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.
Adam
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

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

#1921

Unread post by Adam » Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:07 am

@Biradar
You completely ignored Point 2 - 4.

Biradar
Posts: 875
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:13 pm

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

#1922

Unread post by Biradar » Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:09 am

Adam wrote:@Biradar
You completely ignored Point 2 - 4.
Given you are pretty ignorant of how logical arguments work, let me put it in simple terms. If Point 1 is proven wrong, then it is worthless to go onto Points 2-4. Simple as that. You started off from a false analogy. You lied about history, thinking no one would call you out on your lies. In fact, that is exactly what this whole charade led by Dawedar Muffadul has been: lies, distortions and a naked lust for money. I suggest and appeal to you not to be a front to such people, to understand where the truth lies. It certainly does not lie in a sexist, misogynist, anti-intellectual, money hungry, ziyaafat eating lustful fanatical man!

As to the court case. No one ran anywhere. I already addressed the issue in detail. Read my post again. Carefully, without colored lenses.

Sometimes, one needs to do something to establish haaq. Even if the attempt fails on the surface. For example, Imam Hussain argued with his enemies on the day of Ashura, knowing full well what was to be the effect. In short, except for the conversion of Huur, nothing. In a few hours, his family and friends were massacred and laid waste. If you were around, you would say, Imam Hussain suffered a humiliating defeat after running away to Karbala instead of performing hajj!! Nauzubillah!! However, those who gloated on the death of Hussain are now in the deepest and hottest part of hell, while Hussain's message and sacrifice continues to motivate millions to be selfless and fight for what is right, despite the odds and despite the signs of outward defeat.

Maulana Ali was patient and quiet for 26 years, while 1, 2 and 3 ran amok, making mockery of the Prophet's religion and naas. Just the same is happening here! Just read Sermon 3 from Nahjul Balagha. If you were around, you would say Maulana Ali suffered a humiliating defeat!! Nauzubillah!! In fact, Ali's fortitude in face of the overwhelming majority, when he only had a few faithful around him, is now legendary. I know which in camp you would be, by the way: the one with the most money, with the biggest band baja and most power.

No more needs to be said.

Biradar
Posts: 875
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:13 pm

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

#1923

Unread post by Biradar » Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:26 am

I strongly suggest to everyone to read Sermon 3 from Nahajul Balagha. Read the sermon and the historical notes at the end. The link is below:

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha- ... bu-quhafah

Reflect on the fact that Ali, the waasi of the Prophet, his brother and coeval in all respects, the foundation of the imaamat, was unable to do anything against the machinations of his enemies. He kept quiet and decided that it was best to wait. If Ali could be trapped by these politicians out for gain, specially the Umaayads who looted the baayt-al-maal, just like the present day Umaayads are doing, what can one say of others! Non stop looting has been going on now for decades. Even SMB was unable to stop it. At this point, Muffadul and his brothers and his relatives are out to collect maximum loot, as even the most ignorant bohra can see. What more needs to be said about the direction these politicians and looters are leading the community?

Adam
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

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

#1924

Unread post by Adam » Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:38 pm

@Biradar
Given you are pretty ignorant of how logical arguments work, let me put it in simple terms. If Point 1 is proven wrong, then it is worthless to go onto Points 2-4. Simple as that. You started off from a false analogy. You lied about history, thinking no one would call you out on your lies. I


Point 1 stays the same. If anyone is lying it is you.

KQ and his boys accepted and declared the Nass on Syedna Mufaddal TUS.
In his Waaz in Secundrabad, Toronto. Many others have seen and heard this. The Yemeni Khidmat Guzaar also confirms this.

If anyone is lying it's KQ. And you've just believed a liar.

And yes, since you tried to draw a comparison with Akbar's court. I confirmed your version of history was wrong according to Muntaza.

Sulaiman ran to Lahore. Not Syedna Dawood bin Qutbshah.
KQ ran to courts. Not Syedna TUS.

Get your facts straight.

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

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

#1925

Unread post by anajmi » Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:43 pm

Let me help you guys. Both KQ and MS are 2 and 3 and MB was 1. That is it. Now we have all 1, 2 and 3 in the bohra leadership.

Can you imagine Ali (ra), who was on the forefront of every battle, ready to lay down his life for the sake of Islam, whining and complaining as depicted in Sermon 3? And complaining not for the sake of Islam but for the sake of his own inheritance. What a shame!! The bohras and other Ali worshippers have reduced a great entity to this selfish throne seeker.

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

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

#1926

Unread post by araz5253 » Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:10 pm

dawedar mufaddal is still a dawedar even on google search and Wikipedia, from wiki talk pages we can see many senior Wikipedians are getting involved in this dawedar issue and not letting dumb abdes hide the truth,both are and will remain dawedars.


Google muffy and you get "dawedar to 53rd dai"

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

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

#1927

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:06 pm

Court Hearings on 27th & 29th October

Posted on October 4, 2015

Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin TUS, the Plaintiff in the Declaratory Suit filed in the Bombay High Court, will appear in the Honorable High Court for his testimony on the 27th and 29th of October 2015 inshaallah
.

http://fatemidawatlegal.com/all/court-h ... h-october/

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#1928

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:24 am

what happened to the earlier reference to a court hearing on October 6th?

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

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

#1929

Unread post by rational_guy » Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:10 pm

araz5253 wrote:dawedar mufaddal is still a dawedar even on google search and Wikipedia, from wiki talk pages we can see many senior Wikipedians are getting involved in this dawedar issue and not letting dumb abdes hide the truth,both are and will remain dawedars.


Google muffy and you get "dawedar to 53rd dai"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mufaddal_Saifuddin

Mufaddal Saifuddin (Arabic: مفضل سيف الدين‎; Abu Jafar-us-Sadiq Mufaddal Saifuddin) is a claimant[1][2] to the title of 53rd Dā'ī al-Mutlaq (highest spiritual authority) of the Dawoodi Bohra.[2] The Dawoodi Bohra are a sub group within the Mustaali, Ismaili Shia branch of Islam. He is currently the Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University. [3][4]
Contents [hide]
1 Biography
1.1 Early life
1.2 Travels
2 Succession controversy
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
Biography
Early life
Mufaddal Saifuddin was born on 20 August 1946, on the night of Laylat al-Qadr[5] in Surat, Gujarat,[6] and was given the name Aali Qadr Mufaddal (Arabic:عالي قدر مفضل) by his grandfather Syedna Taher Saifuddin.[7] He was named the Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University on April 11 2015.[8][9]
Travels
Mufaddal Saifuddin was appointed Amirul Hajj by his father Burhanuddin in 1390 AH (1970 CE). After Hajj, he travelled to Karbala, Shaam, Misr and Yemen. During his trip to Yemen, he laid the foundations for the construction of the 3rd Da'i al-Mutlaq's Syedna Hatim's mausoleum. After that journey Burhanuddin bestowed upon him the religious honorific title Aqeeq-ul-Yemen in 1391 AH/1971 AD.[7]

During a visit to Udaipur as Rajasthan, India, state guest
On 28 Rabi' al-thani 1435 AH (28 February 2014 CE), the Indian foreign minister Salman Khurshid accompanied Saifuddin to Mumbai airport to see him off for his first visit abroad after the passing of his father Burhanuddin in January of that year. Khurshid presented Mufaddal with a letter of good wishes from Sonia Gandhi, the president of the Indian Congress, before departed to Najaf and Karbala in Iraq for a pilgrimage to the shrines of Imam Ali and Imam Husain.[10]
Later on, in Pakistan, he was received with state protocol and was welcomed at Karachi airport by Sindh Chief Minister Syed Qaim Ali Shah.[11]
The main message that Saifuddin hopes to instill on the community is that of loyalty to wherever people live, to follow the rules and be a good citizen, live in peace and make an honest living.[12]
Governor Sindh Dr Ishrat-ul-Ibad conferred doctorate degree upon Dr Mufaddal Saifuddin in a convention organized by University of Karachi (KU) at Governor House.[13][14]
Succession controversy
Main article: 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra)
Burhanuddin did not publicly declare any successor as late as 2011 and there were fights between rival factions of Burhanuddin's family over who should inherit control.[15]
After Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in June 2011 in London, Mufaddal Saifuddin was declared as his successor by Muffadal's brothers.[16] The Dawoodi Bohra community was reported of the succession by Mufaddal's brothers[17][18] a group formed in 2013 in support of Burhanuddin's half-brother Khuzaima Qutbuddin, who was Mazoon, serving second under Dai al Mutlaq.[19]
After the Burhanuddin's death in January 2014, Mufaddal took up his office claiming to be Dai,[19][20][21] Qutbuddin, claiming to have been appointed heir 50 years earlier in secrecy,[20][22][23] challenged Mufaddal's right to be Dai in court.[24] Khuzaima also took the office as the 53rd Dai of Dawoodi Bohras having his primary headquarters in Saify Mahal where Mufaddal also resides and other in Thane, Mumbai.[25]
The faction of Dawoodi Bohras led by Qaid Johar Ezzuddin the brother of Mufaddal who follow Mufaddal Saifuddin supports Mufaddal Saifuddin as Dai,[26] and it is alleged that they have excommunicated Qutbuddin and his faction.[27] However, there is no official confirmation from Dawoodi Bohra community on the alleged ex-communication and progressive members have called a banned on this practice citing it as illegal.

Mazakyo
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 5:01 am

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

#1930

Unread post by Mazakyo » Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:13 pm

Adam wrote:@Biradar
Given you are pretty ignorant of how logical arguments work, let me put it in simple terms. If Point 1 is proven wrong, then it is worthless to go onto Points 2-4. Simple as that. You started off from a false analogy. You lied about history, thinking no one would call you out on your lies. I


Point 1 stays the same. If anyone is lying it is you.

KQ and his boys accepted and declared the Nass on Syedna Mufaddal TUS.
In his Waaz in Secundrabad, Toronto. Many others have seen and heard this. The Yemeni Khidmat Guzaar also confirms this.

If anyone is lying it's KQ. And you've just believed a liar.

And yes, since you tried to draw a comparison with Akbar's court. I confirmed your version of history was wrong according to Muntaza.

Sulaiman ran to Lahore. Not Syedna Dawood bin Qutbshah.
KQ ran to courts. Not Syedna TUS.

Get your facts straight.
But guess what Adam who won the case? The Mazoon Syedna Dawood Bin Qutubshah. And when the Alavis seperated who won the case? The Mazoon Syedna Abdul Tayeb Zakiuddin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Adam
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

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

#1931

Unread post by Adam » Sun Oct 25, 2015 5:15 pm

Mazakyo wrote: But guess what Adam who won the case? The Mazoon Syedna Dawood Bin Qutubshah. And when the Alavis seperated who won the case? The Mazoon Syedna Abdul Tayeb Zakiuddin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a nonsensical answer.
Wrong.
Who Won the case?
The DAI - Syedna Dawood bin Qutubshah.
& The DAI - Syedna Tyeb Zainuddin.

Why?
Because they were appointed through Nass & Tawqeef by the previous Dai, and their claimants had no witnesses nor evidence. Just like KQ.



Mazakyo
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 5:01 am

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

#1932

Unread post by Mazakyo » Mon Oct 26, 2015 2:21 pm

Adam wrote:
Mazakyo wrote: But guess what Adam who won the case? The Mazoon Syedna Dawood Bin Qutubshah. And when the Alavis seperated who won the case? The Mazoon Syedna Abdul Tayeb Zakiuddin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a nonsensical answer.
Wrong.
Who Won the case?
The DAI - Syedna Dawood bin Qutubshah.
& The DAI - Syedna Tyeb Zainuddin.

Why?
Because they were appointed through Nass & Tawqeef by the previous Dai, and their claimants had no witnesses nor evidence. Just like KQ.


Abay Bhootnikay Adam- Syedna Sulaiman bin Hasan was also a Dai and so was Sayedna Ali bin Ibrahim. But they were not Mazoons. SMS is also Syedna and SKQ is also a Syedna to their respective people. In those two cases and the case today both the plaintiff and the defendant claim to be dais. Get it ???

Secondly it was Syedna Abdul Tayeb Zakiuddin and not Syedna Tayeb Zainuddin. Samjeh Adam Mian !!

JC
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:01 am

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

#1933

Unread post by JC » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:28 pm

Mazakyo Bro, enough of this musical chair Dai and Mazoon, Adam Na sumjha hay na sumjhay ga ...

Adam
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

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

#1934

Unread post by Adam » Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:54 am

Sorry about the Typo.
I understood your comparison.

But bboth were Dais appointed by clear Nass & Tawqeef - when they won the cases. Not Mazoons.
Understand?
Mazakyo wrote:
Adam wrote:
What a nonsensical answer.
Wrong.
Who Won the case?
The DAI - Syedna Dawood bin Qutubshah.
& The DAI - Syedna Tyeb Zainuddin.

Why?
Because they were appointed through Nass & Tawqeef by the previous Dai, and their claimants had no witnesses nor evidence. Just like KQ.


Abay Bhootnikay Adam- Syedna Sulaiman bin Hasan was also a Dai and so was Sayedna Ali bin Ibrahim. But they were not Mazoons. SMS is also Syedna and SKQ is also a Syedna to their respective people. In those two cases and the case today both the plaintiff and the defendant claim to be dais. Get it ???

Secondly it was Syedna Abdul Tayeb Zakiuddin and not Syedna Tayeb Zainuddin. Samjeh Adam Mian !!

Al-Noor
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:55 am

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

#1935

Unread post by Al-Noor » Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:33 am

lol @ bhootnikey hahaha

byculla
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:40 am

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

#1936

Unread post by byculla » Fri Oct 30, 2015 8:50 am

Adam - you earlier mentioned that Suleman bin Hasan did not have witnesses - Based on what I have heard in waaz during Syedna Burhanuddin's era - he did. His prime witness was his Katib - Mohammed.

This is also confirmed by the site mazarat.com which I remember was with raza mubarak of Syedna Burhanuddin RA. quoting from that site
" A false letter of Nass in favour of Laeen Suleman asking Laeen to proclaim himself Dai, was concocted, and the trio stood witness to this false claim. Ibrahim and Mohammed, the two sons of the two female slaves joined this conspiracy. "

From this I can infer that he had 5 witnesses. Mohammed Katib, 2 Habashiya (female servants) named Rummana and Nur-us-Sabah and their sons Ibrahim and Mohammed.

Of course today since we are all dawoodi bohras we agree that they were false witnesses but to claim that Suleman bin Hasan approached courts without witnesses is false to the best of my knowledge.

Mazakyo
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 5:01 am

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

#1937

Unread post by Mazakyo » Fri Oct 30, 2015 4:09 pm

Adam wrote:Sorry about the Typo.
I understood your comparison.

But bboth were Dais appointed by clear Nass & Tawqeef - when they won the cases. Not Mazoons.
Understand?
Mazakyo wrote:
Abay Bhootnikay Adam- Syedna Sulaiman bin Hasan was also a Dai and so was Sayedna Ali bin Ibrahim. But they were not Mazoons. SMS is also Syedna and SKQ is also a Syedna to their respective people. In those two cases and the case today both the plaintiff and the defendant claim to be dais. Get it ???

Secondly it was Syedna Abdul Tayeb Zakiuddin and not Syedna Tayeb Zainuddin. Samjeh Adam Mian !!
Aab ik akhri koshish Adam tujhe samjhanay ki. Both Sulaiman and Ali bin Ibrahim also claimed clear Nass & Tawfeeq. So do SMS and SKQ. The point is that those two were not mazoons. Being Mazoon is a fact which only two persons can claim. Nass and Tawfeeq 4 persons claimed. So those who were Mazoons and had Nass and Tawfeeq won ! Same is the case with SMS and SKQ. Both claim Nass and Tawfeeq but only one was a Mazoon. So going by history the one with N&T and being Mazoon has a high chance of victory.

Aab zara thanda pani pee aur baat ko samajh !!!

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

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

#1938

Unread post by kimanumanu » Fri Oct 30, 2015 4:24 pm

But but but Ali bin Ibrahim was also Mazoon ... according to Adam that is.

Al-Noor
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:55 am

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

#1939

Unread post by Al-Noor » Sat Oct 31, 2015 2:43 am

I feel Adam is not a bad person, its just that he has some economical gains from kothar and also he has been brain wash all his life so he cant see beyond misaaq, and now he has closed his brain and eyes to even think alternative of what has been feed to him, its just that he is in spiritual coma but he dont realize it yet.

Sceptical
Posts: 248
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:38 am

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

#1940

Unread post by Sceptical » Sat Oct 31, 2015 4:45 am

kimanumanu wrote:But but but Ali bin Ibrahim was also Mazoon ... according to Adam that is.
It's Alavi claim and their justification I found quite ambiguous (it was on their web site).
Ali Ibn Ibrahim was nerver Mazoon according to Dawoodi Bohra.

Adam
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

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

#1941

Unread post by Adam » Wed Nov 04, 2015 4:14 pm

@byculla
Regarding Sulaiman & Witnesses.
Appreciate your knowledge and detailed post.
If possible, kindly quote Syedna Mohammed RA bayaan about Sulaiman having witnesses - Or any Dawat texts in order to confirm.
The people you mentioned are the ones who helped him in his claim and forge the documents, with the false signature - not witnesses - nor were there any witnesses on the document itself (only a forged signature alleged to be the Dais).

The Mazaraat link you posted is ambiguous as to what they were witness to, or the Website author may have erred in his translation.
In any case, it's always best to confirm from Primary Sources & Dawat Texts.

Are far as I know, Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA, in his Risala - says that Sulaiman had no witnesses. Therefore there was NO "NASS & TAWQEEF". And then goes on to say "Whoever comes forth with Nass & Tawqeef, is the rightfful Dai."

In fact, Syedi Hasan bin Idrees QR writes a Qasida to Sulaiman saying the following:
"After accepting the Maqaam of Syedna Dawood bin Qutubshah as Mansoos... now you say lies about Syedna Dawood (that he told told you about Nass) .... this is a "maqaam e azeem" that can only be claimed through "Nass & Tawqeef".. just like how Rasulullah appointed Moulana Ali through Nass & Tawqeef..... so.. bring me some proof... BRING US EVEN ONE WITNESS IF YOU CLAIM SO..... every claim (dawo) that doesn't have proof is baatil (false)"
(Risala 1371 - page 461)

Further, as you correctly said, as "Dawoodi Bohras" we believe Sulaiman's claims were false, and also, since we are followers of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA - and his word is commonly accepted by both parties, we can conclude that Sulaiman didn't have any witnesses.

IMPORTANT TO NOTE "Nass & Tawqeef" are the fundmentals to Nass:
Nass = appointment of the successor
Tawqeef = Appointing witnesses to this Nass. The witness CANNOT be the claimant himself. It MUST be a third person.


KQ doesn't have Witnesses, he confirms that. Nor does he claim to have Tawqeef.
Hence,

@Mazakyo
NO. KQ Does NOT have Tawqeef.
1) He says he doesn't have any witnesses
2) He cannot be his own witness


According to Dawat Books & Syedna Taher Saifuddin, Whoever doesn't have Nass & Tawqeef, cannot be the Dai.
= KQ is not the Dai.

However, since the Qutbis have deviated from the path of previous Duat and rejected certain Dawat texts, it would however, be interesting if Sceptical or other Qutbis on this site confirm their version of Sulaiman according to their own interpretation.
Did Sulaiman have witnesses or No?






Moiz_Dhaanu
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:57 pm

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

#1942

Unread post by Moiz_Dhaanu » Wed Nov 04, 2015 11:56 pm

Adam wrote:@byculla
Regarding Sulaiman & Witnesses.
Appreciate your knowledge and detailed post.
If possible, kindly quote Syedna Mohammed RA bayaan about Sulaiman having witnesses - Or any Dawat texts in order to confirm.
If possible, kindly present/make available, Syedna Burhannuddin mola's RA bayaan (with audio and video together -not seperate) where he in his own voice without any kind of help or voiceover from any shehzada completes(fully completes) the following sentence "Mufaddal bhai ne nass nu taaj mein pehnavu chhu"
Adam wrote:
The people you mentioned are the ones who helped him in his claim and forge the documents, with the false signature - not witnesses - nor were there any witnesses on the document itself (only a forged signature alleged to be the Dais).
On the flip side i too can state "The Shehzaadas/Shaahids which are being propagated as the witnesses of the 53rd nass on DMBS are the ones who helped DMBS in his claim and forge the documents, - not witnesses"
Can Adam/anyone bring any proof or "witnesses for these witnesses" that these alleged shehzadas were true witnesses of the nass" (is there any video or audio or documents) which show/highlight that syedna Buhanuddin(RA) made them(all the 4 shehzadas) shaahid of the nass
So Its just their word that they were witnesses, that we have to go by with? . Oh come-on!!
I would, any day, give more weightage to Aqa burhanuddin's Mazun(for 50 yrs), then some money hungry shehzadas whom Burhanuddin moula(RA) considered not worthy enough and gave them no rutbas worth to be mentioned in misaak.
Adam wrote:
The Mazaraat link you posted is ambiguous as to what they were witness to, or the Website author may have erred in his translation.
In any case, it's always best to confirm from Primary Sources & Dawat Texts.[/b]
Why don't you call up some shehzaada and have the guys at Mazaarat reprimanded for making such ambiguous statements on Dawat Raza website :twisted:
Adam wrote:Are far as I know, Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA, in his Risala - says that Sulaiman had no witnesses. Therefore there was NO "NASS & TAWQEEF". And then goes on to say "Whoever comes forth with Nass & Tawqeef, is the rightfful Dai."
In lawful jurisdiction words like "Are far as I know," and all that lingo holds little value...Put money where your mouth is and show the image of the risala you mention.
Adam wrote:
KQ doesn't have Witnesses, he confirms that. Nor does he claim to have Tawqeef.
Hence,
SKQ had mentioned in Court(under Oath) that he believes that Muqasir-e-dawat(Late Syedi Saleh bhaisaheb) and Bu-saheba Amatullah Aisaheba may have known about his Nass...
At least he has the guts to mention "May have known" rather than say "Did know" ..
He is being Truthful despite knowing that it holds little value when he says "May have known".
Unlike DMBS, who states that he knew all the while that SKQ was dushman (meanwhile did Sajda to him all the time) , what a hypocrite DMBS is .

Adam wrote:
According to Dawat Books & Syedna Taher Saifuddin, Whoever doesn't have Nass & Tawqeef, cannot be the Dai.
= KQ is not the Dai
Imam Jafer-us-sadiq(AS) did a full public burial of Imam Ismail, Documented(took signatures of attendees as witness of the burial of the corpse) and visual(invited people from Court of Abbasi Caliph to the janazaa allegedly of Imam Ismail) .
Even those who were ardent shias believed it and started following Musa Kazim, only select few were kept privy to the real fact...
I think all DMBS followers fall under that category who went by the visuals they saw , theoretically(by the same logic) Adam and all, should be following Musa Kazim. But then they aren’t, I wonder why ? Give that a thought

Keeping in mind that in todays modern time(wherein all the scientific and medical facilities are available to assist in that task) , there is not even a single "complete" sentence spoken by Burhanuddin moula(RA) in Proclamation of DMBS as 53rd Dai (recorded audio-visual combined –Not separate audio and separate video).
Oh By the way, Let alone the Divine court , but even in the Human court of Law , Audio-Only(without accompanying Visual) and Video-only(without accompanying Audio) are not Submittable as proofs.
And here we have full “bohra jamaat” being duped in believing the fake nass by showing doctored “Audios” with no video , but rather written words being shown on the screen.
What a joke!!
Adam , if you are smart enough, you will know what I am hinting to.

Also, for those who still think that the audio(only) they heard of Burhanuddin moula’s is real (which was shown after the Cromwell-Hospital video worldwide) …then you should read this link on Voice Cloning
http://www.rense.com/general12/ld.htm

This is just one of the many tools out there, which is costly…
There are other technologies in which if a digital voice enhancer /modulator is fed with hundreds of hours of Audio of a particular individual(lets say all the waaz recordings of Burhanuddin Moula(RA) which is available with Shz.Qaid J) , then it can be programmed to recreate a complete new sentence which was never spoken by that real person. So now go Figure what kind of Dirty game the shehzadas have played on you.


Good Luck to all who are seeking Haq ,and are aghast by the craziness of DMBS which a true Dai could never do or allow (hint Badri Lacewala)
DMBS = Dawedaar Mufaddal Bhai Saheb

Adam
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

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

#1943

Unread post by Adam » Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:42 am

@Moiz_Dhaanu
Will answer your comments categorically. Inshallah.
But first, I will wait for byculla & Sceptical to reply, as, unike you, they seem to know what they are talking about.
Thanks

Moiz_Dhaanu
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:57 pm

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

#1944

Unread post by Moiz_Dhaanu » Thu Nov 05, 2015 3:49 am

Adam wrote:@Moiz_Dhaanu
Will answer your comments categorically. Inshallah.
Thanks
You know what ? ..since u already feel that i have written something which i myself do not know then i genuinely feel that ur answer would also be same old worthless jargon..so dont bother replying back..But if u can list 10 qualities of DMBS which makes him "Dai material", then an age old question on this forum would finally find peace

byculla
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:40 am

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

#1945

Unread post by byculla » Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:50 am

Adam - I quoted a publicly available website - mazarat.com which based on my memory was with Raza mubarak of Syedna Burhanuddin RA. My knowledge about false witnesses produced in case of Sulaiman bin Hasan was based on that site as well as bayans I heard from our local Amil in Burhanuddin mola RA's era. He used to give the example of Mohammed Katib and members of previous dai's family (Syedna Dawood bin Ajabshah RA's family) as individuals who stood as false witnesses (He gave this example while talking about false witnesses). I have heard this numerous times so I clearly remember. Now you might have a point that they may not be false witness to nass itself but to something else. Mazaarat wordings in my opinion suggests they were false witness to nass.

I don't have access to the kitabs you are mentioning nor to the kitab which mazarat site used as reference (there reference source is not mentioned anywhere as far as I can see - unless I missed). Consequently I am not able to comment on what you are mentioning. If I know about it and have access to that and the books you are referring to we can compare and have a discussion.

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

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

#1946

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Fri Nov 06, 2015 6:53 pm

There is an old saying which is tailor made for Adam.....''If you can't convince them, confuse them''.

Adam
Posts: 1257
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

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

#1947

Unread post by Adam » Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:57 pm

@byculla
Thanks for the reply. Understood your stand point.
I have given my references from the Risala of Syedna Taher Saifuddin. Anyone of the people on this Forum are free to check it out. From the Proggy's to the Qutbis. Who i'm sure have access to all this stuff anyway.

@Sceptical
Still awaiting your answer. Thanks

@ghulam muhammed
Increase your knowledge about Dawoodi Bohra beliefs. You wont end up confused then

@Moiz_Dhaanu
Here we go:
I asked about a Bayaan about Sulaiman quoted by SMB Moula which byculla said he heard. Not a video on Nass on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS. Your comment was Irrelevant to this topic.

On the flip side i too can state "The Shehzaadas/Shaahids which are being propagated as the witnesses of the 53rd nass on DMBS are the ones who helped DMBS in his claim and forge the documents, - not witnesses"
Can Adam/anyone bring any proof or "witnesses for these witnesses" that these alleged shehzadas were true witnesses of the nass" (is there any video or audio or documents) which show/highlight that syedna Buhanuddin(RA) made them(all the 4 shehzadas) shaahid of the nass
So Its just their word that they were witnesses, that we have to go by with? . Oh come-on!!
I would, any day, give more weightage to Aqa burhanuddin's Mazun(for 50 yrs), then some money hungry shehzadas whom Burhanuddin moula(RA) considered not worthy enough and gave them no rutbas worth to be mentioned in misaak.


Yes. Correct. That is the system of a Shahid as mentioned by the Quran and Fatemi Books. Or else, how are Shahid to give Shahadat according to you? It seems you are negating the entire concept of Shahadat (Witness) as mentioned by the Quran. Are you?

Instead this is how it should be understood:
- There MUST be WITNESSES for Nass
- The Shehzadas who were the witnesses of the Nass in London, testified. This is in accordance to the System of Shahadat and Nass. Nothing wrong in it. It has happened in the past as well. Ref: 49th Dai and 50th Dai's time.
- A witness is someone who says "I saw or I heard". That's exactly what the Shehzadas did.
- KQ - Cannot be his own witness. It isn't acceptable according to Islamic/Fatemi Jurisprudence. Whether 50 years or 2 days as Mazoon it doesn't make a difference. You cannot be your own witness. (Ref Daim ul Islam.)

Therefore: The Shahadat of the Shehzadas is IN LINE with Fatemi Fiqeh, and KQ's claim is NOT in accordance with Fatemi Fiqeh or system of Nass.
The Shahadat of Shehzadas holds more weight over KQ's claim - not because of them/position/personality - But because IT IS IN ACCORDANCE TO THE SYSTEM OF DAWAT & BECAUSE KQ'S CLAIM IS AGAINST THE SYSTEM OF DAWAT (no witnesses).


Now, "let's suppose" KQ also claimed to have witnesses to his Nass, or some other Shahids come forth saying that there were made witness. THEN, the scenario would change.
Why? Because "technically", that claim would be in accordance to the system of Dawat (ie to have witnesses).
Note: Since KQ has already said he doesn't have any witnesses, he can't use this tactic anymore.

Concluding:
1) The testimony of the Shehzadas is according to the Dawat System and 100% correct.
2) Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA was alive and came to Raudat Tahera and confirmed the events of London Nass. Therefore, it was a confirmation over a confirmation. (P.S Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin's Mazoon at the time also confirmed the Nass)
Even if we "suppose" that Syedna Burhanuddin RA passed away after the "London Nass/Witness" and did NOT come to Mumbai/Raudat Tahera. Even then, the Testimony of the Shehzadas would still more accepted that KQ's.

Understood?

Even those who were ardent shias believed it and started following Musa Kazim,

Wrong. Dawat texts (Uyun al Akbar) say that The Imam Sadiq informed his Mumineen of the Nass on Imam Ismail.


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

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

#1948

Unread post by rational_guy » Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:54 am

Adam you quote from Daimul Islam, regarding witnesses towards a Nass. Please the attach arabic version of the text on this thread.

You do also realise that Daimul Islam is a publicly available text, so don't contemplate manipulating the text before attaching it.

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

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

#1949

Unread post by anajmi » Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:07 pm

A simple question is, is there a requirement in fatemi fiqh for nuss to be done or is the requirement for nuss to be done with witnesses?

If the requirement is that the nuss has to be done with witnesses, then kq has shown considerable lack of knowledge about the fatemi fiqh. And the fact that he was the mazoon for 50 years doesnt tell you much about what knowledge the bohra clergy has about the fiqh that it is supposed to be following.

If on the other hand, the requirement is simply for the nuss to have been made, then kq is the rightful Dai because despite the fact that he was being sidelined he chose not to lie about witnesses cause i believe lying about witnesses would have been pretty easy as i am sure he has similar followers like muffy does and could easily produce a few. and besides, the ignorants like Adam already claim him to have been corrupt all of 50 years.

Moiz_Dhaanu
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:57 pm

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

#1950

Unread post by Moiz_Dhaanu » Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:50 am

Moiz_Dhaanu wrote: You know what ? ..since u already feel that i have written something which i myself do not know then i genuinely feel that ur answer would also be same old worthless jargon..so dont bother replying back..But if u can list 10 qualities of DMBS which makes him "Dai material", then an age old question on this forum would finally find peace
@adam
What part of " so dont bother replying back" did you not understand?..
or am i correct in mentioning that you do suffer from a bad case of verbal diarrhea like your master DMBS.
And by the way just like most of your rebuttals ,this too was a classic case of "round the bush"..
I asked you to show an image of the risala you mentioned ....but you could not provide that either.
If you do feel so badly about him and his staged nass then why did you ignore my request to list 10 qualites in DMBS that makes him suitable to be a Dai....i am sure you wont bother to answer that now will you ? :mrgreen: