB did not used to disclose in public (he may not tell deep about the type of fitnat KQ did).

On his last days when he was in hospital and half-consious he kept saying names of STS, SMB and SMS.
Qadir bhai,

As others have asked, I must say this opens more questions than answers. I would appreciate it if you could help clarify some of my doubts.

You say since 1980 Burhanuddin Moula knew that SKQ used to do fitnat. Okay, after that, SMS got married (very briefly) to SKQ's daughter. Would you marry your son to the daughter of somebody who was doing fitnat against you/your dawat? That does not make sense to me. And there is the separate question of (moral) responsibility to a young woman (SKQ's daughter, Safiyah bhensaheb), and her life/future, that one marries her and then quickly divorces her - is that right?

After that, in the 90's SMB's 2 grand-children married 2 of SKQ's daughters. So if he (SKQ) continued doing fitnat, why again these marriages? Finally, my understanding is that Burhanuddin Moula was interested in the 2000's in marrying her grand-daughter (Huzefa bhaisaheb's daughter) to SKQ's son.

And his son (Qusai BS?) also married SKQ's daughter, correct? And he kept him as his mazoom and in 1993 when the position of mukasir opened up, he did not nominate SMS, but chose Husain BS Husamuddin.

If he (SMB) knew of this fitnat and he did nothing, your narrative does not paint a very good picture of the dawat ...

Appreciate an explanation for this simpleton ..



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

#1697

Unread post by humanbeing » Wed Apr 15, 2015 2:35 am

ghulam muhammed wrote:A very simple and straight forward logic which the brain washed abdes refuse to realise is that ALL the "Witnesses" in the Nass drama were "Interested parties", they wanted to retain the billions of dollars wealth within their own family hence, NO neutral witness was present during the alleged fake Nass !!
Any witness in this messy drama would become an interested party, as there are millions at stake at sway of a hand. In spite of past reference of messy nass dramas, SMB the ghaib na janaar, should have his successorship declared on paper and legalized. After all he claims to be the jaan and maal naa maalik of bohras .. thus he should have passed his heritance of abdes to his next successor in legal and clear way. The past has been so muddy, even a commoner with common sense would know what to do at that leadership position, but the great SMB did not .. (HIKMAT HIKMAT). Interestingly if some tom and harry from kothar would have claimed for DAI ship he would be blocked, beaten and finished within minutes .. the controversy became interesting when the son of 51st DAI, brother of 52nd DAI, Mazoon of Daawat the contender (SKQ) is from the royal blood line with many other complex relationship shared with occupier (SMS) makes it worth a discussion. All this drama has bought the filth and muck that is in the royal family. It has done a ton of good actually.

More these both camps accuse and abuse each other, they make the fallacy of their royalty and divinity stronger. These guys could not raise their own blood line in a loyal way .. and demand loyality from others.



Qadir
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:28 am

#1698

Unread post by Qadir » Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:02 am

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: Qadir bhai,

As others have asked, I must say this opens more questions than answers. I would appreciate it if you could help clarify some of my doubts.

You say since 1980 Burhanuddin Moula knew that SKQ used to do fitnat. Okay, after that, SMS got married (very briefly) to SKQ's daughter. Would you marry your son to the daughter of somebody who was doing fitnat against you/your dawat? That does not make sense to me. And there is the separate question of (moral) responsibility to a young woman (SKQ's daughter, Safiyah bhensaheb), and her life/future, that one marries her and then quickly divorces her - is that right?

After that, in the 90's SMB's 2 grand-children married 2 of SKQ's daughters. So if he (SKQ) continued doing fitnat, why again these marriages? Finally, my understanding is that Burhanuddin Moula was interested in the 2000's in marrying her grand-daughter (Huzefa bhaisaheb's daughter) to SKQ's son.

And his son (Qusai BS?) also married SKQ's daughter, correct? And he kept him as his mazoom and in 1993 when the position of mukasir opened up, he did not nominate SMS, but chose Husain BS Husamuddin.

If he (SMB) knew of this fitnat and he did nothing, your narrative does not paint a very good picture of the dawat ...

Appreciate an explanation for this simpleton ..
All these marriages were conducted by raza of SMB as he wanted to give a chance to KQ.

SMB would have known what will happen after his death and would have tried to give KQ a chance so that if his family and SMB's family are so interrelated that after the firka by the convincing of his daughters (due to their loyalty to their husbands) KQ would return to haq and accept the rutba of mazoon till his last breath.

But SMB was wrong there (i accept) because none of the daughter was loyal to their husbands (children and grandchildren of SMB)
and supported their father in his wrong claim.

Qadir wrote:My Maternal Great Grandfather was a Sheikh of high level and Hafiz e Quran.

He used to go to Saifee Mahal for Haqiqat na sabak given by Al Hayyal Muqaddas Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (R.A.).

My mother informed me that in 1980s he used to tell that Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin (T.U.S.) was the mansoos of burhanuddin moula and that KQ used to do fitnat which SMB did not used to disclose in public (he may not tell deep about the type of fitnat KQ did).

On his last days when he was in hospital and half-consious he kept saying names of STS, SMB and SMS.
I Accept this thread was a mistake of mine as it raised unwanted questions rather than solving previous ones.



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

#1699

Unread post by humanbeing » Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:38 am

Qadir wrote: All these marriages were conducted by raza of SMB as he wanted to give a chance to KQ.

SMB would have known what will happen after his death and would have tried to give KQ a chance so that if his family and SMB's family are so interrelated that after the firka by the convincing of his daughters (due to their loyalty to their husbands) KQ would return to haq and accept the rutba of mazoon till his last breath.

But SMB was wrong there (i accept) because none of the daughter was loyal to their husbands (children and grandchildren of SMB)
and supported their father in his wrong claim.
The hilarity of this point can be reversed and claimed on Muffy maula as well.

“SMB would have known what will happen after his death and would have tried to give MS a chance so that if his family and KQ's family are so interrelated that MS would soften up due to familial ties and attachment to wife and children, and accept the larger interest of wellbeing for the extended family of SMB, KQ and himself.

But SMB was wrong there (i accept) because MS and his gang did not see eye to eye with KQ family and planned their own rule under the nose of SMB.”

It is silly, that son of 51st Dai, brother of 52nd Dai, Mazoon of Daawat, kaka - uncle of MS is been perceived to be corrected / aligned rather than; brattish, grumpy, short tempered, materialistic grandson of 51st Dai, Son of 52nd Dai, No important rank holder of Daawat, Bhatija – nephew of KQ.

Muffy maula has no other qualification other than being 52nd Dai’s Son and usurped orchestrated nass drama to his credit. Surprisingly he headed jamea, was he teaching roti making at those times as well ? he would have done better at catering portfolio in the community, which by the way is a bigger money spinner than jamea !



kseeker
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:01 am

#1700

Unread post by kseeker » Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:30 am

Qadir wrote:
fustrate_Bohra wrote:Mnoorani bhai,

Would like to thank you for making us (munafiq) realise that whatever our dai is doing (travelling, fund raising, purchase of property, moharram tamasha, gale lagawing Muslim haters etc...) is ONLY and ONLY for our benefit and he DOES NOT have any personal vested interest.

You had beautifully explained our Dais capabilities and there hikmats only in few post whereas Adam and James had been here for years but failed to list down their qualities.

Now am worried because if kqs supporters read ur post there are chances of them getting back to MS and kqs may loose few more followers.

Keep it up noorani bhai one day our dai will surely bestow the title of SHEIKH on you. :)
Dai is the only person who will take you from your qabr to the gate of jannat .

There he will witness that you had valaayat for panjetan and all imams and make your way directly inside jannat.

If only your great grandfather also knew that there are 4 more positions of the dawat between the Dai al Mutlaq and the Imaam, he would not have fallen for the pile of crap you just said....

The word Dai means messenger... a messenger of the Imaam... thats it.. please do not glorify them unnecessarily.
There have been Dais who have done a lot for us...not this lot though.. if only your grand daddy also knew that the line of Dais have stopped quite a while ago..



kseeker
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:01 am

#1701

Unread post by kseeker » Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:53 am

Qadir wrote:
aflatoon wrote:
What you say if it is true then you are casting doubts about burhanuddin moula's authority
by saying that he knew about SKQ's fitnati nature in 1980 and still didn't remove him from the position of mazoon (which was very easy for him as at that time he had very good hold on the masses) and allowed his name to be said in every misaaq of alive and his name to be written on rukku chitti of dead person for good 33 years.
Similarly STS also didn't remove the four omaras of jamea in his time. It was burhanuddin moula who removed them from their position.

Also, if burhanuddin moula would have removed him then it would be like he didn't gave KQ a chance to become good and faithful to dawat.

He wanted to change KQ and removing him from his position would not do any good but create a question that why did he made him mazoon in first place.
STS was a smart man and he was not as greedy as this lot... STS was well learned and knew very well the value of well learned people... He also was smart enough to know that keeping yousuf najmuddin away from an authoritative role was the best thing to do... but you cannot always have what you want... he was the greediest person in the office this community must have ever witnessed... the only way he could get what he wanted was by either killing, shaming or exiling every learned man out there who had the ability to tell people what is right vs wrong.



SBM
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

#1702

Unread post by SBM » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:23 am

But SMB was wrong there (i accept)
.
So then he was not Masoom as been said by SMS mouthpieces like Adam aka Taha and James. Good atleast we agree on that.
none of the daughter was loyal to their husbands
So let us find out what happend to STS's wife and why SMB never talked about his mother May be she was not loyal to STS too.
supported their father in his wrong claim
Atleast they did not Parade their feeble father like SMS did with SMB for Monetary Gain They are better children then SMS could ever be to his father.



Qadir
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:28 am

#1703

Unread post by Qadir » Thu Apr 16, 2015 4:56 am

SBM wrote:
But SMB was wrong there (i accept)
.
So then he was not Masoom as been said by SMS mouthpieces like Adam aka Taha and James. Good atleast we agree on that.
Maybe there is some hikmat (which is not yet revealed) and Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin would have been right.



next_generation2014
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:37 am

#1704

Unread post by next_generation2014 » Thu Apr 16, 2015 10:11 am

court order on 15/04/2015
1.
Chamber Summons not on board. Mentioned. By consent,
taken on board and taken up for final disposal. Mr. Dwarkadas,
learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant, proceeds on the basis of
denials
2.
The Plaintiff has included in his Affidavit of Documents
several documents as set out in the Schedule to this Chamber
Summons. All these are part of the documents compiled and then
further recompiled. It appears that though these documents have
been included in their compilation, the Plaintiff does not seek to
rely on these documents in support of his case. It is clarified, so that
the entire record is not again disrupted, that these documents listed
in the Schedule to the Chamber Summons will be retained in the
compilations as filed. It is, however, clarified that the inclusion in
the compilation(s) does not mean and shall not be construed to
mean that the Plaintiff has admitted the documents set out in the
Schedule to the present Chamber Summons. Should the Defendant
seek to rely on any of these documents, the Defendant will be at
liberty to prove these documents in evidence in the normal course,
but without contending that these have been admitted by the
Plaintiff.
3.
Further: page Nos. 1227 to 1231 in the compilation of
documents not admitted by the Plaintiff are to be replaced with the
correct pages 123 and 124 of the book by Syedna al-Quali al-
Nu’man, al-Majalis wa-I-Musayarat.
4.
The Chamber Summons is disposed of accordingly.
5.
The Defendant’s further affidavit of documents and
compilation referred to in paragraph 11 of the order dated 18th
March 2015 shall be filed in the course of the day. Liberty to the
Defendant to apply for liberty to file a supplemental affidavit of
documents and compilation, if necessary.
6.
The registry has furnished the parties with an estimate of
costs likely to be incurred for the special arrangements being made
for the scheduled trial on 27th and 28th April 2015. The Plaintiff
and Defendant shall each deposit 50% of the estimated amount with
the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court. This is to be done
on or before 23rd April 2015.



next_generation2014
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:37 am

#1705

Unread post by next_generation2014 » Thu Apr 16, 2015 3:02 pm

When I see the court order 2 of 18/03/2015, I got to know that MS has not submitted the Video of Landon Nass in court yet.
And also Nass in Raudat tahera was submitted by KQ not by Muffy....

It look like MS did not had proof related to London nass as well as Raudat tahera Nass.
He just want to make people to fool only.



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

#1706

Unread post by lawgraduate » Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:16 pm

alivasan wrote:
lawgraduate wrote:Listen I tell you the whole story of this dawat succession.

TS wanted KQ to become 53rd dai, in intial MB also wanted KQ to become his sucessor, but latter on when dawat started gaining more and more power and money, MB got idea that he should promote his own family for leadership rather then giving away leadership to his half brother, now again he was really scared that if he will break his promise to TS, KQ might revolt and he might bring the whole dawat thing down, so to avoid this situation he kept KQ mazoon and also on other hand kept promoting his son mufaddal, he knew he is going to face tuff time explaining nass to people if KQ revolts, now when his last breath came nearerhe had nothing to lose, so he did nass on his son as per his own plans going against his late father will.

now KQ was in shock about his brother deed but since he has no chance to go against him or else he will be beaten to death by bohras he started critisizing mufaddal rather then blamming to MB.

this whole story is crystal clear for those who can link all the events in last 100 years.

in this whole story IMAM AND ISLAM is absent, its all about personal gains and family desputes.
Nice script..bla..bla..keep your wild imagination with you law graduate. Audience on forum read factual info and not ur wild imagination let loose.
its not just wild thinking or imagination Mr vasanwala, if you look what is going on you can clearly see KQ was against many policies of MB, he already knew MB is just a leader and nothing spirituaal about it.

I can give you many many examples but here are few

KQ was always againt the safai chitthi colour coding but he kept silent all these 50 years
KQ was not happy with MB for his friendly relation with Modi, his son even today calls him hitler in his sabaq yet KQ was silent all these years.
KQ knows stock market is not haram but he kept silent when MB was propoganding in other ways.
KQ is againt giving away of paid titles like sheikh and Mullah yet he kept silent all these years.
KQ wants settlements with progressives but he kept silent all these 50 years.

so you see these all people knows the truth about each other but they keep silent to save each other back

for KQ MB was never kul mukhtar or masoom, but even today he praises MB to keep him in this post so finally he allso can remain this post and stature.



thesource
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 2:26 pm

#1707

Unread post by thesource » Sun Apr 19, 2015 9:59 am

SMB RA was also against all these unfair practices. It was MS, Qaidjohar and their brothers who harassed SMB and threatened him. MS had to spread venom to get in power which he succeeded but not for too long ;-)



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

#1708

Unread post by lawgraduate » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:22 am

thesource wrote:SMB RA was also against all these unfair practices. It was MS, Qaidjohar and their brothers who harassed SMB and threatened him. MS had to spread venom to get in power which he succeeded but not for too long ;-)
yeah I am also against many things in my company but I cant do any thing because my manager dont listen to me, though I give him salary but is real boss, he takes decision and I just follow his orders because he is real owner of my company.

makes sense?



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

#1709

Unread post by lawgraduate » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:29 am

and again lets say MS was controlling MB for all these years, wasn't it BMB duty to resign from his post if he is not capable of doing justice to people?

Daiship is not imamat which cant be given away, dai is appointed by Imam so if some dai fails to fulfill his duty he must let the powers and authority to some one else who is more capable of it.



next_generation2014
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:37 am

#1710

Unread post by next_generation2014 » Sun Apr 19, 2015 1:11 pm

court_order2_18March2015_.pdf
Documents submitted by KQ and MS in Bombay high court
(295.53 KiB) Downloaded 1207 times
Documents submitted by KQ and MS in Bombay high court