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

The one and only free public forum for Bohras. The focus of this forum is the reform movement, the Dawoodi Bohra faith and, of course, the corrupt priesthood. But the discussion is in no way restricted to the Bohras alone.
byculla
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:40 am

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

#2671

Unread post by byculla » Fri May 01, 2020 3:01 pm

@James - from your writings, it appears you may have a problem with Ameerul Mumineen SA as well who participated in imamat behind Awwal for taqiyyat. Or perhaps even with Dai Abul Qasim who was a follower of ithna ashari mazhab before he became mumin and eventually reached aala martib.

As for questions for SKQ RA and STF tus, not sure why you didn't ask them in court ? If you have then you got your answers, if not too bad you had more than ample opportunities.

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 673
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#2672

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Fri May 01, 2020 3:49 pm

james wrote: Fri May 01, 2020 9:10 am
UnhappyBohra wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:29 pm
There is a difference between nass being done and the charade of a nass being conducted to fool gullible masses. We did not change nass because nass was never done. Our eyes were opened to the charade that was conducted.
Time to decimate all your gibberish.The Public Nass took place in 2011. There was a relay all over the world because there was nothing to hide. Do your words "our eyes were opened" refer to the time Khuzaima uploaded Nass Video on his youtube channel? That day was 20th January 2014.So for three years,you accepted the Nass of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS. Not just you,but Khuzaima,Abdeali,Aziz all of them accepted the Nass for three years. That means they changed the Nass in 2014.

A Nass Mithaal Shareef was sent out by the office of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA after the Public Nass.Did you see the veneration displayed by Aziz in presence of Khuzaima for Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA's Sherullah mithaal shareef? This comprehensively proves that along with you,even Khuzaima accepted Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS Nass for three years.

Now,if your words "Our eyes were opened" refers to a time before 20th January 2014,that means that prior to the wafaat of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA,seeds of distrust were tried to be planted in the gullible minds as yourself. And Khuzaima did not keep his alleged nass private.Maybe that explains why the web domain was registered in the month of November 2013 and didn't Mr Ahmadi also claim that he offered his opinion and support to Khuzaima before Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA's demise? Please let everyone know when your eyes were opened. Whichever way you look,there is no escape from the hole you have dug yourself in.

Also why would he wait until after the stroke to make public something he could have done absolutely anytime?!! You just don't have an answer to that...
Aww look at you casting aspersions on the timing of actions of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA.Your questioning reminded of another poster on this board by the name of Muslim First who used to keep questioning the timing of Prophet Mohammed SAW's Nass on Ameerul Mumineen Ali ibn Abi Talib AS at Ghadir e Khumm. His questioning was along the lines of why didn't Prophet Mohammed SAW do nass in Kaaba when there were more people present? Nauzobillah. See,you both are cut from the same cloth. Talk to your wife on how mumineen don't question the timing of actions of Awliyyah Kiram AS. Every single action of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA has been haq personified prior to 2011 or after 2011.You don't get to dictate when Tawqeef happens and no, nass done doesn't mean tawqeef has been done. :roll:




Also,

Image

Now one would normally ask you to look at the part highlighted in yellow.But I want to take a closer look at the words,

During Sherullah al-Moazzam,by farmaan of Huzurala tus, Khuzaima leads Fajr namaz .....



Remember, Haqq always come before Baatil.

Remember,Inkaar after Iqraar.

So,why did Khuzaima change the Nass in 2014? 8)
He probably never accepted it. Keeping quiet is not necessarily accepting it. Remember there was that Hindustan Times article (title like, "Disquiet Amongst the Bohras"), for which the Bohras blasted the writer, but he turned out to be correct.

Also, that SKQ was not in agreement was openly known in the community. There are so many things to question, I don't even know where to begin.

How about this: In the misaal sherrif describing the Nass, some 4 months after June 2011, why was only June 4, 2011 and the Raudat-tus-tahera mentioned? Why was 1969, 2005 and the other dates never mentioned?

And after SMB's death, when SKQ publicly declared that nass was done on him, all these previous dates started getting mentioned. If those were the dates when the nass was done, why were they not mentioned in the misaal sherif?

yfm
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:31 pm

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

#2673

Unread post by yfm » Fri May 01, 2020 7:42 pm

When we are dying of Coronavirus and can not go to masjid and have the Dai pray for our safety, and the prayer has to come from our hearts to our Allab, we stupid bohras, can not accept that these are the times when we see that " these Dais have no clothes like the proverbial story of the king has no clothes. These dais are all fakes and they arr only after our money. Ha ha ha

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

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

#2674

Unread post by ezzoudine » Sat May 02, 2020 6:00 am

ezzoudine wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:36 am I have a simple question for Saif53:

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

Please reply. Thank you.
Saif53, looking forward to your reply. Please respond to this specific question. Please don't change the question as others have tried.

To keep things simple, do say either "Yes" or "No" and if possible elaborate on why. Thank you.

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

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

#2675

Unread post by Saif53 » Sat May 02, 2020 2:19 pm

james wrote: Fri May 01, 2020 9:10 am
UnhappyBohra wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:29 pm
There is a difference between nass being done and the charade of a nass being conducted to fool gullible masses. We did not change nass because nass was never done. Our eyes were opened to the charade that was conducted.
Time to decimate all your gibberish.The Public Nass took place in 2011. There was a relay all over the world because there was nothing to hide. Do your words "our eyes were opened" refer to the time Khuzaima uploaded Nass Video on his youtube channel? That day was 20th January 2014.So for three years,you accepted the Nass of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS. Not just you,but Khuzaima,Abdeali,Aziz all of them accepted the Nass for three years. That means they changed the Nass in 2014.

A Nass Mithaal Shareef was sent out by the office of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA after the Public Nass.Did you see the veneration displayed by Aziz in presence of Khuzaima for Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA's Sherullah mithaal shareef? This comprehensively proves that along with you,even Khuzaima accepted Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS Nass for three years.

Now,if your words "Our eyes were opened" refers to a time before 20th January 2014,that means that prior to the wafaat of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA,seeds of distrust were tried to be planted in the gullible minds as yourself. And Khuzaima did not keep his alleged nass private.Maybe that explains why the web domain was registered in the month of November 2013 and didn't Mr Ahmadi also claim that he offered his opinion and support to Khuzaima before Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA's demise? Please let everyone know when your eyes were opened. Whichever way you look,there is no escape from the hole you have dug yourself in.

Also why would he wait until after the stroke to make public something he could have done absolutely anytime?!! You just don't have an answer to that...
Aww look at you casting aspersions on the timing of actions of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA.Your questioning reminded of another poster on this board by the name of Muslim First who used to keep questioning the timing of Prophet Mohammed SAW's Nass on Ameerul Mumineen Ali ibn Abi Talib AS at Ghadir e Khumm. His questioning was along the lines of why didn't Prophet Mohammed SAW do nass in Kaaba when there were more people present? Nauzobillah. See,you both are cut from the same cloth. Talk to your wife on how mumineen don't question the timing of actions of Awliyyah Kiram AS. Every single action of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA has been haq personified prior to 2011 or after 2011.You don't get to dictate when Tawqeef happens and no, nass done doesn't mean tawqeef has been done. :roll:




Also,

Image

Now one would normally ask you to look at the part highlighted in yellow.But I want to take a closer look at the words,

During Sherullah al-Moazzam,by farmaan of Huzurala tus, Khuzaima leads Fajr namaz .....



Remember, Haqq always come before Baatil.

Remember,Inkaar after Iqraar.

So,why did Khuzaima change the Nass in 2014? 8)
@JAMES
You forgot to add this to your list:
Abdeali's Qutbuddin's acceptance of the Nass in Indore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaVDhYG ... e=youtu.be

As they say, straight from the *donkey's* mouth.

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

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

#2676

Unread post by Saif53 » Sat May 02, 2020 2:20 pm

ezzoudine wrote: Sat May 02, 2020 6:00 am
ezzoudine wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:36 am I have a simple question for Saif53:

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

Please reply. Thank you.
Saif53, looking forward to your reply. Please respond to this specific question. Please don't change the question as others have tried.

To keep things simple, do say either "Yes" or "No" and if possible elaborate on why. Thank you.
@ezzoudine
Have you got an exact quote or reference from the case?
Looking forward to your reply. Please respond to this specific question. Please don't change the question as others have tried.
To keep things simple, do say either "Yes" or "No" and if possible elaborate on why. Thank you.

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

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

#2677

Unread post by ezzoudine » Sat May 02, 2020 5:14 pm

Saif53 wrote: Sat May 02, 2020 2:20 pm
ezzoudine wrote: Sat May 02, 2020 6:00 am

Saif53, looking forward to your reply. Please respond to this specific question. Please don't change the question as others have tried.

To keep things simple, do say either "Yes" or "No" and if possible elaborate on why. Thank you.
@ezzoudine
Have you got an exact quote or reference from the case?
Looking forward to your reply. Please respond to this specific question. Please don't change the question as others have tried.
To keep things simple, do say either "Yes" or "No" and if possible elaborate on why. Thank you.
Why do you answer a question with a question? But to answer your exact question:

No, I don't have any quote or reference from the case. The reason is that I have not been able to find any.

I am just asking your opinion about Dawoodi Bohra belief. I am not linking the question to any court case.

Hence, Saif53, I put the question to you for a third time:

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

I've answered your question, will you now answer mine? I do hope you will answer.

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

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

#2678

Unread post by james » Sun May 03, 2020 2:06 pm

ajamali wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:59 am James is afraid to take a stand on ezzoudine’s question and has punted it, saying whatever MS says, he believes. The question is which version does he believe? When MS says it or when he back pedals it?

Do they not teach in Jamea if nass was ever done on Moosa Qazim? Why so afraid to answer a very very simple question?
I see you are back for some more beating.

You guys are the stupidest bunch yet. You and your ilk tried chinese whispers with the Kitab of Imam AS and when blown to smithereens with news that the likes of Bazat Saifiyah has used the same kitab as reference in her thesis,you change your tune to a new game of Chinese Whispers with court mention of Musa Qazim.


Let's get to the core of the issue of mention of Musa Qazim in court.
objectiveobserver53 wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:27 pmI think the most preposterous claim they have made in court is that Sadiq Imam did nass on Musa Qasim.
This is what has been claimed by objectiveobserver53. Till now,the plantiff and his witness (Dayum no witness,chuck that) and Islamic expert have taken the stand and no one from the defense has come on the stand to make any claims. So this shows that this nonsense which you guys are peddling is either from one of the questions posted to Khuzaima or Taher or Stewart or from one of documents submitted by us.

I challenge you to clear this topic for the benefit of everyone. No smokescreen,No chinese whispers. Straight up with On so and so date,Mr Iqbal or any other lawyer made so and so claim or so and so document of so and so appendix makes this claim submitted by the legal team of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS. And then we can take this forward.

If you lack the spine to answer the above,I do not mind you coming up with another multi-id freshly made. :mrgreen:



PS: Can you request Bazat Saifiyah to give you a copy? "A section from the Uyun al-Akhbar wa funun al-Athar and The succession controversy following the death of the Fatimid Caliph al-Mustansir, Bazat Saifiyah Qutbuddin"

And can you request Taher to reupload Youtube: Q&A Part 6 Why didn't Syedna Burhanuddin publicly declare the anointment of his mansoos

I tried to search for the same. Seems they have chickened out and deleted it.

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

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

#2679

Unread post by james » Sun May 03, 2020 2:14 pm

byculla wrote: Fri May 01, 2020 3:01 pm @James - from your writings, it appears you may have a problem with Ameerul Mumineen SA as well who participated in imamat behind Awwal for taqiyyat. Or perhaps even with Dai Abul Qasim who was a follower of ithna ashari mazhab before he became mumin and eventually reached aala martib.

As for questions for SKQ RA and STF tus, not sure why you didn't ask them in court ? If you have then you got your answers, if not too bad you had more than ample opportunities.

And now we get another distortion of "taqiyyah".Hasn't this word has been used by the children of Khuzaima before? That they were doing taqiyyah for three years. This goes to show Khuzaima just couldn't keep it to himself.Anyways,I digress.


Could you post examples on where Amirul Mumineen Ali ibn Abi Talib AS did taqiyyah when his Naas Prophet Mohammed SAW was still alive?

You are barking up the wrong tree byculla.

Baatil will always come after Haq. Always remember that.

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

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

#2680

Unread post by james » Sun May 03, 2020 2:36 pm

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: Fri May 01, 2020 3:49 pm
james wrote: Fri May 01, 2020 9:10 am

Time to decimate all your gibberish.The Public Nass took place in 2011. There was a relay all over the world because there was nothing to hide. Do your words "our eyes were opened" refer to the time Khuzaima uploaded Nass Video on his youtube channel? That day was 20th January 2014.So for three years,you accepted the Nass of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS. Not just you,but Khuzaima,Abdeali,Aziz all of them accepted the Nass for three years. That means they changed the Nass in 2014.

A Nass Mithaal Shareef was sent out by the office of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA after the Public Nass.Did you see the veneration displayed by Aziz in presence of Khuzaima for Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA's Sherullah mithaal shareef? This comprehensively proves that along with you,even Khuzaima accepted Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS Nass for three years.

Now,if your words "Our eyes were opened" refers to a time before 20th January 2014,that means that prior to the wafaat of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA,seeds of distrust were tried to be planted in the gullible minds as yourself. And Khuzaima did not keep his alleged nass private.Maybe that explains why the web domain was registered in the month of November 2013 and didn't Mr Ahmadi also claim that he offered his opinion and support to Khuzaima before Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA's demise? Please let everyone know when your eyes were opened. Whichever way you look,there is no escape from the hole you have dug yourself in.




Aww look at you casting aspersions on the timing of actions of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA.Your questioning reminded of another poster on this board by the name of Muslim First who used to keep questioning the timing of Prophet Mohammed SAW's Nass on Ameerul Mumineen Ali ibn Abi Talib AS at Ghadir e Khumm. His questioning was along the lines of why didn't Prophet Mohammed SAW do nass in Kaaba when there were more people present? Nauzobillah. See,you both are cut from the same cloth. Talk to your wife on how mumineen don't question the timing of actions of Awliyyah Kiram AS. Every single action of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA has been haq personified prior to 2011 or after 2011.You don't get to dictate when Tawqeef happens and no, nass done doesn't mean tawqeef has been done. :roll:




Also,

Image

Now one would normally ask you to look at the part highlighted in yellow.But I want to take a closer look at the words,

During Sherullah al-Moazzam,by farmaan of Huzurala tus, Khuzaima leads Fajr namaz .....



Remember, Haqq always come before Baatil.

Remember,Inkaar after Iqraar.

So,why did Khuzaima change the Nass in 2014? 8)
He probably never accepted it. Keeping quiet is not necessarily accepting it. Remember there was that Hindustan Times article (title like, "Disquiet Amongst the Bohras"), for which the Bohras blasted the writer, but he turned out to be correct.

Also, that SKQ was not in agreement was openly known in the community. There are so many things to question, I don't even know where to begin.

How about this: In the misaal sherrif describing the Nass, some 4 months after June 2011, why was only June 4, 2011 and the Raudat-tus-tahera mentioned? Why was 1969, 2005 and the other dates never mentioned?

And after SMB's death, when SKQ publicly declared that nass was done on him, all these previous dates started getting mentioned. If those were the dates when the nass was done, why were they not mentioned in the misaal sherif?

The 2005 nass in presence of the Hudood of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA was mentioned in the Risala Shareef published in the Ramadhan 1432H by Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA.

As for the diary,it was Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA's prerogative on when to disclose it and when to not.You keep trying to divert everyone's attention with the timing of everything when you deliberately don't acknowledge the existence of such a document or the video of Cromwell Hospital on which Taher is still silent about. You are reduced to asking hypothetical questions such as fabrication of Nass hospital video and documents. Instead of asking people on their faith based on nonsensical questions of fabrication and whatnot,why not look inwards and say you accept the Cromwell hospital video and Nass diary document? You try to pick holes in the timelines when there aren't any.You are free to choose whoever you want to follow but don't cheapen yourself by attacking others on nonsensical hypothetical questions when they do nothing in a debate and only show your desperation for brownie points on a forum.

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

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

#2681

Unread post by byculla » Sun May 03, 2020 4:48 pm

james wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 2:14 pm
byculla wrote: Fri May 01, 2020 3:01 pm @James - from your writings, it appears you may have a problem with Ameerul Mumineen SA as well who participated in imamat behind Awwal for taqiyyat. Or perhaps even with Dai Abul Qasim who was a follower of ithna ashari mazhab before he became mumin and eventually reached aala martib.

As for questions for SKQ RA and STF tus, not sure why you didn't ask them in court ? If you have then you got your answers, if not too bad you had more than ample opportunities.

And now we get another distortion of "taqiyyah".Hasn't this word has been used by the children of Khuzaima before? That they were doing taqiyyah for three years. This goes to show Khuzaima just couldn't keep it to himself.Anyways,I digress.


Could you post examples on where Amirul Mumineen Ali ibn Abi Talib AS did taqiyyah when his Naas Prophet Mohammed SAW was still alive?

You are barking up the wrong tree byculla.

Baatil will always come after Haq. Always remember that.
@James Taqiyya is Taqiyya - it doesn't matter (before/after is just an alibi since you couldn't find anything else to refute). Mufaddal Saifuddin had already exhibited several traits of NOT being a Dai - many of which are documented well on this forum and FD website and the foremost of which is the fact that he did adawat of mazoon of SMB RA during SMB RA daur. (Other reasons include doing Sajda to TV. etc)This possibly could explain taqiyya by some children of SKQ RA - they knew it couldn't be him. (my opinion). It should not mean essentially as you retort. Who is twisting things now ? Regardless why didn't you ask him in court instead of asking us on this forum ? You did have him as a witness.

In any case you are in catch 22 situation - you can't claim SKQ RA disclosed his nass and at the same time claim he accepted nass of MS. What bigger proof you need about SKQ RA not accepting nass of MS than the fact that he was absent from Urus Mubarak of STS RA in 2011 ? Reverence of SKQ RA for STS is well known and even accepted by some Mufaddalies who still choose to talk to us. Why would he miss this important occasion in 2011 but to not show his support for MS fake nass? SKQ RA would not miss urus mubrak of STS unless it was extremely important for him to "not" show. This was one such occasion. Through those 2.5 yrs he had to follow a delicate balance to not show his support for MS nass, observe the farman of SMB RA in keeping nass secret and at the same time carry forward his duties as SMB RA mazoon. SKQ RA did all this to the best of his abilities. All this is my personal opinion. By the way, as @dal-chawal-palidu already mentioned, this was discussed on this forum as well before. Since you brag about your digs on this forum go figure.

Your supporters my own (ex) Amil has said that mazoon cannot be referred to as "maula", one cannot do sajda to "mazoon" only to "dai". This is said by MS himself by the way - and you all now say others can be referred to as maula and one can do sajda to other maratib too - Hypocrisy personified.

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

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

#2682

Unread post by RedBox » Mon May 04, 2020 8:29 am

I know muffy has done sajda to khuzaima many times, can muffy follower post single pic where KQ doing sajda to muffy as expecting him dai for the three years he was declared as next dai.

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

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

#2683

Unread post by RedBox » Mon May 04, 2020 8:32 am

Also a very important point, where was KQ when MB was in Cromwell hospital, as a mazoon for 50 years isnt it important for a dai to declare his successor in the presence of his lieutenant mazoon.

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

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

#2684

Unread post by Saif53 » Tue May 05, 2020 5:50 am

RedBox wrote: Mon May 04, 2020 8:32 am Also a very important point, where was KQ when MB was in Cromwell hospital, as a mazoon for 50 years isnt it important for a dai to declare his successor in the presence of his lieutenant mazoon.
No.
Simple enough?

SBM
Posts: 6442
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

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

#2685

Unread post by SBM » Tue May 05, 2020 6:06 am

Saif53 wrote: Tue May 05, 2020 5:50 am
RedBox wrote: Mon May 04, 2020 8:32 am Also a very important point, where was KQ when MB was in Cromwell hospital, as a mazoon for 50 years isnt it important for a dai to declare his successor in the presence of his lieutenant mazoon.
No.
Simple enough?
Saif 53
Thank you for a very simple answer, Now can you answer to the question posted by ezzoudine. Here it again to refresh your memory
If one believes that Imam Jaferrussadiq ever conferred nass on Musa Qazim, can that person be called a Dawoodi Bohra?

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

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

#2686

Unread post by RedBox » Tue May 05, 2020 7:00 am

Saif53 wrote: Tue May 05, 2020 5:50 am
RedBox wrote: Mon May 04, 2020 8:32 am Also a very important point, where was KQ when MB was in Cromwell hospital, as a mazoon for 50 years isnt it important for a dai to declare his successor in the presence of his lieutenant mazoon.
No.
Simple enough?
Hahaha chor MB ki dhadhi mein tinka. Thats why mazoon was absent.

Crater Lake
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:46 pm

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

#2687

Unread post by Crater Lake » Tue May 05, 2020 10:42 pm

SBM wrote: Tue May 05, 2020 6:06 am
Saif53 wrote: Tue May 05, 2020 5:50 am

No.
Simple enough?
Saif 53
Thank you for a very simple answer, Now can you answer to the question posted by ezzoudine. Here it again to refresh your memory
If one believes that Imam Jaferrussadiq ever conferred nass on Musa Qazim, can that person be called a Dawoodi Bohra?
What?! He still has not answered it? I’ll check again after another couple weeks. :lol:

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

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

#2688

Unread post by ezzoudine » Thu May 07, 2020 1:14 am

ezzoudine wrote: Sat May 02, 2020 5:14 pm Hence, Saif53, I put the question to you for a third time:

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

I've answered your question, will you now answer mine? I do hope you will answer.
Saif53, I am really surprised you haven't answered my question yet, as you've been on the board since then and have responded to other posts. You purport to have a vast amount of knowledge on so many other matters of religious history and nass related doctrine, yet on this matter your silence is deafening.

I will repeat the question for a fourth and final time:
If one believes that Imam Jaferrussadiq ever conferred nass on Musa Qazim, can that person be called a Dawoodi Bohra?
This is actually a really simple question, and to make life easier for you, I will append 3 multiple choice answers so you only need to answer with a single letter, if you don't have time to elaborate:

(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) I am not qualified in matters of religious doctrine and hence cannot reply

Absent an answer, I think all the board members can safely assume that the answer is (c). However, in answering (c), you risk nullifying your credibility on this board (and on your blog), and I would then invite forum users to treat all the posts you've made with extreme caution, given a lack of ability to answer this very simple, yet fundamental question.

Please do us the favor of your reply.

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

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

#2689

Unread post by james » Thu May 07, 2020 2:58 pm

byculla wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 4:48 pm
@James Taqiyya is Taqiyya - it doesn't matter (before/after is just an alibi since you couldn't find anything else to refute). Mufaddal Saifuddin had already exhibited several traits of NOT being a Dai - many of which are documented well on this forum and FD website and the foremost of which is the fact that he did adawat of mazoon of SMB RA during SMB RA daur. (Other reasons include doing Sajda to TV. etc)This possibly could explain taqiyya by some children of SKQ RA - they knew it couldn't be him. (my opinion). It should not mean essentially as you retort. Who is twisting things now ? Regardless why didn't you ask him in court instead of asking us on this forum ? You did have him as a witness.

In any case you are in catch 22 situation - you can't claim SKQ RA disclosed his nass and at the same time claim he accepted nass of MS. What bigger proof you need about SKQ RA not accepting nass of MS than the fact that he was absent from Urus Mubarak of STS RA in 2011 ? Reverence of SKQ RA for STS is well known and even accepted by some Mufaddalies who still choose to talk to us. Why would he miss this important occasion in 2011 but to not show his support for MS fake nass? SKQ RA would not miss urus mubrak of STS unless it was extremely important for him to "not" show. This was one such occasion. Through those 2.5 yrs he had to follow a delicate balance to not show his support for MS nass, observe the farman of SMB RA in keeping nass secret and at the same time carry forward his duties as SMB RA mazoon. SKQ RA did all this to the best of his abilities. All this is my personal opinion. By the way, as @dal-chawal-palidu already mentioned, this was discussed on this forum as well before. Since you brag about your digs on this forum go figure.

Your supporters my own (ex) Amil has said that mazoon cannot be referred to as "maula", one cannot do sajda to "mazoon" only to "dai". This is said by MS himself by the way - and you all now say others can be referred to as maula and one can do sajda to other maratib too - Hypocrisy personified.

byculla I will try to address your gibberish systemically because whatever you are saying doesn't add up. Firstly I absolutely do not care for any of your personal opinions.I will only rely on facts and events taken place.

Let's start.

You sully the amal of "Taqiyyah" by applying it to every hypocritical action related to religion. Saying something in public and saying to the contrary in private is the act of Munafiqeen and doesn't relate to Taqiyyah in any way.It isn't as if Khuzaima was silent on the Nass on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS.

After London Hospital Nass,Khuzaima presided over a majlis in which Shz QaidJohar Bs DM's bayaan was relayed announcing the Nass. His website tahiyaat.com confirms the same and the screenshot of it is readily available. He did Iqraar of the Nass for three years and in a statement to Hindustan Times, AbdulQadir Bs said that Khuzaima himself wished the Syedna and his son after he was named the successor. Now you love linking all this to the zaman of Rasulullah SAW,here's something for you to chew on. Remember on the day of Gadeer e Khum,who congratulated Imam Ali As and then after the wafaat of Rasulullah SAW did inkaar of the Nass?

As for the children of Khuzaima,it is the amal of Iblees and his ilk to do qiyaas.Simply put,we cannot use our intellect to decide who Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA's Mansoos should be. It is only Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA's prerogative to do so and he did so by naming Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS as his successor which has been accepted by the children of Khuzaima in Public Waaz and private conversations with people close to them. Now after accepting the Nass,for them to do qiyaas is an act of Iblees.Imam Jafer us Sadiq As once said to Abu Hanifa "Do not do qiyaas,for the first person who did qiyaas was Iblees"

You are a fool for quoting this forum as a source of documentation on the Nass issue. For years and years,the same idiots have denounced the actions of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA,Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA and even Aimmat Tahereen AS.Here are some Faza'il of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS:

He was on born on Laylatul Qadr and his esteemed grandfather gave him the name of "AaliQadr Mufaddal" abjad value of 1365 which corresponds to his Islamic Year of birth (1365H) similar to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin's name "Mohammed Walad Agar" 1333 abjad value which corresponds to his year of birth 1333H.No one apart from Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA and Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS were given a name or epithet at their birth.

He was given the laqab mubarak of "Saifuddin" by his father to honor Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA.He is Haafiz-Al-Quran.He was awarded the honorific title of Aqeeq-al-Yemen by Mansoor-al-Yemen Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA.He was conferred the degree of Aleem-al-Baari on 20th Rabi al Aakhar 1391H.

Do you know about the second highest degree? Fun Fact: Khuzaima was asked about this in court (You have a weird fascination of mentioning "ask in court ask in court" in this discussion) Khuzaima fudged in court about this.Maybe ajamali was present that time and can attest to it :mrgreen:

https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mum ... 076997.cms

https://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report- ... in-2081251

He was appointed rector of Al Jamea-tus_Saifiyah (Ameer al Jamea) He was at the forefront of restoration of Jamea-al-Anwar masjid of Imam Hakim As. Just like his esteemed father,he has been elected the Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University.


Children of Khuzaima are Iblees personified if they did qiyaas in determining the Mansoos of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA.


As for your fallacious catch-22 analogy,it speaks to Khuzaima's character more rather than me landing in a pickle. We all know for a fact that Khuzaima accepted the nass in public. Now if he said something to the contrary in private to his children then it is a stain on him rather than any of us. If I recall correctly,he did zyarat on Urs Mubarak 1432H and left just as Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA arrived for zyarat. That doesn't mean he did inkaar of Nass. Remember he was leading prayers in Ramadhan after that based on Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA's farmaan (as per tahiyaat.com)

You may like to cherry pick farmans but that is not the way of Dawat.

Inkaar came after Iqraar. And that is the trait of every Dawedaar.Baatil will always follow Haq.


(If you are going to reply,atleast make an effort to refute some of the points if not all. Otherwise you can be as silent as the likes of UnhappyBohra,Moiz Dhaanu,ajamali and dal-chaval-palidu 8) )

SBM
Posts: 6442
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

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

#2690

Unread post by SBM » Thu May 07, 2020 5:33 pm

Otherwise you can be as silent as the likes of UnhappyBohra,Moiz Dhaanu,ajamali and dal-chaval-palidu )
Kindly include Saif53 for not responding to ezzoudine simple YES or NO

ajamali
Posts: 530
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:51 am

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

#2691

Unread post by ajamali » Fri May 08, 2020 7:36 am

james wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 2:58 pm
byculla wrote: Sun May 03, 2020 4:48 pm
@James Taqiyya is Taqiyya - it doesn't matter (before/after is just an alibi since you couldn't find anything else to refute). Mufaddal Saifuddin had already exhibited several traits of NOT being a Dai - many of which are documented well on this forum and FD website and the foremost of which is the fact that he did adawat of mazoon of SMB RA during SMB RA daur. (Other reasons include doing Sajda to TV. etc)This possibly could explain taqiyya by some children of SKQ RA - they knew it couldn't be him. (my opinion). It should not mean essentially as you retort. Who is twisting things now ? Regardless why didn't you ask him in court instead of asking us on this forum ? You did have him as a witness.

In any case you are in catch 22 situation - you can't claim SKQ RA disclosed his nass and at the same time claim he accepted nass of MS. What bigger proof you need about SKQ RA not accepting nass of MS than the fact that he was absent from Urus Mubarak of STS RA in 2011 ? Reverence of SKQ RA for STS is well known and even accepted by some Mufaddalies who still choose to talk to us. Why would he miss this important occasion in 2011 but to not show his support for MS fake nass? SKQ RA would not miss urus mubrak of STS unless it was extremely important for him to "not" show. This was one such occasion. Through those 2.5 yrs he had to follow a delicate balance to not show his support for MS nass, observe the farman of SMB RA in keeping nass secret and at the same time carry forward his duties as SMB RA mazoon. SKQ RA did all this to the best of his abilities. All this is my personal opinion. By the way, as @dal-chawal-palidu already mentioned, this was discussed on this forum as well before. Since you brag about your digs on this forum go figure.

Your supporters my own (ex) Amil has said that mazoon cannot be referred to as "maula", one cannot do sajda to "mazoon" only to "dai". This is said by MS himself by the way - and you all now say others can be referred to as maula and one can do sajda to other maratib too - Hypocrisy personified.

byculla I will try to address your gibberish systemically because whatever you are saying doesn't add up. Firstly I absolutely do not care for any of your personal opinions.I will only rely on facts and events taken place.

Let's start.

You sully the amal of "Taqiyyah" by applying it to every hypocritical action related to religion. Saying something in public and saying to the contrary in private is the act of Munafiqeen and doesn't relate to Taqiyyah in any way.It isn't as if Khuzaima was silent on the Nass on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS.

After London Hospital Nass,Khuzaima presided over a majlis in which Shz QaidJohar Bs DM's bayaan was relayed announcing the Nass. His website tahiyaat.com confirms the same and the screenshot of it is readily available. He did Iqraar of the Nass for three years and in a statement to Hindustan Times, AbdulQadir Bs said that Khuzaima himself wished the Syedna and his son after he was named the successor. Now you love linking all this to the zaman of Rasulullah SAW,here's something for you to chew on. Remember on the day of Gadeer e Khum,who congratulated Imam Ali As and then after the wafaat of Rasulullah SAW did inkaar of the Nass?

As for the children of Khuzaima,it is the amal of Iblees and his ilk to do qiyaas.Simply put,we cannot use our intellect to decide who Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA's Mansoos should be. It is only Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA's prerogative to do so and he did so by naming Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS as his successor which has been accepted by the children of Khuzaima in Public Waaz and private conversations with people close to them. Now after accepting the Nass,for them to do qiyaas is an act of Iblees.Imam Jafer us Sadiq As once said to Abu Hanifa "Do not do qiyaas,for the first person who did qiyaas was Iblees"

You are a fool for quoting this forum as a source of documentation on the Nass issue. For years and years,the same idiots have denounced the actions of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA,Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA and even Aimmat Tahereen AS.Here are some Faza'il of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS:

He was on born on Laylatul Qadr and his esteemed grandfather gave him the name of "AaliQadr Mufaddal" abjad value of 1365 which corresponds to his Islamic Year of birth (1365H) similar to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin's name "Mohammed Walad Agar" 1333 abjad value which corresponds to his year of birth 1333H.No one apart from Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA and Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS were given a name or epithet at their birth.

He was given the laqab mubarak of "Saifuddin" by his father to honor Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA.He is Haafiz-Al-Quran.He was awarded the honorific title of Aqeeq-al-Yemen by Mansoor-al-Yemen Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA.He was conferred the degree of Aleem-al-Baari on 20th Rabi al Aakhar 1391H.

Do you know about the second highest degree? Fun Fact: Khuzaima was asked about this in court (You have a weird fascination of mentioning "ask in court ask in court" in this discussion) Khuzaima fudged in court about this.Maybe ajamali was present that time and can attest to it :mrgreen:

https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mum ... 076997.cms

https://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report- ... in-2081251

He was appointed rector of Al Jamea-tus_Saifiyah (Ameer al Jamea) He was at the forefront of restoration of Jamea-al-Anwar masjid of Imam Hakim As. Just like his esteemed father,he has been elected the Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University.


Children of Khuzaima are Iblees personified if they did qiyaas in determining the Mansoos of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA.


As for your fallacious catch-22 analogy,it speaks to Khuzaima's character more rather than me landing in a pickle. We all know for a fact that Khuzaima accepted the nass in public. Now if he said something to the contrary in private to his children then it is a stain on him rather than any of us. If I recall correctly,he did zyarat on Urs Mubarak 1432H and left just as Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA arrived for zyarat. That doesn't mean he did inkaar of Nass. Remember he was leading prayers in Ramadhan after that based on Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA's farmaan (as per tahiyaat.com)

You may like to cherry pick farmans but that is not the way of Dawat.

Inkaar came after Iqraar. And that is the trait of every Dawedaar.Baatil will always follow Haq.


(If you are going to reply,atleast make an effort to refute some of the points if not all. Otherwise you can be as silent as the likes of UnhappyBohra,Moiz Dhaanu,ajamali and dal-chaval-palidu 8) )
All these honors and he still cannot deliver a bhashan without reading and without sticking his foot in his mouth. Hafizul Quran?! Hahaha. I have not heard him recite a single aaayat and explain it’s meaning extemporaneously. STF can reference 5 verses in a ten minute conversation and make connections to a topic under discussion. I just skimmed over James’ post so I don’t know what the purpose of this verbal ass-kissing was. Perhaps James has not heard of the phrase “show don’t tell.” He has a real problem there, because his dumb-as a-doorknob master just cannot show so James has to tell.

Also I don’t know why he finds our presence in court so funny. It is quite common place for FD folks to be in court. Of course if you are a Mufaddali, the story is quite different, so they assume the same about us.

objectiveobserver53
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:29 pm

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

#2692

Unread post by objectiveobserver53 » Fri May 08, 2020 8:36 am

^^ AJ they have conferred nass upon themselves in Burhanuddin Moula’s name.. it was not difficult to bestow some honors upon themselves in his name...And if Moula did confer some genuine honors on him, that was his prerogative. Whether MS lived up to them is a whole different story.

As far as attending in court....MS and gang don’t allow the likes of Fake53 and James - their most loyal pets - into court because they don’t want them to see how flawed, desperate and weak MS is. Their whole house of cards is built upon the adulation of those who can believe that one who cannot recite a verse of Quran with meaning (other than basic Amma perhaps - and that too without understanding) is Hafizul Quran.

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

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

#2693

Unread post by byculla » Fri May 08, 2020 11:04 am

@James on "It isn't as if Khuzaima was silent on the Nass on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS"

Yes. He was silent. Abdul Qadir is lying just the same way as he is lying about the nass. The amount of ghaplas he has done with SBUT is already talk of the town. Its interesting that you want to rely on his words over SMB's mazoon. So much respect for SMB's dawats 2nd highest maratib and in turn for SMB RA himself?.

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

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

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

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

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

On "You are a fool for quoting this forum as a source of documentation on the Nass issue"

If you truly doubt the contents of whats posted here, why are you still here and debating with me and others on this forum. ?
SKQ RA not accepting nass of MS was not just talked on this forum. Hindustan times article also alludes to it. It was also talk of the town in Mumbai and elsewhere. To conclude, I repeat what I said before, throughout those 2.5 years, SMB RA's mazoon-e-dawat had to do a delicate balance between (1) Not accepting MS Fake nass (2) Keeping his own nass secret and (3) Continue with his responsibilities as mazoon e dawat of SMB RA. He did all 3 to the best of his abilities.

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

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

#2694

Unread post by james » Fri May 08, 2020 9:36 pm

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

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


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

You are shit scared of Biradar. :lol:

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

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

#2695

Unread post by james » Fri May 08, 2020 9:43 pm

objectiveobserver53 wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 8:36 am ^^ AJ they have conferred nass upon themselves in Burhanuddin Moula’s name.. it was not difficult to bestow some honors upon themselves in his name...And if Moula did confer some genuine honors on him, that was his prerogative. Whether MS lived up to them is a whole different story.

As far as attending in court....MS and gang don’t allow the likes of Fake53 and James - their most loyal pets - into court because they don’t want them to see how flawed, desperate and weak MS is. Their whole house of cards is built upon the adulation of those who can believe that one who cannot recite a verse of Quran with meaning (other than basic Amma perhaps - and that too without understanding) is Hafizul Quran.

You are the nifaq that keeps on giving.

You had no retort on Khuzaima fudging on the titles in court. So how do you proceed? Cast aspersions on honorific titles conferred upon Aqeeq-al-Yemen Syedna Aaliqadr Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS by Mansur-al-Yemen Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA.

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

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

#2696

Unread post by byculla » Sat May 09, 2020 8:10 am

@James - the mumbai mirror article link you provided it appears the journalist who wrote that piece made an error in writing. STS RA conferred the highest degree "Umdatul Olamahil Mowahedeen" to SMB RA and only to him, not to MS. This is presented correctly in the other link by DNA. (No) Thanks for twisting once more. No he didn't fudge. No evidence in any of the links you provided.

As for the SKQ RA following farmaan of SMB RA. Yes he always followed farman from SMB RA. He is not supposed to follow edicts from Mufaddal Saifuddin or QJ. Notice how you talk about "cherry picking" when you and your leader Mufaddal have cherry picked SMB RA's farman for several decades when he unequivocally said in every misaak that SKQ is my mazoon - did not follow that farman of SMB RA. You all did iraad on SMB's decision of appointing him as mazoon through several years. And now accuse SKQ of cherry picking. Again hypocrisy personified.

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

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

#2697

Unread post by RedBox » Sat May 09, 2020 8:53 am

You know guys it seems you both are some important persons from both camps and I don't think you guys need to hide like (me) under pseudo names.

if we know who you really are than your words and arguments will have more impact.

I still believe your masters were chor and third class thugs, but its funny to read your defences.


Big thank you for the entertainment you are providing, also I find interesting that how education and BIG degrees cant make intelligent humans. you both are good examples. ( I am assuming you both are having degrees since you can write in English) :lol:

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

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

#2698

Unread post by byculla » Sat May 09, 2020 9:47 am

@Redbox - No bhai. i am aam aadmi, expressing my views to best of my knowledge.

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

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

#2699

Unread post by RedBox » Sat May 09, 2020 10:09 am

byculla wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 9:47 am @Redbox - No bhai. i am aam aadmi, expressing my views to best of my knowledge.
Your conviction shows you are bhagidaar in chor party, but any ways I pray that may ALLAH open your eyes so that you can come out of darkness. (ONLY if Allah wishes and you deserve it) Ameen.

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

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

#2700

Unread post by james » Sat May 09, 2020 11:21 am

byculla wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 11:04 am @James on "It isn't as if Khuzaima was silent on the Nass on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS"

Yes. He was silent. Abdul Qadir is lying just the same way as he is lying about the nass. The amount of ghaplas he has done with SBUT is already talk of the town. Its interesting that you want to rely on his words over SMB's mazoon. So much respect for SMB's dawats 2nd highest maratib and in turn for SMB RA himself?.
Your words are an perfect example of word salad.Nevertheless I will attempt to right the wrongs posted by you point by point.

https://believesyednaqutbuddin.files.wo ... t_then.jpg

Khuzaima's website states he presided over the majlis in which Shehzada Saab did zikar of Aqa Moula TUS performing Nass on Al-Mawlal-Ajal Syedi AaliQadr Mufaddal Bhaisaheb Saifuddin TUS. That is acceptance of Nass.

Now you could claim that he was blindsided into attending the majlis but then there are posts from upcoming Shehrullah of 1432H on his website while the post on Nass was still up.That shows he accepts the Nass. Now this is in public domain. As for his private acceptance of Nass,hear what someone close to him says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XglKr9jAkfU


You see how I back up everything I say? That should be the forum etiquette of a discussion.

In your over zealousness you have been reduced to attacking AbdulQadir Bs without any proof whatsoever. You are using the language of munafeqeen by attacking his khidmat for Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA's SBUT project by indulging in loose talk without any evidence or facts to back up your disgusting character assassination.