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

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

#2701

Unread post by byculla » Sat May 09, 2020 12:56 pm

@James - Whatever is on tahiyaat.com just says that QJ's bayan was relayed in a majlis presided by SKQ RA in which he (QJ) talked about (fake) nass on Mufaddal Saifuddin. Yes he may be blindsided as you already say.

These videos after death of Syedna Burhanuddin RA have been in circulation over several years and are an excellent example of firepower of Kothar. They scared/threatened numerous individuals - people close to SKQ RA (and others), threatened them with baraat unless they said stuff to their liking. Rest all is taqiyya. As the individual himself says, several in Yemen talked that SKQ RA was not happy with (fake) nass. Yes surely he was not. Children of SKQ RA did not volunteer to sing praises of Mufaddal Saifuddin. Yes that would be "acceptance" of nass and thats not what this Yemeni individual is talking about. They responded when "asked" and they must have responded in appropriate words again to calm waters so that SKQ RA could continue with his duties as Mazoon of SMB RA.

Frankly this video actually proves what I have been trying to say all along - there were talks that SKQ RA did not accept MS (fake) nass. Why would this individual ask children of SKQ RA in first place ?
Last edited by byculla on Sat May 09, 2020 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

#2702

Unread post by byculla » Sat May 09, 2020 2:35 pm

@James I am posting this video link only because you asked for evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Iio0EBekY

See between 6 to 7.30 mins how Abdul Qadir has used profanity and force with SBUT. Individuals in Mumbai already know what kind of individual he is. Because of threat of baraat individuals from community will not speak up openly against Abdul Qadir - only those like this individual who have left the fold would speak openly.

By the way I remember how you yourself have used profanity responding to @Moiz_Dhaanu. (Do your digs) Hope with time you will improve.

ajamali
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:51 am

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

#2703

Unread post by ajamali » Sat May 09, 2020 6:42 pm

james wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 9:36 pm
ajamali wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 7:36 am
Also I don’t know why he finds our presence in court so funny. It is quite common place for FD folks to be in court. Of course if you are a Mufaddali, the story is quite different, so they assume the same about us.
I find your lies funny because you are an idiot.When your hearsay was rejected,you came up with this funny nonsense of attending court sessions yourself to add some legitimacy to the shit you spew.You never miss an opportunity to shamelessly plug Khuzaima and Taher and you never mentioned that how wonderful and refreshing it was to attend court sessions in five years of posting on this forum? Yeah,right!

I tried to search if you have ever mentioned attending court sessions before.It looks like you haven't. While searching,found the high levels of idiocy you have reached. I mean you called Biradar a supporter of Taher right after he went on a rant against Taher. :mrgreen:


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11374&p=178592#p178592

You are shit scared of Biradar. :lol:
But why on earth would I mention being in court before. For followers of FD it is not a big deal. If we happen to be in Mumbai on the court dates, we ask to be present and we are given the time when we can attend. It’s as simple as that. It was interesting to see BJ and Taha feed questions to Chagla and the judge and STF making short shrift of all their maneuvering. I don’t come and declare everything I do on this forum. I find your insistence that I have not attended court quite ridiculous. I can see that it is really bothering you that I have been to court and you have not been allowed despite being such a loyal pet of MS. And it is really bothering you that they have not benefitted from your expertise and have made a mess of the court case with their baseless, faithless claims. It is intriguing though that there were only 4-5 people present from MS family in court and no one else. It is as if they cannot bear for people to see how stupid they are. FD always use up their entire allowance of observers.

And why don’t you ask Biradar whose waaz he listens to? Unlike Qadir, I don’t despise my brothers for having had different experiences and hence differing opinions. If I had seen my aunt humiliated in Udaipur, I may have had opinions similar to Biradar. He may fool you with all his proggy talk but I can see that he is beginning to see the light. I see no reason to be afraid of him and his proggy talk. I am willing to make an allowance for people as complex beings who are sorting things out. Unless of course they are simpletons such as MS who are dumb as a door knob and are just too stupid and incapable of making up their minds on any single issue.

And since you are such an expert and so learned perhaps you could answer ezzoudine’s simple question. Since your friend Fake53 has allowed himself to be declared as devoid of all credibility.

Crater Lake
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:46 pm

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

#2704

Unread post by Crater Lake » Sat May 09, 2020 7:08 pm

Get over it Jamie. AJ’s been to court and has witnessed Taha make a total ass of himself. I have been to the Bombay High court and observed the proceedings too. No biggie. It’s quite telling that you are so insistent that he has not attended the Succession court hearings, when he has. You are embarrassing yourself.

Crater Lake
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:46 pm

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

#2705

Unread post by Crater Lake » Sat May 09, 2020 10:56 pm

I believe Jamie and Fake53 are busy practicing how to mix rose syrup Laced with E122 with milk... they will not make an appearance as their brain will be so fatigued by the exercise that they will not be able to answer ezzoudine’s simple question.

http://www.faizulmawaidilburhaniyah.com ... n/#recipes

think_for_yourself
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:12 pm

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

#2706

Unread post by think_for_yourself » Sun May 10, 2020 5:36 am

ajamali wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 6:42 pm I find your insistence that I have not attended court quite ridiculous. I can see that it is really bothering you that I have been to court and you have not been allowed despite being such a loyal pet of MS. And it is really bothering you that they have not benefitted from your expertise and have made a mess of the court case with their baseless, faithless claims. It is intriguing though that there were only 4-5 people present from MS family in court and no one else. It is as if they cannot bear for people to see how stupid they are. FD always use up their entire allowance of observers.
Clearly you are way more perceptive than Jamie and Pervy Fake53 give you credit for.

No simple answer to ezzoudine’s question I see.

ezzoudine
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:56 am

Sajda in Dawatus Satr

#2707

Unread post by ezzoudine » Sun May 10, 2020 6:50 am

I have a simple question for james:

According to Dawoodi Bohra belief, when the Imam is in seclusion, other than the current Dai al-Mutlaq, are there any other living persons or categories of living persons to whom sajda can be done? If yes, who?

Please reply. Thank you.

james
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:06 am

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

#2708

Unread post by james » Sun May 10, 2020 8:02 am

byculla wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 11:04 am
As I have already indicated, SKQ RA and his children were both under pressure and in my opinion practiced taqiyya. In the video you posted, Shz Abdeali bs (now Mazoon) then did not mention about Mufaddal Saifuddin for several days in that ashara (after doing Tulul Umr doa for Syedna Burhanuddin RA during that ashara - related note is that it was customary in those 2.5 yrs to do tulul umr doa for both SMB RA and MS and refer to MS as 'mansoos' while doing so during those days by Amils and Qasre Aalis). He was confronted by individuals of that town and repeatedly asked about this and this was also the talk in that town. Mostly the video you posted is on or around 9th Moh, as usually on that day you take names of Imams and Doats in waaz which is heard in the clip you presented - so clearly he waited till then and did NOT mention Mufaddal Saifuddin else I presume with the immense resources of Kothar you would have produced similar videos of all of those waaz from 2nd to 8th Moh. Mark that In that also he did not accept Mufaddal Saifuddin as mansoos which is how ALL other waezeen used to do. He did what he did to calm waters, ensure that the focus of all the attendees is kept to the zikr of Imam Husain AS which was his primary responsibility.




To deduce that Mufaddal Saifuddin who clearly did adawat of Syedna Burhanuddin's mazoon, did sajda to TV which is indication of shirk can NOT be the dai is NOT qiyaas if thats what you are alluding to. Dai and Mazoon are a part of Kalematush Shahadat - adawat of these alludes to adawat of Dawatul Haq. Syedna Dawood RA when doing dawat had argued with the head of Nizari sect questioning their beliefs when they were so far from Rasulullah SA's shariat as they stopped fasting during Sherullah. Would you (nauzobillah) say Syedna Dawood RA did qiyaas ? I hope not. Here also, Syedna Dawood RA alluded to who "can't" be on haq based on their action going against dawatul haq. Same was done by SKQ RA children.

If my citing from history is qiyaas, then your entire Qutbi bohra blog is full of Qiyaas in which you have compared twisted logic to falsely attempt to prove that SKQ RA is not dai. Including your writeup on Mufaddal Saifuddin above in which you equate some titles given to him and allude that to nass. In general, about titles, I will just say one thing - titles don't mean nass. Neither does appointment to post of Jamea Rector to which there were 4 other individuals none of them were mansoos.

In one SMB RA bayan (as per my recollection), there are 3 things which Imam SA had said in which Taqiyyah is not permitted (1) Do maseh on moza in feet (2) Say bismilah loudly (3) Take small amounts of liquor. Your twisted before/after logic applied based on your convenience is not one of them. Else Imam would have clarified. I had heard in one SMB RA waaz mubarak 5th Imam Imam Jafar us Sadiq fearing persecution for his son Ismail Imam SA staged death and took signatures of Abbasid Govt officials to prove his mansoos's death while he was actually alive. All this he did in PUBLIC. Privately Imam was of course alive. BOTH Imams were alive then (so your before/after logic does not clearly hold water here) and Imam was practicing taqiyya. Ismail Imam SA was later revealed in Basra in Iraq. All this from my recollection from that waaz. Citing examples from history is not qiyaas (and thats all that I have done) if so, then your entire Qutbi Bohra blog is full of it including your current post.

Your opinions are devoid of any facts.Abdeali has accepted the Nass in public and if he had anything else in his heart,it means he is a hypocrite.

Your fallacious bastardization of qiyaas is nefarious. Only the Naas has the intellect to appoint his Mansoos.If you as a follower,bring your own intellect in to the mix by saying Mansoos is not capable,then you are putting tohmat on the Naas which is the action of Iblees.In your zeal to defend the indefensible,you have accused Abdeali of hypocrisy and having attributes of Iblees.

As for your before/after running around in circles,has ever in the history of Dawat,a dawedaar has done dawa to be the Mansoos in the lifetime of Naas? Taqqiyah doesn't apply here. Munafiq actions applies here.

"If I recall correctly,he did zyarat on Urs Mubarak 1432H and left just as Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA arrived for zyarat. That doesn't mean he did inkaar of Nass."
No. thats a lie - he didn't do ziyarat just before SMB RA arrival. Yes - to NOT appear in a fake and staged nass ceremony is inkaar of nass. If its not then what is !!

Thank you for confirming Khuzaima did not attend zyarat on Urs Mubarak of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA when Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA came for zyarat that day.Also,we didn't know that Nass-Jalil was going to happen that day. All we knew that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA is coming for zyarat of his Naas on event of Urs Mubarak. So there is no way that Khuzaima knew that Public Nass is going to take place. Khuzaima was barely present in important events of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA's life. So it wasn't surprising that he chose to not come for zyarat in Hazrat Imamiyah of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA.Still doesn't mean he did inkaar of the Nass.Inkaar after Iqraar just like Sulaiman.

think_for_yourself
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:12 pm

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

#2709

Unread post by think_for_yourself » Sun May 10, 2020 8:53 am

^^^There is no way he says SKQ would have known what charade was going to occur in Raudat Tahera that day. There was no way that SKQ’s daughters would inform him of the plotting that had been going on in their homes to mislead the whole community into believing that public nass had been done.

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

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

#2710

Unread post by byculla » Sun May 10, 2020 9:21 am

@James I will point out your LIES. Rest I have already explained in my post. (Read again the zikr of Syedna Dawood RA which you slyly omitted).

My post is referring to SMB RA bayan mubarak. You find that devoid of facts ? Who is on baatil now ?
james wrote: Sun May 10, 2020 8:02 am has ever in the history of Dawat,a dawedaar has done dawa to be the Mansoos in the lifetime of Naas? Taqqiyah doesn't apply here. Munafiq actions applies here.
Completely incorrect (since you refer to SKQ RA as dawedaar - nauzobillah) . SKQ RA did not reveal his nass during lifetime of SMB RA! No evidence you provided.
james wrote: Sun May 10, 2020 8:02 am Thank you for confirming Khuzaima did not attend zyarat on Urs Mubarak of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA when Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA came for zyarat that day.Also,we didn't know that Nass-Jalil was going to happen that day. All we knew that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA is coming for zyarat of his Naas on event of Urs Mubarak. So there is no way that Khuzaima knew that Public Nass is going to take place. Khuzaima was barely present in important events of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA's life. So it wasn't surprising that he chose to not come for zyarat in Hazrat Imamiyah of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA.Still doesn't mean he did inkaar of the Nass.Inkaar after Iqraar just like Sulaiman.
Knowing what happened on 4th Rajab he had inkling. I repeat again never in my memory has SKQ RA missed the urus mubarak of STS RA. He attended each time. This was an occasion on which he knew his "not" appearing would count (and it did - except hypocrites like @James will not accept).

Everything on that day was planned by the conspirators. You think the 'shawls' appeared magically ? Go figure.

FYI - in our town, our Amil had already told us that nass jali may happen and to be present to see the video.

ajamali
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:51 am

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

#2711

Unread post by ajamali » Sun May 10, 2020 1:59 pm

Sad as it is to hear the distortion...THIS was the "nass-e-jaali".... MS was sitting in front of Burhanuddin Moula. Burhanuddin Moula was handed a piece of paper that probably had the words written on them that Moiz then repeats and this is what I hear Moula say

Mohammed bhai ne nass nu taj....
su naam che
naam su che
naam su che
su naame che
su naam che ehnu
Mohammed naam che ne?

And Moiz the quack speaks this into the microphone, pretending to speak for Moula: "Maru naam Mohammed che, Mohammed Burhanuddin che. Mufaddal Bhai ne nass nu taj pehnayu che." And then Moula keeps saying "Mohammed bhai ne...." The community would do well to remember how evil and manipulative men transported their father in a grave physical and mental state so that they could conduct this charade, this smoke and mirrors act.

How dare they! Moiz is clearly twisting Moula's words to suit his agenda when Moula is thinking someone named Mohammed is sitting in front of him. SKQ did all of us a favor by avoiding this charade and signalling it for what it was. A massive attempt to mislead the community. If MS and gang faked this what else did they fake? Incidentally this audio was sent around to the community in 2011 by some MS bhakts who were present. So there is no doubt of it's authenticity.
Maru Naam Mohammed Che.m4a
(677.35 KiB) Downloaded 38 times
And then MS gets on Burhanuddin Moula's takhat and tries to tell us that Moula conferred a nass on him many years ago on a date and year that he cannot remember by pointing out a letter written by four other people!! Give us a break!

Moula wants to say something to MS, they are both present, but no he does not say anything, instead he points to a letter written by four other people....uh huh...sure...

RedBox
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:41 am

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

#2712

Unread post by RedBox » Mon May 11, 2020 2:21 am

Muhammed bhai is me...I am the true dai actually.... :mrgreen:

I am so happy Allah has kept you all soo blind in your nifaaq,, less crowd for true believers in heaven Inshallah.

RedBox
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:41 am

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

#2713

Unread post by RedBox » Mon May 11, 2020 2:29 am

Burhanuddin cheated 3 parties

1) His own brother KQ (who respected him all his life in hope that he will be faithful to his father will)
2) His followers who were expecting truth and guidance from him.
3) His life long Ibadat and Imaan ( he could have saved it by doing the right thing at the right time)



All these drama unfolded because of love for his own kids and money and power

RedBox
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:41 am

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

#2714

Unread post by RedBox » Mon May 11, 2020 8:07 am

Indian summer not suitable for VVIP dais lol

Syedna Taher Fakhruddin TUS will preside over waaz mubarak on Lailate Shahadat Amirul Mumineen Maulana Ali bin Abi Talib SA, 19mi raat of Shehre Ramadaan 1441H (Sun 10th May) at Darus Sakina, Bakersfield, USA. All Mumineen are encouraged to watch the waaz and take barakat by commemorating this solemn occasion.

ajamali
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:51 am

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

#2715

Unread post by ajamali » Mon May 11, 2020 12:45 pm

Jamie, Fake53....
Please answer Ezzoudine’s question....
According to Dawoodi Bohra belief, when the Imam is in seclusion, other than the current Dai al-Mutlaq, are there any other living persons or categories of living persons to whom sajda can be done? If yes, who?

I can take a shot....According to the aamil of my town, Sajda could not be done to the Mazoon who the dai appointed even though thousands did sajda to the Mazoon in SMB’s presence after his appointment in Saify Masjid. As a child, I remember the Shehzadas doing sajda to SKQ at a ziyafat in our home for Burhanuddin Moula. After the fake nass, people started doing sajda to MS also, whereas before they never did so. So it appears sajda can only be done to dai and one whom people believe is mansoos. Ergo, since MS did sajjda to SKQ for many years, he must have thought he was mansoos.....Dang! That was easy.

Saif53
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:39 am

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

#2716

Unread post by Saif53 » Mon May 11, 2020 2:58 pm

@Ezzoudine
Sajda in practice has been given to the Da'i Mutlaq & his Mansoos.

That being said, if the Da'i Mutlaq instructs mumineen to give Sajda to anyone else, then it is his prerogative, as he is Haq and fiqeh personified. And ultimately, Sajda is to Allah via his medium/waseelahs.

For example, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin would perform Sajda near Zarih/graves of Hudood in Karbala, Qubbas of example Moulaya Raj, all who weren't the Mansoos.

The 5th Dai writes in a Qasida to the Mazoon, Syedna Mohammed bin Taher that he kisses the ground before him. (Dawat books such as Himmah, equate Sajda to kissing the ground)

I heard that that the Qutbis claimed that that Syedna Mohammed bin Taher was the Mansoos, but didn't provide any evidence for the same.

Hope that answers your question.

Oh yeah, and Sajdo doesn't make one a mansoos. Only Nass & Tawqeef does.

2) As for Musa Kazim. I'm still waiting for a reference. Nothing yet?
Imam Ismail is the Haq na Imam and Mansoos after Imam Sadiq. Doesn't get simpler than that.

3) Now, if you'll permit me to ask a simple question:
How do the Qutbis know that Taher is KQs successor?

There's no witness, audio, video or documented proof this alleged Nass. Only Taher's claim and an email from Info@FatemiDawat.com 12 hours after KQ died. Taher wasn't even KQs Mazoon if that was KQs argument.

So, on what basis do the Qutbis follow him? Because he's the eldest son?

Seems strange, no?

ajamali
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:51 am

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

#2717

Unread post by ajamali » Mon May 11, 2020 5:57 pm

I don’t believe you have answered ezzoudine’s questions. You have answered your version of them.....

Also, there were witnesses to the nass. Busaheba and Shz Bazat Tahera Bensaheb were witnesses. It is well known. Strange that in your eyes you do not count them as worthy witnesses because they are female. Would you also consider Hurratul Maleka as unworthy of establishing the first Dai and providing testimony to the nass on Tayyib Imam?

Ohhhh I see.... you would need Moiz to Declare him as Dai.... just as you needed Moiz to appoint Muffi as Dai....

Crater Lake
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:46 pm

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

#2718

Unread post by Crater Lake » Mon May 11, 2020 6:15 pm

ajamali wrote: Mon May 11, 2020 5:57 pm I don’t believe you have answered ezzoudine’s questions. You have answered your version of them.....

Also, there were witnesses to the nass. Busaheba and Shz Bazat Tahera Bensaheb were witnesses. It is well known. Strange that in your eyes you do not count them as worthy witnesses because they are female. Would you also consider Hurratul Maleka as unworthy of establishing the first Dai and providing testimony to the nass on Tayyib Imam?

Ohhhh I see.... you would need Moiz to Declare him as Dai.... just as you needed Moiz to appoint Muffi as Dai....
No Dai is good enough for Mufaddalies unless appointed by Moiz. Just as no rose milk good enough unless sweetened with Mala’s rose syrup and diluted with ice. I hope you did not make any mistakes in making your rose milk and masoor daal Fake53. Trust the instructions were sufficiently detailed.

I see that you have accepted that SKQ was mansoos of SMB. Thank you.

objectiveobserver53
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:29 pm

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

#2719

Unread post by objectiveobserver53 » Mon May 11, 2020 9:03 pm

I think Muffy and gang started to seriously lose the likes of me when they started making these painful videos similar to the Rose milk video. So much of nothingness. It was painful to go to the masjid and be subjected to excruciating productions of low intellect media. Remember that cartoonish video about the place of women in the house? It all started with the nass charade video....when Duck Moiz conferred nass on Muffy.

ezzoudine
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:56 am

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

#2720

Unread post by ezzoudine » Mon May 11, 2020 11:46 pm

Saif53 wrote: Mon May 11, 2020 2:58 pm @Ezzoudine
Sajda in practice has been given to the Da'i Mutlaq & his Mansoos.
Noted. james, do you agree?
Saif53 wrote: Mon May 11, 2020 2:58 pm That being said, if the Da'i Mutlaq instructs mumineen to give Sajda to anyone else, then it is his prerogative, as he is Haq and fiqeh personified. And ultimately, Sajda is to Allah via his medium/waseelahs.

For example, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin would perform Sajda near Zarih/graves of Hudood in Karbala, Qubbas of example Moulaya Raj, all who weren't the Mansoos.
Also noted, but this example is not relevant. My question was about living persons only.
Saif53 wrote: Mon May 11, 2020 2:58 pm 2) As for Musa Kazim. I'm still waiting for a reference. Nothing yet?
Imam Ismail is the Haq na Imam and Mansoos after Imam Sadiq. Doesn't get simpler than that.
I've said before, I don't have access to any "references". In any case my question makes no external references.

The "reply" you have given is an unrelated statement that has nothing to do with the question posed. In case you've forgotten what the question was, I've pasted it here below (for a fifth time, no less):

If one believes that Imam Jaferrussadiq ever conferred nass on Musa Qazim, can that person be called a Dawoodi Bohra?

Please answer this specific question. It's really a Yes or No answer. If you want to justify your answer with "reasons" that's great but it's not necessary. A simple Yes or No will suffice.
Saif53 wrote: Mon May 11, 2020 2:58 pm 3) Now, if you'll permit me to ask a simple question:
How do the Qutbis know that Taher is KQs successor?

There's no witness, audio, video or documented proof this alleged Nass. Only Taher's claim and an email from Info@FatemiDawat.com 12 hours after KQ died. Taher wasn't even KQs Mazoon if that was KQs argument.
I am not an expert on this, and I don't have access to any "documented proof". I have only heard that there were witnesses from the family.

RedBox
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:41 am

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

#2721

Unread post by RedBox » Tue May 12, 2020 2:25 am

there is never documented proof when it comes to important stuff.......

my mulla sahab who use to teach me in madressa was instructed to keep the record of each pen and each booklet he uses while he teaches children

but these "dais" never keep any documents when it comes to very important matters of dawat, pure coincidence :mrgreen:

Saif53
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:39 am

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

#2722

Unread post by Saif53 » Tue May 12, 2020 2:49 am

1) Sajdo
Yes. I'm aware the examples were not of the physically living.
It was to highlight that the Da'i Mutlaq is the only authority on matters of jurisprudence.
I also gave the reference of the 5th Dai for the Mazoon.

2)
@ezzoudine
Hidayat Amiriyah states that despite any prior Nass, the final Nass will be taken into account. It also gives a reference of Imam Hakim doing Nass on his nephew Abd al-Rahim, and finally doing Nass on Imam Ali Al Zahir.

It also mention that even if the Nizaris claim that there was a prior Nass on Nizar, the final Nass before Imam Mustansirs death was on Imam Mustaali, and that would be considered the final Nass.

I'm not aware of any probability of Nass on Musa Kazim, unless you can provide any references.

Based on what I've mentioned above, as mentioned in Hidayat Amiriyah, for all arguements sake, only the final Nass will be considered.

3)
@ajamali
Thank you. No, I wasn't aware that Sakina KQ and Bazat Tahera are alleged to be witnesses of this Nass.
Do you have any reference or proof of this? Have they testified? If they haven't, how can they be called witnesses? Or how would the Qutbis/you know they are witnesses?

4) There's no issue in women being witnesses.
Moulatena Hurratul Maleka isn't a witness, not because she's a women. But because she wasn't physically present at the time of nass.
Simple logic.

ajamali
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:51 am

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

#2723

Unread post by ajamali » Tue May 12, 2020 4:01 am

Saif53 wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 2:49 am
4) There's no issue in women being witnesses.
Moulatena Hurratul Maleka isn't a witness...
Ah but there is an issue in Shariyah Mufaddalliyah......your buddies in court objected to their being witnesses on the basis of their sex and the judge shot them down! This was when they were objecting to the right of STF to continue the case. You lost that battle in court so you brought the question of STF’s legitimacy to this forum. They even asked Stewart whether women could be witnesses. And Stewart gave the example of Hurratul Mallika..... So now you are forced to change your tune....because she was so much more than a witness. She testified to the people about the nass on Tayyib Imam and established the Duat Mutlaqeen.

As to how do we know STF is the successor? We know because we are believers of SKQ and we were given a full account of the nass after SKQ’s passing. The account was more than credible and certainly did not involve multiple fake accounts of conferring of nass by third parties or videos/audios involving a proclamation by third parties.

I would suggest to Fake53 that he verify the nass on one he believes as dai first before trying to question STF’s legitimacy. Unless of course it is enough for him that Moiz conferred nass on Mufaddal Saifuddin :roll: :roll:

think_for_yourself
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:12 pm

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

#2724

Unread post by think_for_yourself » Tue May 12, 2020 10:33 am

ajamali wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 4:01 am
Saif53 wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 2:49 am
4) There's no issue in women being witnesses.
Moulatena Hurratul Maleka isn't a witness...
Ah but there is an issue in Shariyah Mufaddalliyah......your buddies in court objected to their being witnesses on the basis of their sex and the judge shot them down!
Another example of how Fake53 may have been slightly more effective in court than the yokels who run the show now......His expertise would be invaluable....perhaps Fake53’s bosses just don’t want him to see that they are not lords of the world after all.

Saif53
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:39 am

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

#2725

Unread post by Saif53 » Tue May 12, 2020 10:44 am

3. Taher's alleged Nass
We know because we are believers of SKQ and we were given a full account of the nass after SKQ’s passing.
Care to give details of this full account? Was it verbal? Who gave the account? Is there any reference or Audio/video of the account?
Asking for a friend. Thanks

4. Witnesses
Can you provide references or actual details as to how it was "shot down" in court? Or are you just going by heresay once again?

ajamali
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:51 am

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

#2726

Unread post by ajamali » Tue May 12, 2020 12:52 pm

Saif53 wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 10:44 am 3. Taher's alleged Nass
We know because we are believers of SKQ and we were given a full account of the nass after SKQ’s passing.
Care to give details of this full account? Was it verbal? Who gave the account? Is there any reference or Audio/video of the account?
Asking for a friend. Thanks
No I don't care to share the details with you. It is of no concern to you. It is only of concern to those who believed in SKQ as their Dai. And those who do, already have the details.
Saif53 wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 10:44 am 4. Witnesses
Can you provide references or actual details as to how it was "shot down" in court? Or are you just going by heresay once again?

The proof is in the pudding. STF continues the court case. I have viewed the court transcript which we are not at a liberty to disclose due to court restrictions. The basis of "yokel's" challenge in court was that the witnesses were women. The judge warned Chagla that he better not even go there and granted STF the right to continue the court case. But seriously Fake53...you need to go and ask the yokels for the details rather than coming and begging us for them. Your yokels are free to share the details with you but they prefer treat you like mushrooms i.e. to keep you in the dark and feed you s71T....

ajamali
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:51 am

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

#2727

Unread post by ajamali » Tue May 12, 2020 1:02 pm

Hey Fake53 how is it that you differ from your so-called Dai? How is it that Muffadal thinks that women as witnesses are a problem and you think that it is not a problem at all?

Crater Lake
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:46 pm

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

#2728

Unread post by Crater Lake » Tue May 12, 2020 1:19 pm

ajamali wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 12:52 pm
Saif53 wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 10:44 am 4. Witnesses
Can you provide references or actual details as to how it was "shot down" in court? Or are you just going by heresay once again?

The proof is in the pudding. STF continues the court case. I have viewed the court transcript which we are not at a liberty to disclose due to court restrictions. The basis of "yokel's" challenge in court was that the witnesses were women. The judge warned Chagla that he better not even go there and granted STF the right to continue the court case. But seriously Fake53...you need to go and ask the yokels for the details rather than coming and begging us for them. Your yokels are free to share the details with you but they prefer treat you like mushrooms i.e. to keep you in the dark and feed you s71T....
Indeed, when they were shot down on the point of women-as-witnesses at the time of objecting to the continuation, they brought it up again to Stewart...but no Cigar....
Fake53, you are definitely out of sync with your "Dai" on this one.

Wait can you be a Dawoodi Bohra if you disagree with your Dai on a theological point? Did Fake53 not say he believes whatever his Dai tell him? I guess he stands corrected by his "Dai" on the point of women-as-witnesses.

malgudidays
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:47 am

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

#2729

Unread post by malgudidays » Tue May 12, 2020 9:29 pm

Saif53 wrote: Tue May 12, 2020 2:49 am 1) Sajdo
Yes. I'm aware the examples were not of the physically living.
It was to highlight that the Da'i Mutlaq is the only authority on matters of jurisprudence.
I also gave the reference of the 5th Dai for the Mazoon.

2)
@ezzoudine
Hidayat Amiriyah states that despite any prior Nass, the final Nass will be taken into account. It also gives a reference of Imam Hakim doing Nass on his nephew Abd al-Rahim, and finally doing Nass on Imam Ali Al Zahir.

It also mention that even if the Nizaris claim that there was a prior Nass on Nizar, the final Nass before Imam Mustansirs death was on Imam Mustaali, and that would be considered the final Nass.

I'm not aware of any probability of Nass on Musa Kazim, unless you can provide any references.

Based on what I've mentioned above, as mentioned in Hidayat Amiriyah, for all arguements sake, only the final Nass will be considered.

---> I had my doubts about Hidayat Amiriya attributed to Imam Amir(as), now I know for a fact this book can no way be related to Imam Amir(as) How can a mustaqar Imam ever do a nass on anyone else but his son. It has to be father and son...

also, is it an accepted position from the defendant's side that Nass can be changed or revoked? Does that mean the defendant side is accepting that yes, nass was done on Khuzaima Qutbuddin, but it was later changed and that is
a valid practise and there are precendece for it?

or it is just that, we do not accept Nass was done on Khuzaima, but even if it was, that does not matter because Nass was changed and Final Nass is the only valid Nass, Hence Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin is the rightful successor.

RedBox
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:41 am

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

#2730

Unread post by RedBox » Wed May 13, 2020 2:31 am

I have no doubt nass was on mufaddal saifuddin by his dad.

But I also have no doubt that his dad cheated his brother and father and went against the will of his dying father. He intentionally derailed nass process to keep his step brother out of power and kept him confused and loyal.

Such games are not quality of a momeen let alone of a dai of Imam.