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.
momeenbhai
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:31 am

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

#2311

Unread post by momeenbhai » Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:12 am

my reaction when ever a mufaddali tries to interact or shake my hand in real life. :lol: I tend to keep dumb people like mufaddalies at a good distance.
Attachments
landscape-1497435593-washing-hands-close-up.jpg

level_headed
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:02 am

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

#2312

Unread post by level_headed » Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:31 pm

If we write in English, it does not get deleted for foul language but we write the same thing in Gujarati, the post gets deleted for foul language. Admin saheb - jawaab do..oh sorry- Please answer
Attachments
Snip20180325_36.png

momeenbhai
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:31 am

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

#2313

Unread post by momeenbhai » Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:35 pm

Syedna Burhanuddin also lost his speech in his last days? would this mufaddalis also call him bobro if he would have assign Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the Dai?

Just wondering?

momeenbhai
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:31 am

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

#2314

Unread post by momeenbhai » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:37 pm

so whats new?

momeenbhai
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:31 am

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

#2315

Unread post by momeenbhai » Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:03 am

I was reading latest update on court case and seems like taher fasai gayo che, he is not able to speak up clearly because faith cant be prove with proof especially when he says "will" is not wordly.

doing a court case to prove a nass done behind close door was a mistake.

level_headed
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:02 am

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

#2316

Unread post by level_headed » Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:42 am

Image
Attachments
Snip20180428_126.png

momeenbhai
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:31 am

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

#2317

Unread post by momeenbhai » Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:02 pm

level_headed wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:42 am
Image
Chu*** like you are worst than dawedaar, followers of mufaddali are worst.

level_headed
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:02 am

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

#2318

Unread post by level_headed » Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:30 pm

decide which hole you want to speak from - sometimes you speak from one and sometimes from the other. Ya to kaano thayee jaa ya to andho thayee ja

momeenbhai
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:31 am

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

#2319

Unread post by momeenbhai » Sat Apr 28, 2018 2:05 pm

level_headed wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:30 pm
decide which hole you want to speak from - sometimes you speak from one and sometimes from the other. Ya to kaano thayee jaa ya to andho thayee ja
read my previous post I am not supporting any of these ass holes. because I am not an ass hole like you.

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#2320

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Sat May 05, 2018 2:06 am

If you type Badri Lacewala in google, one of the links that comes up takes us to the facebook page of Sahar Sheikh. I am posting 2 screen shots from that page.

What is this that he is referring to? He says: "In hon'able highcourt, Bombay, isn't it sinful to attempt to corrupt the judiciary law? Mr.Badri Lacewala and @shahzadehussain son of present Sydena Muffadal Saifuddin are involved? What should be done if audio and video proof are possesed? What if ones life is in danger? Views??"

Does anyone have any idea about what is going on?


Is this guy credible? I hope that no harm comes to him. Is this in anyway even related to the Badri Lacewala disappearence? Did he try to do something wrong, and "disappeared" to prevent any arrest? Remote chance, but who knows.
Attachments
sahar-sheikh1.jpg

momeenbhai
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:31 am

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

#2321

Unread post by momeenbhai » Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:46 am

The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel has scheduled the further cross-examination of Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb for five further days on 20th and 21st June, and on 3rd, 4th, and 5th July 2018.

momeenbhai
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:31 am

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

#2322

Unread post by momeenbhai » Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:11 am

any update? just want to see Indian judiciary stand.

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#2323

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:59 pm

There is a wikipedia page on the Chandabhoy Galla Case. It looks recent, and the English is somewhat sub-par.

Wonder why somebody made an entry on it now. How authentic are all the claims in it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandabhoy_Galla_Case
---------------------------------------------- below is the current write-up ------------------------------------------


The Chandabhoy Galla Case is celebrated case in the history of religion where a human being is challenged for representing God on earth being infallible and immaculate. The case was filed during British rule in India by Sir Thomas Strangman, the Advocate General of Mumbai at the behest of Adamjee Pirbhai family members against Dawoodi Bohra 51st Dai Syedna Taher Saifuddin. The case was filed in 1917AD and decided in 1921AD. The claim was based on the belief of Imam as representative of the Prophet, and through him the representative of God, having withdrawn from the world, someone must represent him, and so ultimately the Deity on earth. The Dai, according to community religious belief, is that representative. The ownership of the Chandabhoy ‘Galla’( box kept for religious offerings) was challenged on the plea of improper succession. Issues raised, however, were of far greater significance than the properties included in the case. The ownership was decided in favor of Syedna, arguing succession proper.[1][2]

The case was also historic in the sense that similar case was put up in the court of Mughal emperor Akbar, in year 1591AD, where representation was challenged on the legal point of proper accountability and proper succession resulting in royal farman(order) issued in favor of 27th Dai Dawood Bin Qutubshah.[3] In 2014, similar case moved to the high court in Mumbai to decide, valid succession of 53rd Syedna (Dai) of the Dawoodi Bohra community.[4] Sir Thomas Strangman observes in his book "Indian Courts and Characters", the case is remarkable not only for its length, but for the amazing claims put forward on behalf of the 'Mullaji'(Syedna Taher), the like of which have never been put forward in any Court of Law.[5]

In the Chandabhoy Galla Case, It was contended that 47th Dai Syedna Abdul Qadir Najmuddin was not validly appointed as Dai al Mutlaq. If this contention was upheld by the court, then the position of all subsequent Dai al Mutlaqs would be put into question. Syedna Taher Saifuddin's claim to be the Dai al Mutlaq was dependent upon the court deciding that Syedna Najmuddin was validly appointed. The court upheld the succession of Taher Saifuddin proper. Considering all the circumstances, the judge held that all the properties in respect of which the declaration was sought were devoted to charitable purposes and that the Mullaji(Syedna Taher) was a trustee thereof.[6]

During Proceeding of the case, remark of British judge Mr. Justice Marten is important on clarifying religious trust. The judge observed "high-ranking people could be trusted not to commit criminal breach of trust; but that did not mean that they were beyond the pale of the law. For example, His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, could not conceivably commit a criminal offence; but he was nevertheless subject to the criminal law, and this fact involved no slur. So, too, in theory the Mullaji Saheb was amenable to the criminal and civil law of this country, though it was unthinkable that he would commit any offence. But the existence of this civil restraint is no more a slur upon an honest trustee, than the existence of criminal restraint is upon an honest citizen. The test of a trust is not whether the alleged trustee can ever commit a breach of trust, which is what the defendants' contention in effect amounts to."[7]

During testimony of Syedna Taher, he clarified about knowledge classes of 'Zahir', 'Tavil' and, 'Hakikat' present in community. First two are known to many but third one namely 'Hakikat' content some religious truths known to very few. Some of which are known to only 2 or 3 persons in community, and there is also knowledge which is available with Dai only, and he gets it from his predecessor Dai.[8]

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#2324

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:56 pm

Update from Fatemi Dawat Legal.

http://fatemidawatlegal.com/category/bo ... tory-suit/

.........................

Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb was then shown another extract from the same book (al-Hidaya al-Amiriyya) by Mr. Chagla and asked whether he agrees that the 20th Imam says in that book that circumstances may dictate that an appointment of a successor to the Imam or Dai that is already made by nass, might not be appropriate. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb disagreed with that suggestion and replied that the book does not say that.

Mr. Chagla asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether he had heard of a Hasan bin Ali Khan bin Taj. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb responded that he had, and that this person was a leader of a revolt against the 29th Dai. Mr. Chagla then produced an extract from a book al-Muzayyanah al-Muwashhah fi Sirah Syedna Dawood bin Qutubshah, which Mr. Chagla asked if it was authored by the same Hasan bin Ali Khan bin Taj.

Mr. Chagla showed Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb an English translation of an extract from that book and asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb to verify the correctness of the translation. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb responded that he could not tell without seeing the entire book. Mr. Chagla then showed Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb the original book.

Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb, having seen the book, noted that there is a notation on the last page that says that the book is defective and there was an endorsement to that effect in the original book. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb also pointed out that that the translation is based on an inaccurate transcription done by the Defendant in which an important word has been added that is not in the original text. The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel marked the inaccuracy in blue ball pen in the Court’s copy of the exhibit and then asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether the discrepancy changes the meaning, or results in an obvious and meaningless error. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb said that this additional word which has been added gives a completely different meaning to the text to justify an incorrect translation that suggests that there is an option to change (nass), whereas this is not what the original says. Mr. Chagla asked if he could identify the word that he said had been added or altered, which Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb identified.

The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel has scheduled the further cross-examination of Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb for three days on 3rd, 4th, and 5th July 2018.

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

If the above stated is accurate, can some legal minds tell us how the court would react to it? Would the court take a serious view of this?

Or, is this a case of a book which only exists with only those 2 sides (MS and STF), and hence in the worst case it becomes a case of "they said, we said"? Or, can they ask for the original and test the addition of the word to alter its meaning?

And if STS said in court a 100 years back that nass cannot be changed, does that not override anything else said about 200-300 years back?

ajamali
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:51 am

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

#2325

Unread post by ajamali » Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:10 pm

Take a step back and look at the bigger picture here. Once again MS produced a book by a dushman as evidence - and a book that is so unreliable that they were able to produce two versions of it!! Yet in previous sessions they were reluctant to enter into evidence the bayan of the51st and 52nd dai. At the same time they are not hesitant to invoke the names of said dais when it serves their purpose!
dal-chaval-palidu wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:56 pm
Update from Fatemi Dawat Legal.

http://fatemidawatlegal.com/category/bo ... tory-suit/

.........................

Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb was then shown another extract from the same book (al-Hidaya al-Amiriyya) by Mr. Chagla and asked whether he agrees that the 20th Imam says in that book that circumstances may dictate that an appointment of a successor to the Imam or Dai that is already made by nass, might not be appropriate. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb disagreed with that suggestion and replied that the book does not say that.

Mr. Chagla asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether he had heard of a Hasan bin Ali Khan bin Taj. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb responded that he had, and that this person was a leader of a revolt against the 29th Dai. Mr. Chagla then produced an extract from a book al-Muzayyanah al-Muwashhah fi Sirah Syedna Dawood bin Qutubshah, which Mr. Chagla asked if it was authored by the same Hasan bin Ali Khan bin Taj.

Mr. Chagla showed Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb an English translation of an extract from that book and asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb to verify the correctness of the translation. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb responded that he could not tell without seeing the entire book. Mr. Chagla then showed Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb the original book.

Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb, having seen the book, noted that there is a notation on the last page that says that the book is defective and there was an endorsement to that effect in the original book. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb also pointed out that that the translation is based on an inaccurate transcription done by the Defendant in which an important word has been added that is not in the original text. The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel marked the inaccuracy in blue ball pen in the Court’s copy of the exhibit and then asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether the discrepancy changes the meaning, or results in an obvious and meaningless error. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb said that this additional word which has been added gives a completely different meaning to the text to justify an incorrect translation that suggests that there is an option to change (nass), whereas this is not what the original says. Mr. Chagla asked if he could identify the word that he said had been added or altered, which Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb identified.

The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel has scheduled the further cross-examination of Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb for three days on 3rd, 4th, and 5th July 2018.

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

If the above stated is accurate, can some legal minds tell us how the court would react to it? Would the court take a serious view of this?

Or, is this a case of a book which only exists with only those 2 sides (MS and STF), and hence in the worst case it becomes a case of "they said, we said"? Or, can they ask for the original and test the addition of the word to alter its meaning?

And if STS said in court a 100 years back that nass cannot be changed, does that not override anything else said about 200-300 years back?

HJK
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:20 am

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

#2326

Unread post by HJK » Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:13 am

ajamali wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:10 pm
Take a step back and look at the bigger picture here. Once again MS produced a book by a dushman as evidence - and a book that is so unreliable that they were able to produce two versions of it!! Yet in previous sessions they were reluctant to enter into evidence the bayan of the51st and 52nd dai. At the same time they are not hesitant to invoke the names of said dais when it serves their purpose!
dal-chaval-palidu wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:56 pm
Update from Fatemi Dawat Legal.

http://fatemidawatlegal.com/category/bo ... tory-suit/

.........................

Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb was then shown another extract from the same book (al-Hidaya al-Amiriyya) by Mr. Chagla and asked whether he agrees that the 20th Imam says in that book that circumstances may dictate that an appointment of a successor to the Imam or Dai that is already made by nass, might not be appropriate. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb disagreed with that suggestion and replied that the book does not say that.

Mr. Chagla asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether he had heard of a Hasan bin Ali Khan bin Taj. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb responded that he had, and that this person was a leader of a revolt against the 29th Dai. Mr. Chagla then produced an extract from a book al-Muzayyanah al-Muwashhah fi Sirah Syedna Dawood bin Qutubshah, which Mr. Chagla asked if it was authored by the same Hasan bin Ali Khan bin Taj.

Mr. Chagla showed Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb an English translation of an extract from that book and asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb to verify the correctness of the translation. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb responded that he could not tell without seeing the entire book. Mr. Chagla then showed Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb the original book.

Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb, having seen the book, noted that there is a notation on the last page that says that the book is defective and there was an endorsement to that effect in the original book. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb also pointed out that that the translation is based on an inaccurate transcription done by the Defendant in which an important word has been added that is not in the original text. The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel marked the inaccuracy in blue ball pen in the Court’s copy of the exhibit and then asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether the discrepancy changes the meaning, or results in an obvious and meaningless error. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb said that this additional word which has been added gives a completely different meaning to the text to justify an incorrect translation that suggests that there is an option to change (nass), whereas this is not what the original says. Mr. Chagla asked if he could identify the word that he said had been added or altered, which Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb identified.

The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel has scheduled the further cross-examination of Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb for three days on 3rd, 4th, and 5th July 2018.

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

If the above stated is accurate, can some legal minds tell us how the court would react to it? Would the court take a serious view of this?

Or, is this a case of a book which only exists with only those 2 sides (MS and STF), and hence in the worst case it becomes a case of "they said, we said"? Or, can they ask for the original and test the addition of the word to alter its meaning?

And if STS said in court a 100 years back that nass cannot be changed, does that not override anything else said about 200-300 years back?
You just know the 3 or 4 odd answers which are given here by the FD people. Dont jump to conclusions without even knowing what happened before and after that.

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 545
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#2327

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:27 am

okay Sir, pray tell us what happened before and after that.

ajamali
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:51 am

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

#2328

Unread post by ajamali » Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:32 pm

dal-chaval-palidu wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:27 am
okay Sir, pray tell us what happened before and after that.
Good point. We have not heard a peep from MS about what’s going on in court. Could it be because they have declared Fateh Mubeen 17 times already? :roll:
Score for transparency - Fatemi Dawat: 1 MS: Negative 1 (for spreading false glorious victory messages!)

chocoman
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:37 am

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

#2329

Unread post by chocoman » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:11 am

Is it true that Malekul Ashtar B.S is claiming daihood and has also set up a small community of his followers in US? Please advise

momeenbhai
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:31 am

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

#2330

Unread post by momeenbhai » Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:50 pm

no updates from hajamali? :lol:

momeenbhai
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:31 am

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

#2331

Unread post by momeenbhai » Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:51 pm

chocoman wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:11 am
Is it true that Malekul Ashtar B.S is claiming daihood and has also set up a small community of his followers in US? Please advise
was in US for last 2 weeks heard nothing about it.

ajamali
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:51 am

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

#2332

Unread post by ajamali » Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:13 pm

momeenbhai wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:51 pm
chocoman wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:11 am
Is it true that Malekul Ashtar B.S is claiming daihood and has also set up a small community of his followers in US? Please advise
was in US for last 2 weeks heard nothing about it.
8) Because if Malik happened to declare himself dai (a cockamamie notion if ever there was one....) You would definitely hear about it.....especially if you were in the US....cause these days you need to be co-located on a 5000 mile wide continent to hear about these things....because social media does not exist.... Moron! :lol: :lol:

momeenbhai
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:31 am

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

#2333

Unread post by momeenbhai » Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:33 pm

ajamali wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:13 pm
momeenbhai wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:51 pm


was in US for last 2 weeks heard nothing about it.
8) Because if Malik happened to declare himself dai (a cockamamie notion if ever there was one....) You would definitely hear about it.....especially if you were in the US....cause these days you need to be co-located on a 5000 mile wide continent to hear about these things....because social media does not exist.... Moron!
I always depend on ground news, because kazzab like you are known for fake news these days. :lol: what a moron. :lol:

momeenbhai
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:31 am

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

#2334

Unread post by momeenbhai » Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:59 am

Hajamali your master deleted law website?

Seems like its not working today.

kseeker
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:01 am

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

#2335

Unread post by kseeker » Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:13 am

Biradar wrote:
Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:58 pm
kimanumanu wrote:
Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:33 pm
What's your take on it?

Here is the paper for reference:

ConflictingImamates(1).pdf

(Again: Ahmed Ali Raj says that there is no need for this principle for da'i al-mutlaq. I strongly disagree. The position of the da'i al-mutlaq in the time of satr is on par with the imam, except in some theoretical ways. Hence, what applies to an imam, applies to a da'i al-mutlaq in satr).
The Dai-al-Mutlaq is the highest rank today who are not behind a veil therefore his position is the highest until the Imam's zahoor. Saying that just because he is the highest ranked person in sight means that his responsibilities and position is at par with the Imam is completely incorrect. I am sure you know the Imam has 4 other ranks under him which are above the Dai-al-Mutlaq who are in pardah with him .. the gap between these two ranks is massive... the Dai is not Masoom.. the Dai is not all knowing of the earth.. the Dai can make mistakes, the Dai can change Nass (this was not to support Muffy - he's a crook), The Dai cannot call for Jihad, The Dai cannot collect Khumus (which the past 3 have been shamelessly doing), The Dai is NOT part of the Misaq (Misaq is only for Imam)...

You are a very learned person and I do respect you.. Till date the 4 Sheikhs are cursed... this hatred is not because they did not believe in Dais after number 46, thousands have done that.... it is because they claimed they had books which could prove it; books which STS had gone on a rampage to burn and destroy... thus the need to call them mad, fools, the devil and say laanat on them.... and also because they humiliated Yousuf Najmuddin ; that was not a very wise move...

momeenbhai
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:31 am

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

#2336

Unread post by momeenbhai » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:04 am

Hajamali your master deleted law website?

Seems like its not working yet.

momeenbhai
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:31 am

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

#2337

Unread post by momeenbhai » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:05 am

The Dai is NOT part of the Misaq (Misaq is only for Imam)...


This is why I always just give misaaq to Imam, rest is taqiya on my part.

momeenbhai
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:31 am

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

#2338

Unread post by momeenbhai » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:06 am

I am under misaaq of Haq naa Imam and waiting for his zuhoor to destroy these demi gods created in recent years by some fools.

Reporter
Posts: 237
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:34 am

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

#2339

Unread post by Reporter » Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:14 pm

High fraud at high court...


youtu.be/wuVCJy38idU

Moiz_Dhaanu
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:57 pm

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

#2340

Unread post by Moiz_Dhaanu » Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:02 pm

What needs to be done so that this be investigated by proper authorities like CBI?

This is some serious allegation, and that too with hard hitting evidence..DMBS is royally screwed now, unless he wiggles out of this one too like a snake.


If this does not wake up the gullible bohras from their "Slumber of Inaction" and of those who are on the sidelines (still unsure of the Imposter DMBS) , then only Allah can help them now