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

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

#2821

Unread post by james » Sun May 31, 2020 12:19 am

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 11:24 pm
UnhappyBohra wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 6:19 pm

STF was asked in court whether he believed the letter and he said that he did not. One of the reasons he gave, and I can’t remember exactly which one it was, but he pointed out either that the signature has an extra Alif or a missing Alif compared to how Miyasaab Yamani signed his madehs and his letters.

The fraud related to the nass audio, the letter signature related fraud, these are the reasons that this court case is important. It is about
the community - and that is why it is more than just a fight over properties.

And when did this particular Miyasaab Yamani pass away? Was it a while back?

Because another Miyasaab Yamani passed away a few years back. Was he the son, or, was it his signature on this nass letter?

It is cute to see you play the devil's advocate every now and then but don't be a gullible cat.

On the Nass diary entry,the tawqee mubarak is of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA himself.


And I notice you have been completely ignored by ajamali when you questioned him about his wild fanciful claims of 100th milad waaz. :wink:



As for you feigning concern for the community,I suggest you to not lose sleep over it. 99% of the community have pledged their allegiance to the 53rd Dai Syedna Aaliqadr Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS.

The court case is all about the Dawat properties. And I ask you (byculla couldn't come up with an answer on this) how is it Adl that as a schism of 500-600 people are looking to usurp the properties catering to lacs and lacs of people? Such is the greed of the Qutbis.


PS: If you are planning to reply to this post and not sidestep it as you have done in the past,I look forward to you not getting hung up on the 500-600 numbers. Even if you multiply it by 10,5000-6000 still equates to 1% of the community. :wink:

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

#2822

Unread post by Crater Lake » Sun May 31, 2020 12:22 am

Blah blah blah bla bla

And then on the day he supposedly did nass on him he called him Mohammed bhai.

And this “most beloved son” sat there and watched his Gravely ILL father struggle and get blatantly misused. I think Burhanuddin Moula May have loved his son but the son did not love him back.

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

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

#2823

Unread post by james » Sun May 31, 2020 12:52 am

byculla wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 11:25 am @James - most of your rhetoric I have already responded to you previously - including your items in bold and underline. Some such as your idea of Saqifa is extensive and I don't want to go into a discussion with you on this. I have highlighted the important difference between the 2 which is "election" vs a "short waaz". There was no "election" with SKQ RA.

Dawedaars do their fitnat in all sort of ways.The manner is not the differential but leaving the kafan and dafan of Saheb e Zaman to spread fitnat and try to usurp and lead mumineen astray is what Saqeefah is all about.

About the DNA Article, again as I mentioned the context is important. I am not sure what context was the question post to SKQ RA. Its entirely possible the question was about his older brothers and sisters. In that context, his response was accurate.
Haha,what? Instead of conceding,you are coming up with the crap of context. How can he not remember his brothers giving sajda to him? Do you want to know why? Because many of them were alive that time. It is easy to slander a dead person but not so much a living one.Also,Khuzaima claimed in court that privately he had indications that he had support of his siblings. And at the very next hearing,didn't the siblings attend court and sat on the side of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS's team.I have read this somewhere.Can you get this confirmed from Husain?

Shz Baqir bs used to have high reverence for SKQ. A note written by him is present on FD website and you can go ahead and read it. It says

"To the greatest Maula and grandest patrician, who shines in the firmament of religion like the full moon, for whom trees and plants and stars bow down in sajda. For he has been given [the signature-alaamat by Sayyidna Taher Saifuddin RA]: <All your blessings come from Allah> Quran Nahl 16:53). These are Allah ta’ala’s words in His Book: All His blessings (ni’am) will be bestowed on him. The tongues of all God’s servants will say to him “Yes!” (na’am=I give you my bay’at). He is Mazoon al-Dawat-al-Gharra’, Khuzaima bhaisaheb Qutbuddin TUS, my lord (sayyid). My soul, my heart, my liver are all fida upon him.

From the humblest ghulam of Maulana, father of us all, TUS,

Muhammad-ul-Baqir Jamaluddin

29 Rabi’ al-Akhar 1398H"

This and several other items about position of mazoon are @ https://www.fatemidawat.com/about/recen ... t-sources/. I understand you may (and do) have different interpretation of these dawat texts including Taj Ul Aqaid (in which it says that mazoon speaks truth even if it goes against him). Thats fine. Its your choice.
You have deemed Miyasaheb Ibrahim Yamani's letter to be fake because it was revealed in the open after the wafaat of 52nd Dai RA. In the same vein,when did you learn about Baqir Bs's letter? If it's after wafaat,then call it fake too. Why the hypocrisy? If you question the authenticity of one letter written by a person who you revere,then why at the same time you keep talking about other letters,etc?
I understand that his ex-personal secretary (Shabbir Yamani) has chosen a different route. Throughout his life while he was in khidmat of SKQ RA he was sidelined. He suffered. In fact his son suffered physically as well in incident well known and documented. He knew what his future would be if he continues with his support of SKQ. Several believers in SKQ RA know that he himself used to say that Miyasaheb Ibrahim Yamani used to do Sajda to SKQ RA. I know he would say otherwise now.


It is time you drop the act of "world against me" syndrome. Secretary of Khuzaima "Sk Shabbir Yamani" pledged allegiance to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS has not out of fear or or any suffering or any greed.You are putting a tohmat on Shk Shabbir bhai Yamani and his son Mansur bhai by insinuating that they didn't believe in Khuzaima's dawedaari for their future. Have some shame.
Last edited by james on Sun May 31, 2020 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

#2824

Unread post by Crater Lake » Sun May 31, 2020 12:58 am

Haha NOT EVERYONE has given Misaq out of fear but most people have......OK fine some people have. Freudian slip Jamie boy? What was the need to scare people into giving misaaq? Have you not heard Laa iqraho fiddeen.... no compulsion in religion?

Also I love how Jamie boy is avoiding the fact that MS was called Mohamned bhai and was not recognized by his “naas” when he allegedly did nass on him and how he callously sat through and watched his father struggle and suffer instead of calling an end to the dog and pony show and taking him home.

There are some things you just cannot explain away with lies and forged letters or twisted interpretations of texts.
Last edited by Crater Lake on Sun May 31, 2020 1:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 665
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#2825

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Sun May 31, 2020 1:05 am

james wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 12:19 am
dal-chaval-palidu wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 11:24 pm


The fraud related to the nass audio, the letter signature related fraud, these are the reasons that this court case is important. It is about
the community - and that is why it is more than just a fight over properties.

And when did this particular Miyasaab Yamani pass away? Was it a while back?

Because another Miyasaab Yamani passed away a few years back. Was he the son, or, was it his signature on this nass letter?

It is cute to see you play the devil's advocate every now and then but don't be a gullible cat.

On the Nass diary entry,the tawqee mubarak is of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA himself.


And I notice you have been completely ignored by ajamali when you questioned him about his wild fanciful claims of 100th milad waaz. :wink:



As for you feigning concern for the community,I suggest you to not lose sleep over it. 99% of the community have pledged their allegiance to the 53rd Dai Syedna Aaliqadr Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS.

The court case is all about the Dawat properties. And I ask you (byculla couldn't come up with an answer on this) how is it Adl that as a schism of 500-600 people are looking to usurp the properties catering to lacs and lacs of people? Such is the greed of the Qutbis.


PS: If you are planning to reply to this post and not sidestep it as you have done in the past,I look forward to you not getting hung up on the 500-600 numbers. Even if you multiply it by 10,5000-6000 still equates to 1% of the community. :wink:
As far as pledging allegiance goes, those misaq were forced. Here is the basic lesson that we learn from the tragedy of Karbala.

Eventually, only 72 people where with Imam Hussian, and the opposing army had a large contingent in the thousands. As the other side (Yazid’s army, in this case) had power/force on their side, there will only be a small number of people who will support the side with truth – even if that person is none other than the Prophet’s grandson.
o The learning is that when a powerful group is challenged by another person who may even be right, only a small fraction of people will support the side that is right, due to fear of consequences.
o Few people will stand up to any authoritative ruler/dictator or against powerful (religious, or other) leaders of closed knit groups. Not many people will speak out against powerful CEOs inside corporations too.
o Hitler, Saddam Hussain, "you name it tyrants", … not too many people stood up against them. The price to be paid was too much.
o This can be observed in many places and throughout history.
o Some aspects of that is repeated in our community currently. As the dawat properties (mosque, dargah, burial grounds, jamatkhanas) are under the control of MS, and due to the threat of social boycott in a close knit community, only a small number supports SKQ. Just like a small number supported Imam Hussain.
o The learning from Karbala is that just because the numbers are small does not necessarily mean SKQ is wrong; none other then Imam Hussain had small numbers on his side, as he was challenging a powerful ruler.

------------------------------------------------------------

Hope that answers the numbers question. If you think it is only small numbers, please take a secret ballot after allowing both sides to clearly make their case.

This is about right vs. wrong, plain and simple.

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

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

#2826

Unread post by james » Sun May 31, 2020 1:15 am

objectiveobserver53 wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 6:35 pm Those who can lie about what their Dai just said, can lie about anything!

Listen to how Moiz twists SMB's words....Anybody who can sit and watch their father struggle in this manner for the sake of their own benefit is not a Mumin, let alone a person fit to lead mumineen. They will stoop to ANYTHING including forging signatures and letters just so they can grab power and usurp the rightful successor.

We will keep posting this here to remind the community how they were taken for a ride.

And the Qutbis come up with more false accusations. "Maru Naam su che" is a mode of bayaan mubarak of the 52nd Dai RA.If only they had the tawfeeq to attend his sermons!

Wouldn't be the first time Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA did tambhee in delivering a sermon.

"Me kaun chu Maru Naam Su che Mamluke Aale Mohammed chu Maro laqab su che? Burhanuddin Laqab Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA ye aapu che"


Come to think of it,it's almost as if it was a warning to the naysayers who have undermined the Maqam of Dai Mutlaq. Even in a state of illness, A Dai Mutlaq will never utter wrong words,If they claim that he was unaware,then they are unaware of his Maqam. (Nauzobillah)

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

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

#2827

Unread post by james » Sun May 31, 2020 1:25 am

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 1:05 am
james wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 12:19 am


It is cute to see you play the devil's advocate every now and then but don't be a gullible cat.

On the Nass diary entry,the tawqee mubarak is of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA himself.


And I notice you have been completely ignored by ajamali when you questioned him about his wild fanciful claims of 100th milad waaz. :wink:



As for you feigning concern for the community,I suggest you to not lose sleep over it. 99% of the community have pledged their allegiance to the 53rd Dai Syedna Aaliqadr Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS.

The court case is all about the Dawat properties. And I ask you (byculla couldn't come up with an answer on this) how is it Adl that as a schism of 500-600 people are looking to usurp the properties catering to lacs and lacs of people? Such is the greed of the Qutbis.


PS: If you are planning to reply to this post and not sidestep it as you have done in the past,I look forward to you not getting hung up on the 500-600 numbers. Even if you multiply it by 10,5000-6000 still equates to 1% of the community. :wink:
As far as pledging allegiance goes, those misaq were forced. Here is the basic lesson that we learn from the tragedy of Karbala.

Eventually, only 72 people where with Imam Hussian, and the opposing army had a large contingent in the thousands. As the other side (Yazid’s army, in this case) had power/force on their side, there will only be a small number of people who will support the side with truth – even if that person is none other than the Prophet’s grandson.
o The learning is that when a powerful group is challenged by another person who may even be right, only a small fraction of people will support the side that is right, due to fear of consequences.
o Few people will stand up to any authoritative ruler/dictator or against powerful (religious, or other) leaders of closed knit groups. Not many people will speak out against powerful CEOs inside corporations too.
o Hitler, Saddam Hussain, "you name it tyrants", … not too many people stood up against them. The price to be paid was too much.
o This can be observed in many places and throughout history.
o Some aspects of that is repeated in our community currently. As the dawat properties (mosque, dargah, burial grounds, jamatkhanas) are under the control of MS, and due to the threat of social boycott in a close knit community, only a small number supports SKQ. Just like a small number supported Imam Hussain.
o The learning from Karbala is that just because the numbers are small does not necessarily mean SKQ is wrong; none other then Imam Hussain had small numbers on his side, as he was challenging a powerful ruler.

------------------------------------------------------------

Hope that answers the numbers question. If you think it is only small numbers, please take a secret ballot after allowing both sides to clearly make their case.

This is about right vs. wrong, plain and simple.
It is funny to see you lecture about right or wrong when in the past you have openly blamed Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA for this nass dispute. Know this,if you were in the era of Rasulullah SAW,you will blame him too for the dispute that followed after his passing away.

Behave responsibly if you are trying to quote history. Imam Husain AS had lot of followers and not just 72 shaheed of Karbala. There were mumineen present in Yemen as he was beseeched to go to Yemen and not Iraq upon his departure from Makkah. There were mumineen present in Medina as well for they received Imam Ali Zainul Abedin AS outside of Medina.



For how long,will you hide under the garb of "forced forced"? If you would have been fair as you act to be,you would have no hesitation in answering that on basis of ADL,a schism of 500-600 shoudln't try to usurp Dawat properties which cater to lacs and lacs of mumineen.

PS:Why did you stop talking about the Nass diary all of a sudden? :mrgreen:

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

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

#2828

Unread post by ajamali » Sun May 31, 2020 1:27 am

Glad you are paying attention Jamie boy. I will post the video tomorrow don’t you worry. It is a large file so will have to share a link. You can watch SKQ do muanaqa to SMB and MS being stopped by him and scurrying back like a rat. It certainly did not look like SMB was intending to do nass on the retreating rat in a few months time!

In fact it does not look from the video as though SMB cared much for the retreating rat - sorry beg to differ Crater Lake!

I have also found the 17th Shabaan audio - you can listen whose name was beloved to STS!

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

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

#2829

Unread post by ajamali » Sun May 31, 2020 1:33 am

Big difference in what you quoted and the naam su che Muhammad naam che Questions in Raudat Tahera. BIG BiG difference. One is a rhetorical question and the other was not. Burhanuddin Moula was not uttering anything wrong! You are absolutely right about that! He was utterly confused about who was sitting in front of him. So what right did Moiz have to change what he had said?

As far as attending Burhanuddin Aqa’s waaz, I attended about 10 out of 12 of his last Asharas. I believe I listened with my heart And mind wide open. Do you think that my agony over MS’s Mistreatment of him stems out of nowhere? I know that many in FD were regular attendees of SMB’s ashara. So please step off of your high horse.

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

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

#2830

Unread post by byculla » Sun May 31, 2020 1:39 am

james wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 12:04 am
Please provide audio where the 52nd Dai RA says the name Khuzaima was "most beloved" to Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA on 17th Shaban 1385H. You qutbis (returning the favor here) have lied enough about this and already been caught so many times about this event but still you don't have an iota of shame to stop attributing false statements to the 52nd Dai RA.
If you had an iota of honesty you wouldn't be asking me about it. Its the same audio of the first misak of SMB RA. Its you who would be lying if you don't accept this. Words of SMB RA.

About Walad Al ahab,
(1) Its a fact that SMB RA mentioned it 3 times. The audio proves it. SKQ RA and Mukasir Shz Husain bs said that same that 3 times was mentioned.
(2) The difference in recollection is about the order of saying walad al ahab. Even if there was no difference @James wouldn't accept it anyway. Central argument of mentioning of Walad al ahab thrice (which the audio proves) has nothing to do with the order in which SMB RA mentioned.
(3) Mukasir Shz Husain bs talks of a waqfa - a suspense. Its very evident from the audio there was one. SMB RA did not directly take name of SKQ RA while appointing him as mazoon. The Audio proves it.

The rest of your post is simply copy paste from your sites. As I have said before, Kotharis have attributed many things to SMB RA. I can't trust it - and I have given you evidence for the same. I can't confirm or deny any of it - my knowledge of Arabic is limited. SKQ RA was asked about this in court. Key thing in his response was context. Context is important. Context is everything.. The words were spoken by SMB RA while appointing SKQ as mazoon.

Additionally most of the people you mentioned about walad al ahab are actually sons of STS or SMB. To refer to them as most beloved son (again on the context of the occasion whether its hadiyat or assigning them important names) is understandable. SKQ RA was SMB RA brother not a child. Regardless, the context of appointing him as mazoon the 2nd highest maratib was important. Key argument of SKQ RA was that several individuals of higher learning understood the meaning behind this. (Again Miyasaheb Ibrahim Yamani included). Also, if my memory serves me right, as per SKQ RA bayan, another dai has (I think 43rd,) has used these words previously while appointing his mansoos.

Today the difference between the Jihadis and Terrorists who go killing people in name of specific ayats of Quran and the vast majority of moderate muslims who dont is the context and interpretation. They fail to contextualize the specific ayats and take each ayat as is.
Last edited by byculla on Sun May 31, 2020 2:25 am, edited 2 times 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

#2831

Unread post by byculla » Sun May 31, 2020 1:46 am

james wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 12:19 am The court case is all about the Dawat properties. And I ask you (byculla couldn't come up with an answer on this) how is it Adl that as a schism of 500-600 people are looking to usurp the properties catering to lacs and lacs of people? Such is the greed of the Qutbis.


PS: If you are planning to reply to this post and not sidestep it as you have done in the past,I look forward to you not getting hung up on the 500-600 numbers. Even if you multiply it by 10,5000-6000 still equates to 1% of the community. :wink:
Thanks @Dal-chawal-palidu for responding. I agree with most of his assertion. Also, the court battle is for establishing Haq. Not for dawat properties.

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

#2832

Unread post by Crater Lake » Sun May 31, 2020 1:53 am

Ha ha ha now I have heard it all. Jamie boy listen to the audio! This is not SMB asserting who he is. This is SMB asking who the dimwit is that is sitting in front of him! :roll: Clearly you have not attended as many Ashara with SMB as I have or you would have caught on to that right away!

Yes we know that a Dai is human. And human beings sometimes suffer strokes and lose their cognitive abilities. No one was more aware of the fragility and fleeting nature of our existence in this world as SMB! He preached it from the takhat all the time. He never placed himself above it. For you to suggest he was somehow above suffering from the consequences of a stroke is ridiculous. He was clearly in a cognitive fog in Raudat Tahera that day.
Last edited by Crater Lake on Sun May 31, 2020 2:08 am, 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

#2833

Unread post by byculla » Sun May 31, 2020 2:05 am

james wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 12:52 am Haha,what? Instead of conceding,you are coming up with the crap of context. How can he not remember his brothers giving sajda to him? Do you want to know why? Because many of them were alive that time. It is easy to slander a dead person but not so much a living one.Also,Khuzaima claimed in court that privately he had indications that he had support of his siblings. And at the very next hearing,didn't the siblings attend court and sat on the side of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS's team.I have read this somewhere.Can you get this confirmed from Husain?
Most of it plain rhetoric. I gave you an explanation or possibility. Yes I could be wrong about my thoughts that Shz Baqir bs ever gave sajda to SKQ RA - but I did give you evidence on why I thought what I thought. Shz Baqir bs note (read again) is self explanatory and yes it does talk about sajda to SKQ RA.

About questions to Mukasir saheb, you are free to ask anybody from Fatemidawat. I don't represent them and have made it sufficiently clear. I am a follower of SKQ RA and STF tus. Mind you all these and other questions you had "ample" opportunities to ask in court. You missed out on them and are asking us now on PDB site which you have already said you don't trust ?
james wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 12:52 am You have deemed Miyasaheb Ibrahim Yamani's letter to be fake because it was revealed in the open after the wafaat of 52nd Dai RA
The letter was revealed publicly more than 2.5 years after the fake nass episode. Also, I have already indicated my reservations about Kothar. They have said a number of things in SMB RA name including but not limited to 2013 Munajat.

Lastly about the yamanis - that Mansoor Yamani was beaten by Burhani Guards because of his support to SKQ RA back in Surat back in 2003 is a fact. He himself has said to others that Miyasaheb Ibrahim Yamani used to do Sajda to SKQ RA. (Read at http://www.mostbelovedson.com/uncategor ... -bajaawta/). You can also read Shabbir Yamani's handwritten letter which shows his deep reverence for SKQ RA at http://www.mostbelovedson.com/uncategor ... i-akhbaar/.
Last edited by byculla on Sun May 31, 2020 2:14 am, 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

#2834

Unread post by byculla » Sun May 31, 2020 2:11 am

james wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 1:15 am And the Qutbis come up with more false accusations. "Maru Naam su che" is a mode of bayaan mubarak of the 52nd Dai RA.If only they had the tawfeeq to attend his sermons!

@James - don't you have any shame remaining in you ? Really ? Attributing words to SMB RA which he never spoke in 2011. Audio is sufficient evidence anyways for listeners.

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

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

#2835

Unread post by ajamali » Sun May 31, 2020 2:22 am

Crater Lake wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 1:53 am Ha ha ha now I have heard it all. Jamie boy listen to the audio! This is not SMB asserting who he is. This is SMB asking who the dimwit is that is sitting in front of him! :roll: Clearly you have not attended as many Ashara with SMB as I have or you would have caught on to that right away!

Yes we know that a Dai is human. And human beings sometimes suffer strokes and lose their cognitive abilities. No one was more aware of the fragility and fleeting nature of our existence in this world as SMB! He preached it from the takhat all the time. He never placed himself above it. For you to suggest he was somehow above suffering from the consequences of a stroke is ridiculous. He was clearly in a cognitive fog in Raudat Tahera that day.
I think that Jamie Boy is deluded about SMB’s humanness because MS can speak to snakes, birds and cockroaches and can cure a variety of illnesses, cancer and speech defects with the wave of a hand - if the Mojiza factory is anything to go by. Little does he know that these special powers have been reserved for the new Marvel hero Captain Club Bohra and that SMB was human.

Captain Club Bohra has been uncharacteristically quiet on his powers over the novel Coronavirus though....Funny how he does that when it comes to actually being able to do something useful...

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

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

#2836

Unread post by objectiveobserver53 » Sun May 31, 2020 3:24 am

Heh heh Nice try Jamie Boy......Try again though....I have never heard Burhanuddin Moula refer time himself as Mohammed bhai. Plus, why would he say Mohamned bhai ne nass nu taj and then stop if he was asserting who he was..... Before announcing someone was his successor if he was referring to himself? Plus, why give him a paper to read if he was making the “nass” of his volition?

But the sad part is that after one month you could only come up with THIS lame explanation.

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

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

#2837

Unread post by james » Sun May 31, 2020 6:12 am

ajamali wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 1:27 am Glad you are paying attention Jamie boy. I will post the video tomorrow don’t you worry. It is a large file so will have to share a link.
2) When MS tried to jump up and do muanaqqa to SMB before SKQ, SMB stopped him. SMB then signaled SKQ to step forward and perform muanaqqa which he performed with deep reverence. MS tried to step up again and SMB stopped him again. FD has a video that captures the whole thing and it has been posted on this forum in the past.
This is what you have posted before and should be seen in the large file video.Take your sweet time.We will wait for tomorrow then. :wink:



I have also found the 17th Shabaan audio - you can listen whose name was beloved to STS!

Good for you! Post it now. It is unavailable on Fatelidavat website. Let's see if your audio also has "me je rutba ma hatho, ye rutba ma bhai Khuzaima ne qaim karu chu" (or similar). :mrgreen:

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

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

#2838

Unread post by james » Sun May 31, 2020 6:26 am

byculla wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 1:39 am
james wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 12:04 am
Please provide audio where the 52nd Dai RA says the name Khuzaima was "most beloved" to Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA on 17th Shaban 1385H. You qutbis (returning the favor here) have lied enough about this and already been caught so many times about this event but still you don't have an iota of shame to stop attributing false statements to the 52nd Dai RA.
If you had an iota of honesty you wouldn't be asking me about it. Its the same audio of the first misak of SMB RA. Its you who would be lying if you don't accept this. Words of SMB RA.

About Walad Al ahab,
(1) Its a fact that SMB RA mentioned it 3 times. The audio proves it. SKQ RA and Mukasir Shz Husain bs said that same that 3 times was mentioned.
(2) The difference in recollection is about the order of saying walad al ahab. Even if there was no difference @James wouldn't accept it anyway. Central argument of mentioning of Walad al ahab thrice (which the audio proves) has nothing to do with the order in which SMB RA mentioned.
(3) Mukasir Shz Husain bs talks of a waqfa - a suspense. Its very evident from the audio there was one. SMB RA did not directly take name of SKQ RA while appointing him as mazoon. The Audio proves it.

The rest of your post is simply copy paste from your sites. As I have said before, Kotharis have attributed many things to SMB RA. I can't trust it - and I have given you evidence for the same. I can't confirm or deny any of it - my knowledge of Arabic is limited. SKQ RA was asked about this in court. Key thing in his response was context. Context is important. Context is everything.. The words were spoken by SMB RA while appointing SKQ as mazoon.

Additionally most of the people you mentioned about walad al ahab are actually sons of STS or SMB. To refer to them as most beloved son (again on the context of the occasion whether its hadiyat or assigning them important names) is understandable. SKQ RA was SMB RA brother not a child. Regardless, the context of appointing him as mazoon the 2nd highest maratib was important. Key argument of SKQ RA was that several individuals of higher learning understood the meaning behind this. (Again Miyasaheb Ibrahim Yamani included). Also, if my memory serves me right, as per SKQ RA bayan, another dai has (I think 43rd,) has used these words previously while appointing his mansoos.

Today the difference between the Jihadis and Terrorists who go killing people in name of specific ayats of Quran and the vast majority of moderate muslims who dont is the context and interpretation. They fail to contextualize the specific ayats and take each ayat as is.
Was it during this bayan?

Image

Or

Image

:mrgreen:

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

#2839

Unread post by think_for_yourself » Sun May 31, 2020 8:50 am

After skirting around the Raudat Tahera audio for a month, James could only come up with the lame explanation that SMB was identifying himself! Hahahahahahabahahahahahahaha
Now we have Two people engaged in deception and outright lying and One person sitting around watching the abuse instead of taking SMB home to rest. This Was not the behavior of a loving son. This is evil, manipulative behavior.
CL is right, MS should have called an end to the dog and pony show and taken his father home to rest. Instead he sat there and let Moiz lie about what SMB had said. That is why they showed the video with muffled audio in masjids around the globe! The scale of the deception is enough to send a chill down anyone’s spine.

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

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

#2840

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » Sun May 31, 2020 9:04 am

^^^^I think if Jamie had attended more waaz with SMB, perhaps he would have had the ability to understand what SMB was saying.. :mrgreen:

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

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

#2841

Unread post by byculla » Sun May 31, 2020 9:27 am

@James - (about your last post) I don't see any issue with the first. If you had questions again, you could have asked him in court.

On 2nd, Yes there is human factor which impacts all. Dais are individuals. Consider this
(1) SMB RA himself in a misaq majlis took name of Syedi Saleh bs as mukasir. Several years after passing away of Syedi Saleh bs. I have heard this from many sources.
(2) I have myself prayed namaz (behind SMB RA) with 2 sehw sajda in Sherullahil Moazzam in1998. It was Ishail Akherat namaz.

I don't want to point out any of the above in a public forum particularly about my Maula SMB RA except to defend his mazoon and rightful mansoos. You forced me into it and blame is entirely yours.

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

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

#2842

Unread post by ajamali » Sun May 31, 2020 11:19 am

.
Last edited by ajamali on Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Qadir
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:28 am

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

#2843

Unread post by Qadir » Sun May 31, 2020 2:28 pm

Now what I'm going to say is my personal interpretation of the first two videos.
The first video doesn't really show what you claim simply because it starts too late. I am sorry to say but your theory is proven flawed.
The second video I personally believe that since SMB is Dai and Ghayb na jankaar would have known that everyone except KQ is gonna follow SMS so why just avoid SMS, why not Syedi Qaid Johar Bs? Why not Syedi Hussain Bs? Why not Syedi Aliasgar Bs? Why not Malekul Ashtar Bs?
Also I don't see it as SMB avoiding SMS but giving him hidayat to always do matam of Imam Hussain and never forget his gham (SMB got tearful after matam).
Now the third video is SMB appointing Mazoon, not mansoos so KQ is still wrong. If titles would have been indication of Dawat Rutba, Syedna Yusuf Najmuddin (1st dai of Hind) would have never become Dai.

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

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

#2844

Unread post by ajamali » Sun May 31, 2020 2:56 pm

Qadir wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 2:28 pm Now what I'm going to say is my personal interpretation of the first two videos.
The first video doesn't really show what you claim simply because it starts too late. I am sorry to say but your theory is proven flawed.
The second video I personally believe that since SMB is Dai and Ghayb na jankaar would have known that everyone except KQ is gonna follow SMS so why just avoid SMS, why not Syedi Qaid Johar Bs? Why not Syedi Hussain Bs? Why not Syedi Aliasgar Bs? Why not Malekul Ashtar Bs?
Also I don't see it as SMB avoiding SMS but giving him hidayat to always do matam of Imam Hussain and never forget his gham (SMB got tearful after matam).
Now the third video is SMB appointing Mazoon, not mansoos so KQ is still wrong. If titles would have been indication of Dawat Rutba, Syedna Yusuf Najmuddin (1st dai of Hind) would have never become Dai.
Qadir wake up! I am NOT offering up the 17th Shaban video as proof of nass. That’s you guys....Make things up about what Moula said and then claim nass was done. That’s not us.

I am only offering 17th Shaban video as proof that SKQ was beloved to STS and that is what SMB said when he made him Mazoon. You can quibble about details if you wish but you can see clearly SMB honoring his naas by following his wishes. You think he would have stopped following his wishes or considered them “irrelevant” as MS has claimed in court? Just because MS thinks SMB’s wishes were irrelevant he paints his father with the same brush.

The other two videos show SMB’s dismissal of MS.

The first video shows MS being asked to move from his leaning in position at the takhat to make way for SKQ. If you don’t want to see, that’s your prerogative. But it is in the video and it is a fact. The second video shows MS scurrying backwards like a rat upon being dismissed by SMB. Mind you this is only a few months before MS claims nass was done in him, post stroke.

You say SMB is teaching MS to do matam? You’d think the fool would have learned that in 40 years of allegedly being mansoos :mrgreen: why is he still making such a basic mistake after 40 years?!

A Dai does not appoint a successor unless he has reached the same Shaan as himself. Does MS appear in the same Shaan as SMB in that video? Who looks more hamshaan? SKQ or MS? MS himself admitted to as much in his letters to SKQ. Read Byculla’s posts. Don’t be willfully blind Qadir.

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

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

#2845

Unread post by Saif53 » Sun May 31, 2020 11:59 pm

byculla wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 7:11 am @Saif53 - I have limited knowledge of Arabic knowledge so I can't comment much on the article you presented. (I have read it before as well). That a mazoon speaks the truth even if its against him is written in Taj ul Aqaid - its SKQ RA position and I will go by it. I will say this though that interpretation is everything. You can argue by saying a particular text can have only one interpretation and that yours ONLY is correct - and thats fine as an argument but Yes dawat texts and words in general are to be interpreted correctly in the right context. On Ghadeer the very basis of the 2 sects in Islam were formed were differences in interpretation of the word "maula". Maratib of mazoon to SKQ RA is testimony to his high knowledge and ikhlaas. Additionally all of his knowledge likely including this kitab he learnt it from STS RA in the correct tasawwur and context.
What ignorance and sheer cowardice!
There's absolutely no connection between what the Qutbis claim and what's in the text. It's not a question if interpretation, it's a complete fabrication! The debate around the word "Moula", are based on interpretations, because everyone agrees that "Moula" was used. Whereas a simple translation of that 1 page would highlight their lies, that the text isn't even talking about the Mazoon!

If you *really* wanted the truth, you could hire and independent Arabic translator, to translate that 1 page.

Instead of even trying to understand, you'd just "go by it"? That's the definition of blind faith. That's what Islam, Fatimi teachings tell us not to do.
If I recall, the Qutbis preached the same.
Now, when you're wrong, you'll put your head in the sand? Cowardice.

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

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

#2846

Unread post by RedBox » Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:14 am

Saif53 wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 11:59 pm
byculla wrote: Fri May 29, 2020 7:11 am @Saif53 - I have limited knowledge of Arabic knowledge so I can't comment much on the article you presented. (I have read it before as well). That a mazoon speaks the truth even if its against him is written in Taj ul Aqaid - its SKQ RA position and I will go by it. I will say this though that interpretation is everything. You can argue by saying a particular text can have only one interpretation and that yours ONLY is correct - and thats fine as an argument but Yes dawat texts and words in general are to be interpreted correctly in the right context. On Ghadeer the very basis of the 2 sects in Islam were formed were differences in interpretation of the word "maula". Maratib of mazoon to SKQ RA is testimony to his high knowledge and ikhlaas. Additionally all of his knowledge likely including this kitab he learnt it from STS RA in the correct tasawwur and context.
What ignorance and sheer cowardice!
There's absolutely no connection between what the Qutbis claim and what's in the text. It's not a question if interpretation, it's a complete fabrication! The debate around the word "Moula", are based on interpretations, because everyone agrees that "Moula" was used. Whereas a simple translation of that 1 page would highlight their lies, that the text isn't even talking about the Mazoon!

If you *really* wanted the truth, you could hire and independent Arabic translator, to translate that 1 page.

Instead of even trying to understand, you'd just "go by it"? That's the definition of blind faith. That's what Islam, Fatimi teachings tell us not to do.
If I recall, the Qutbis preached the same.
Now, when you're wrong, you'll put your head in the sand? Cowardice.
tari waato sambhli ne to hypocricy bhi 10 wakht mari jai....

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

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

#2847

Unread post by byculla » Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:44 am

Saif53 wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 11:59 pm What ignorance and sheer cowardice!
There's absolutely no connection between what the Qutbis claim and what's in the text. It's not a question if interpretation, it's a complete fabrication! The debate around the word "Moula", are based on interpretations, because everyone agrees that "Moula" was used. Whereas a simple translation of that 1 page would highlight their lies, that the text isn't even talking about the Mazoon!

If you *really* wanted the truth, you could hire and independent Arabic translator, to translate that 1 page.

Instead of even trying to understand, you'd just "go by it"? That's the definition of blind faith. That's what Islam, Fatimi teachings tell us not to do.
If I recall, the Qutbis preached the same.
Now, when you're wrong, you'll put your head in the sand? Cowardice.
You think meaning behind wordings of a Dawat kitab could be understood by taking help from any outside translator who wouldn't know dawoodi bohra theology, who wouldn't know who wrote the kitab, what is intended audience, what is the relevant context ? Seriously ? I did read what you presented 2nd time. I remember reading it before as well (in 2016 I think) when it originally came out - I already told you that.

I do know that the word Dai and Izn has different meanings in Arabic. I recall a conversation with a muslim friend, for whom Tablighis and zakir Naik are examples of "dai" and in general anybody doing islamic preaching is a dai. I am sure he is going to say anybody given any kind of "permission" is "izn". Context and interpreting it is important. Credentials of who is doing it is as well. Maratib of Mazoon is also an indication of his high "ilm".
Last edited by byculla on Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

#2848

Unread post by james » Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:51 am

byculla wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 2:05 am

Most of it plain rhetoric. I gave you an explanation or possibility. Yes I could be wrong about my thoughts that Shz Baqir bs ever gave sajda to SKQ RA - but I did give you evidence on why I thought what I thought. Shz Baqir bs note (read again) is self explanatory and yes it does talk about sajda to SKQ RA.
Was Shz Baaqir Bs a witness to the private alleged *cough nass on Khuzaima? Also taking a leaf out of your book,why not just call the letter fake like you do it all the time? Did you know about the letter the time it was written or was it in 2014?
About questions to Mukasir saheb, you are free to ask anybody from Fatemidawat. I don't represent them and have made it sufficiently clear. I am a follower of SKQ RA and STF tus. Mind you all these and other questions you had "ample" opportunities to ask in court. You missed out on them and are asking us now on PDB site which you have already said you don't trust ?
I'm not sure why you keep referring to court court court.Till date,he or his siblings have not given the reference of the Taaj Al Aqaid kitab.If they have given you the reference,can you please post it?
The letter was revealed publicly more than 2.5 years after the fake nass episode. Also, I have already indicated my reservations about Kothar. They have said a number of things in SMB RA name including but not limited to 2013 Munajat.
The letter was revealed at the appropriate time as prophesied by the 52nd Dai RA. What a beautiful time it was! In the same vein,the hospital nass audio and video was also shown after 3 years of the event and you said the video was convincing at that time. Actually just reading some of the gems you have offered in the past,I have come to realize you are 100% conspiracy theorist and will believe anything what whatsapp has to offer.
Since he is clearly doing ziyarat of Alavi Bohra dai, perhaps in future can we expect Shz Mufaddal Saifuddin to visit Darus Sakina to do ziyarat of Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin RA ?

Really not sure why he is doing this. Perhaps politics. Perhaps give and take from Alavis on the ongoing court case.
After all according to him alavis are also "davedaar". According to Mufaddali doctrine, all davedaars (those who do "dawa" of being dai) are worthy of lanat. So its ok to do ziyarat of a person whom you regard worthy of lanat ? Would he also knowingly do ziyarat of Abu Bakr LA also (whose qabr is next to Rasulullah SA) absent of coercion by wahhabis ?


After this gem,you were informed by kimanumanu that the zyarat is of Syedi Musanji bin Taaj and instead of conceding you still had the nerve to offer this gem in reply to that.
You may be right (about the picture). However the message was apparently floated in Abde circles. I received separately as well on November 1 from an abde source.

FYI - I was able to dig into the original message I received. It had one additional thing - in quote below:

"They have reached an agreement they (alavi bohora ) will be allowed to go for haj with dawoodi bohoras...and will be allowed to do all ziyarat which are in dawoodi boharas control...."


I hope you don't mind me establishing context on what a nutcase you truly are. :mrgreen:
Lastly about the yamanis - that Mansoor Yamani was beaten by Burhani Guards because of his support to SKQ RA back in Surat back in 2003 is a fact. He himself has said to others that Miyasaheb Ibrahim Yamani used to do Sajda to SKQ RA. (Read at http://www.mostbelovedson.com/uncategor ... -bajaawta/). You can also read Shabbir Yamani's handwritten letter which shows his deep reverence for SKQ RA at http://www.mostbelovedson.com/uncategor ... i-akhbaar/.
Wow just wow. On one hand,you dismiss video testimony of Shk Shabbir bhai and Shk Mansur bhai and on the other hand you offer this?
Mansoor Yamani’s Sajdas
Late Shk. Saifuddin Qayamali, Hong Kong na mhota ra’ees, Bombay aaya ta, thoro time raya. Masjid ma namaaz vaaste hamesha aave. Mansoor Yamani tivaare Mazoon Maula ni khidmat ma hata. Ehne dekhe ke hamesha sajdo bajaave Mazoon Maula vaaste, to ek vaar kayu ke “Mazoon vaaste sajdo na devai.” Mansoor ye ehne javaab dido, “mein ye mara dadasaheb [Miyasaheb Ibrahim Yamani] ne dekha chhe Mazoon Maula vaaste sajda bajaawta, te si mein bhi bajaaw chhu.”

[As told by Mansoor Yamani]

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

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

#2849

Unread post by james » Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:09 am

byculla wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:44 am
Saif53 wrote: Sun May 31, 2020 11:59 pm What ignorance and sheer cowardice!
There's absolutely no connection between what the Qutbis claim and what's in the text. It's not a question if interpretation, it's a complete fabrication! The debate around the word "Moula", are based on interpretations, because everyone agrees that "Moula" was used. Whereas a simple translation of that 1 page would highlight their lies, that the text isn't even talking about the Mazoon!

If you *really* wanted the truth, you could hire and independent Arabic translator, to translate that 1 page.

Instead of even trying to understand, you'd just "go by it"? That's the definition of blind faith. That's what Islam, Fatimi teachings tell us not to do.
If I recall, the Qutbis preached the same.
Now, when you're wrong, you'll put your head in the sand? Cowardice.
You think meaning behind wordings of a Dawat kitab could be understood by taking help from any outside translator who wouldn't know dawoodi bohra theology, who wouldn't know who wrote the kitab, what is intended audience, what is the relevant context ? Seriously ? Word "maula" can have a different interpretation but a word "izn" can't? I did read what you presented 2nd time. I remember reading it before as well (in 2016 I think) when it originally came out - I already told you that.

I do know that the word Dai and Izn has different meanings in Arabic. I recall a conversation with a muslim friend, for whom Tablighis and zakir Naik are examples of "dai" and in general anybody doing islamic preaching is a dai. I am sure he is going to say anybody given any kind of "permission" is "izn". Context and interpreting it is important. Credentials of who is doing it is as well. Maratib of Mazoon is also an indication of his high "ilm".
Let's collectively try to get to the root of this reference that you are talking about.

Firstly post the reference to it and I hope this time you won't refer to court or FateliDavat correspondence.


Once you post the reference,it will come to light even if one were to agree on whom the text was referring to,there is a lot of difference in a statement and an instruction.


As an example:

byculla will always speak the truth

byculla should always speak the truth

On a lighter vein,

byculla will never believe in fake whatsapp circulations

byculla should never believe in fake whatsapp circulations.


You yourself has admitted that people who have been made Mazoon or Mukasir are fallible and can go astray.
For a fallible entity,"SHOULD" as an instruction makes more sense. But perhaps you don't have the 98th Chapter in mind.So for the sake of clarity and truth,please post the reference and let's take it forward from there.


As a bonus,here's an example/lesson on nifaaq.

Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA said,
“I believed Husain bhai and I unequivocally declared that he and his entire family are innocent of these accusations. I accepted his diyafat, honoured him with a shawl and prayed for his wellbeing.

After having done all this and after all that has transpired till now, if someone is still in doubt as to whether Husain bhai may have lied to me and was subsequently pardoned [even though he lied], then it is tantamount to having doubt in my judgement and the appropriateness of my actions. This stands true regardless of the rank and station of the person harbouring that doubt.”


Qutbis claim:
Shehzada Mufaddal bhaisaheb immediately accepted their oath—with no other evidence, and without listening to Qutbuddin Mola’s side of the story

The ultimate context is the above enlarged text. :D

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

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

#2850

Unread post by byculla » Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:40 am

james wrote: Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:51 am Was Shz Baaqir Bs a witness to the private alleged *cough nass on Khuzaima? Also taking a leaf out of your book,why not just call the letter fake like you do it all the time? Did you know about the letter the time it was written or was it in 2014?
No he was not a witness. The rest is plain rhetoric. The fake nass letter which MS produced was shown 2.5 years after the (fake) nass. The whole nass story from Mufaddal Saifuddin has evolved from first event in London Hospital to adding 2 shahids QJ and MA few months later to Adding nass diary 2.5 years later to adding a hindu shahid from MP state a little later. Enough said. Your story has evolved. Why didn't original nass nama which had all indications of so called shaan of MS not have any mention of 1388 diary. Why it took them so long to reveal this evidence if it was so authentic.
I'm not sure why you keep referring to court court court.Till date,he or his siblings have not given the reference of the Taaj Al Aqaid kitab.If they have given you the reference,can you please post it?
Because I don't have details about arabic dawat kitabs. Why do you ask us when we have already told you so ? Ask them in court. Scared ?

The letter was revealed publicly more than 2.5 years after the fake nass episode. Also, I have already indicated my reservations about Kothar. They have said a number of things in SMB RA name including but not limited to 2013 Munajat.
I already see how convenient it is for you to "not" answer how SMB RA in the condition he was wrote 72 bands of 2013 munajat "in that year itself" as is Kothar's version.

About the rest of your post. Read my post again with @Kimanau. I already conceded to him but gave him reason of my commenting on that message. It was forwarded by an "Abde" a hardcore Mufaddal Saifuddin follower much like you @James. Also as reminder I did NOT forward that message originally (it came from @GulamParinda). I simply commented on it since it also did come to me separately from an Abde, just like you (you yourself provided evidence for the same in my past post). Is this worth your or my time ?

After doing digs on all my messages is that all you found ? Perhaps you can start by answering the very first question I asked on this forum.
Last edited by byculla on Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:30 am, edited 3 times in total.