Dawoodi Bohra Forum

malgudidays wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:00 am

objectiveobserver53 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:30 am

You are kidding right DCP? Read his post again....that kind of language only originates from those who have drunk the koolaid.

Sorry to say this, but people like you are nowhere close to Saifuddin Insaf, Hamdanis, Luqmanis, Zulfiqar Husain or the Four Great Ulemas of Jamea... who posed real threat/challenge to the ruling family... a truly objective person would question both parties on their merits and faults.. not engage in personal slander, like you just did...

objectiveobserver53 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:07 am

malgudidays wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:00 am


Sorry to say this, but people like you are nowhere close to Saifuddin Insaf, Hamdanis, Luqmanis, Zulfiqar Husain or the Four Great Ulemas of Jamea... who posed real threat/challenge to the ruling family... a truly objective person would question both parties on their merits and faults.. not engage in personal slander, like you just did...

Sorry to disappoint. I am not competing with the personalities mentioned. I have weighed both sides objectively and arrived at my decision thank you.

UnhappyBohra wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:08 am Heh heh I also think we have Lord of the Flies masquerading as Malgudi Days here. A wolf in sheep’s clothing one may say..... on Thane Street or otherwise.....

malgudidays wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:40 pm

objectiveobserver53 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:15 pm
Yes and professor stewarts point was that to claim that the Nizaris would believe such a thing renders the book as a non-credible source.

Well, Seems like Professor missed the point by a long shot.

Time to hold Thanewale baba accountable, because, Iqa Sawa'iqa al-irgham was written by Imam Aamir alayhis'Salaam as a refutation to the refutation of Hidayata Amiriyya by Nizari Dai's in Syria... to address the Mustali-Nizari Schism...

Should not Taher Qutbuddin/Fakhruddin who claims to be the representative of the Imam from the progeny of Imam Amir---Imam Al Tayyab
apologize or at least condemn the blasphemous statement made by his witness, that this refutation by Imam Amir alayhis'salaam is preposterous and non-credible?

FYR

http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/17927

malgudidays wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:03 am

UnhappyBohra wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:08 am Heh heh I also think we have Lord of the Flies masquerading as Malgudi Days here. A wolf in sheep’s clothing one may say..... on Thane Street or otherwise.....

Get well soon.

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:59 pm

malgudidays wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:40 pm

Well, Seems like Professor missed the point by a long shot.

Time to hold Thanewale baba accountable, because, Iqa Sawa'iqa al-irgham was written by Imam Aamir alayhis'Salaam as a refutation to the refutation of Hidayata Amiriyya by Nizari Dai's in Syria... to address the Mustali-Nizari Schism...

Should not Taher Qutbuddin/Fakhruddin who claims to be the representative of the Imam from the progeny of Imam Amir---Imam Al Tayyab
apologize or at least condemn the blasphemous statement made by his witness, that this refutation by Imam Amir alayhis'salaam is preposterous and non-credible?

FYR

http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/17927

bhai/ben malgudidays, OO53

I am lost in this debate of yours.

OO53 says:

Professor stewart's point was that to claim that the Nizaris would believe such a thing renders the book as a non-credible source.

Where did he (Prof. Stewart) say that? The only reference that I have seen is the Udaipur times article.

Below is from the Udaipur times article:
---------------------------- start of the quote from the article ------------------------
Day 4: December 3
Prof. Stewart, in response to a question on the revocability of Nass (designation of a successor) stated that it is inconceivable in the Ismaili faith that a Nass can be equated to an ordinary bequest and it cannot be subject to the same rules.

Defendant’s Counsel Iqbal Iqbal Chagla showed Prof Stewart a passage from a book regarding the controversy of Nass on the 19th Imam. Prof Stewart said he does not trust this book as it contains an outrageous statement that the first and second Imams Hassan and Hussein, one killed the other.
------------------------------------- end of the quote from the article

The claim is just that a book (which could have been distorted over time) made the above statement, and hence it is not credible.

Nizari, Ismailis, Bohra, Shia, Sunni, all would agree that a book which says the above is not credible.

So please explain how we got from the above to the specific claim by the Nizaris? Am I missing something? If so, please educate. Thanks.

malgudidays wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:57 am

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:59 pm

bhai/ben malgudidays, OO53

I am lost in this debate of yours.

OO53 says:

Professor stewart's point was that to claim that the Nizaris would believe such a thing renders the book as a non-credible source.

Where did he (Prof. Stewart) say that? The only reference that I have seen is the Udaipur times article.

Below is from the Udaipur times article:
---------------------------- start of the quote from the article ------------------------
Day 4: December 3
Prof. Stewart, in response to a question on the revocability of Nass (designation of a successor) stated that it is inconceivable in the Ismaili faith that a Nass can be equated to an ordinary bequest and it cannot be subject to the same rules.

Defendant’s Counsel Iqbal Iqbal Chagla showed Prof Stewart a passage from a book regarding the controversy of Nass on the 19th Imam. Prof Stewart said he does not trust this book as it contains an outrageous statement that the first and second Imams Hassan and Hussein, one killed the other.
------------------------------------- end of the quote from the article

The claim is just that a book (which could have been distorted over time) made the above statement, and hence it is not credible.

Nizari, Ismailis, Bohra, Shia, Sunni, all would agree that a book which says the above is not credible.

So please explain how we got from the above to the specific claim by the Nizaris? Am I missing something? If so, please educate. Thanks.

Dear DCP,

To believe that Professor Devin Stewart was a netral and objective witness in this case will be naive.

Iqa Sawa'iqa al-irgham is a credible book, not only as per Mustali's but even Nizaris ascribe it's authorship to Imam Amir (as)
and consider it authentic.

Read the article below to understand their stated position.

http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/17927

Professor cherry picked the content of the book to discredit it... and PR-managed media only ran what would work in STF's favour.
and SMS Haters, latched on to it...

Reality is that currently, STF & Co. is claiming, Nass once conferred cannot be revoked, while SMS & Co. is saying not true and Nass can be changed...
To support their claim they have referenced this Risala of Imam Amir as which was released to address Mustali-Nizari Schism.
How is this possible and what theological reasons can be given, should be best explained by respective Dai's... STF & Co. are going for Not a credible risala argument...which works in their favour and honestly keeps their claim relevant(if they succeed in proving that Nass was earlier done on SKQ) Nobody would dare ask anything to SMS & Co. to avoid answering such questions and hide many other explosive things that have come up during this case... both STF and SMS gave a joint request to limit only 25 attendants in the court... also media has been barred from publishing everything...

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:27 pm

malgudidays wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:57 am

Dear DCP,

To believe that Professor Devin Stewart was a netral and objective witness in this case will be naive.

Iqa Sawa'iqa al-irgham is a credible book, not only as per Mustali's but even Nizaris ascribe it's authorship to Imam Amir (as)
and consider it authentic.

Read the article below to understand their stated position.

http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/17927

Professor cherry picked the content of the book to discredit it... and PR-managed media only ran what would work in STF's favour.
and SMS Haters, latched on to it...

Reality is that currently, STF & Co. is claiming, Nass once conferred cannot be revoked, while SMS & Co. is saying not true and Nass can be changed...
To support their claim they have referenced this Risala of Imam Amir as which was released to address Mustali-Nizari Schism.
How is this possible and what theological reasons can be given, should be best explained by respective Dai's... STF & Co. are going for Not a credible risala argument...which works in their favour and honestly keeps their claim relevant(if they succeed in proving that Nass was earlier done on SKQ) Nobody would dare ask anything to SMS & Co. to avoid answering such questions and hide many other explosive things that have come up during this case... both STF and SMS gave a joint request to limit only 25 attendants in the court... also media has been barred from publishing everything...

A few replies/questions related to the highlighted section of your replies.

I understand that Prof. Stewart is from STF side. And, I will not say I am completely objective either; most of us come to this forum with our biases. Should do us all a favor to remember that

----------------------------- you say -------------------
Reality is that currently, STF & Co. is claiming, Nass once conferred cannot be revoked, while SMS & Co. is saying not true and Nass can be changed...
-------------------------------------------------
That itself should make us wonder. SMS said for the longest time that no nass was done on SKQ. Now he is desperately trying to prove that a nass once done can be changed. What does that say?

As I see it, it means that very likely a credible nass was done on SKQ, and that is why a large part of the strategy of SMS hinges on showing that a nass once done can be changed. That is just my thinking.

----------------------------- you say -------------------
Nobody would dare ask anything to SMS & Co. to avoid answering such questions and hide many other explosive things that have come up during this case... both STF and SMS gave a joint request to limit only 25 attendants in the court... also media has been barred from publishing everything...
-------------------------------------------------

I am not privy to anything, but my sense is the following: STF and FD have all the interest in this case getting more visibility and coming to a conclusion quickly. So the restrictions, and that nobody in the community talks about it is all likely from SMS side.

I personally have at least a few specific questions fro SMS. I wish they/SAIF53/Adam anybody can answer. 3 to start with:

1.) STF said about 3+ years back that SMB was without any significant food or water for 48 hours before entering the London hospital. Is that true? Can you tell the community about it?

2.) You said nass was never done on SKQ. Why are you trying to prove so hard now that a nass once done can be changed? Why? Also, why would you quote a book written by a person called al-majdu when SMB said that his (al-majdu's) word should be taken with caution?

3.) Please give your version of the response related to this book which says that between Imam Husain and Imam Hasan, one Imam killed the other.

malgudidays wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:39 am

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:27 pm

A few replies/questions related to the highlighted section of your replies.

I understand that Prof. Stewart is from STF side. And, I will not say I am completely objective either; most of us come to this forum with our biases. Should do us all a favor to remember that

----------------------------- you say -------------------
Reality is that currently, STF & Co. is claiming, Nass once conferred cannot be revoked, while SMS & Co. is saying not true and Nass can be changed...
-------------------------------------------------
That itself should make us wonder. SMS said for the longest time that no nass was done on SKQ. Now he is desperately trying to prove that a nass once done can be changed. What does that say?

As I see it, it means that very likely a credible nass was done on SKQ, and that is why a large part of the strategy of SMS hinges on showing that a nass once done can be changed. That is just my thinking.

----------------------------- you say -------------------
Nobody would dare ask anything to SMS & Co. to avoid answering such questions and hide many other explosive things that have come up during this case... both STF and SMS gave a joint request to limit only 25 attendants in the court... also media has been barred from publishing everything...
-------------------------------------------------

I am not privy to anything, but my sense is the following: STF and FD have all the interest in this case getting more visibility and coming to a conclusion quickly. So the restrictions, and that nobody in the community talks about it is all likely from SMS side.

I personally have at least a few specific questions fro SMS. I wish they/SAIF53/Adam anybody can answer. 3 to start with:

1.) STF said about 3+ years back that SMB was without any significant food or water for 48 hours before entering the London hospital. Is that true? Can you tell the community about it?

2.) You said nass was never done on SKQ. Why are you trying to prove so hard now that a nass once done can be changed? Why? Also, why would you quote a book written by a person called al-majdu when SMB said that his (al-majdu's) word should be taken with caution?

3.) Please give your version of the response related to this book which says that between Imam Husain and Imam Hasan, one Imam killed the other.

They are not accepting Nass was done on SKQ, it is one of the issue framed by the court based on the suit filed by plaintiff and initial response by the defendant.

It's like, we are not accepting nass was ever conferred upon you, but even if you claim so to be, of which only you are the witness of, SMB conferred nass upon me which is valid and hence that means Nass was changed, and there is precedence for that.. look here is the book Iqa Sawa'iqa al-irgham.

UnhappyBohra wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:22 pm

malgudidays wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:39 am

They are not accepting Nass was done on SKQ, it is one of the issue framed by the court based on the suit filed by plaintiff and initial response by the defendant.

It's like, we are not accepting nass was ever conferred upon you, but even if you claim so to be, of which only you are the witness of, SMB conferred nass upon me which is valid and hence that means Nass was changed, and there is precedence for that.. look here is the book Iqa Sawa'iqa al-irgham.

Except that Iqa Sawa’qa al-irgham has at least 99 versions of it’s manuscript and the one MS and gang brought to court precisely had the problematic claim around murderous imams. So it is not as if the defendant can claim that - while some versions may have been corrupted HE has the uncorrupted version!

Also ANYbody who has any knowledge of how imamat is determined, should know that it is determined AT birth - according to our doctrine. How are you going to change THAT?! MS has basically forsaken our doctrine by this claim. Or perhaps his followers are following a new one. Whatever MS and followers may claim to be, they are not Dawoodi Bohras.

How can you bring something to court without reading the whole text?!! Talk about cherry picking! It seems as though they could only find this currupted text to substantiate their claim...whoever said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing must have had these dumbasses in mind.

Also since Malgudi days brought it up... Dr Stewart unequivocally established many precedents of private nass. So yes, SKQ is more than credible as a witness to a nass on himself.

malgudidays wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:23 am

UnhappyBohra wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:22 pm

Except that Iqa Sawa’qa al-irgham has at least 99 versions of it’s manuscript and the one MS and gang brought to court precisely had the problematic claim around murderous imams. So it is not as if the defendant can claim that - while some versions may have been corrupted HE has the uncorrupted version!

Also ANYbody who has any knowledge of how imamat is determined, should know that it is determined AT birth - according to our doctrine. How are you going to change THAT?! MS has basically forsaken our doctrine by this claim. Or perhaps his followers are following a new one. Whatever MS and followers may claim to be, they are not Dawoodi Bohras.

How can you bring something to court without reading the whole text?!! Talk about cherry picking! It seems as though they could only find this currupted text to substantiate their claim...whoever said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing must have had these dumbasses in mind.

Also since Malgudi days brought it up... Dr Stewart unequivocally established many precedents of private nass. So yes, SKQ is more than credible as a witness to a nass on himself.

I don't think any of the suppossed 99 version says that nauzobillah one Imam killed another..rather all the versions mention that some people are of this belief and then reprimands them... and whether one likes it or not this risala is indeed commissioned by Imam Amir as, as far change of nass is considered. Stf followers should ask him and sms followers should ask him..they are both claiming to be Dai of Imam... they should explain how is this possible theologically.. just declaring the book non credible is chickening out...

RedBox wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:07 am why is Mufaddal saifuddin not appearing in court at all

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:33 pm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taher_Saifuddin#Family

Out of curiosity, I looked at STS in Wikipedia. It is illuminating, and it has no reference to SKQ (omits him). Mentions his (STS's) family, including sons and daughters, and has NO mention of SKQ as his son.

I guess a small example of how history gets conveniently manipulated.

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:33 pm His Holiness Syedna Taher Saifuddin belongs to family of Moulai Fakhruddin and Moulai Hakimuddin. He also has link with Mohammad Rasulullah family as indicated in tree placed below.

zinger wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:59 am

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:33 pm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taher_Saifuddin#Family





He doesnt anymore

Mr. Mufaddal Saifuddin's Wikipedia biography clearly still states that he is a direct descendant of the holy prophet.

juzer esmail wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:19 pm *Latest Update from Bombay High Court!*

Now that the cross-examination of Syedi Mukasir Saheb Husain Bhaisaheb Burhanuddin AAB has ended, the evidence put forward by Syedna Taher Fakhruddin TUS is now complete.

It is now the turn of Shehzada Mufaddal Bhaisaheb or his witnesses to come forward and present their case to the court. Shehzada Mufaddal Bhaisaheb’s lawyers have said that he will not come to court and be a witness. If he will not come as the first witness, he cannot come at all, said the judge. Instead, he will send Dr Omar Malik from London to be his first witness.

Dr Malik’s cross examination will start on 22nd April 2020.

The judge had earlier said that he wants to bring the case to a speedy conclusion by early in 2021.

With Syedna TUS’ case closed, and Shehzada Mufaddal Bhaisaheb’s witnesses now coming on the stand, we are one step closer to getting a judgement.

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:43 pm

juzer esmail wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:19 pm *Latest Update from Bombay High Court!*

Now that the cross-examination of Syedi Mukasir Saheb Husain Bhaisaheb Burhanuddin AAB has ended, the evidence put forward by Syedna Taher Fakhruddin TUS is now complete.

It is now the turn of Shehzada Mufaddal Bhaisaheb or his witnesses to come forward and present their case to the court. Shehzada Mufaddal Bhaisaheb’s lawyers have said that he will not come to court and be a witness. If he will not come as the first witness, he cannot come at all, said the judge. Instead, he will send Dr Omar Malik from London to be his first witness.

Dr Malik’s cross examination will start on 22nd April 2020.

The judge had earlier said that he wants to bring the case to a speedy conclusion by early in 2021.

With Syedna TUS’ case closed, and Shehzada Mufaddal Bhaisaheb’s witnesses now coming on the stand, we are one step closer to getting a judgement.

Do we know how many total witnesses are there from Shehzada Mufaddal Bhaisaheb' side, and what are their names?

And, what has Dr. Omar Malik from London said about treating SMB that is publicly available?

ajamali wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:39 am I think it may more be a matter of courage. The man MS does not have the required courage to face the intellectual force of SKQs children. His handlers are smart in judging that he cannot be trusted to show up in court without getting totally crushed by STFs lawyer and Justice Patel who has little patience for nonsense.