@James - a lot of your post is sarcasm which is not worthy of response. I will not comment on that. You should know you have used Profanity before on this forum. Hope you will improve with time.james wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:09 amLet's collectively try to get to the root of this reference that you are talking about.byculla wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:44 am
You think meaning behind wordings of a Dawat kitab could be understood by taking help from any outside translator who wouldn't know dawoodi bohra theology, who wouldn't know who wrote the kitab, what is intended audience, what is the relevant context ? Seriously ? Word "maula" can have a different interpretation but a word "izn" can't? I did read what you presented 2nd time. I remember reading it before as well (in 2016 I think) when it originally came out - I already told you that.
I do know that the word Dai and Izn has different meanings in Arabic. I recall a conversation with a muslim friend, for whom Tablighis and zakir Naik are examples of "dai" and in general anybody doing islamic preaching is a dai. I am sure he is going to say anybody given any kind of "permission" is "izn". Context and interpreting it is important. Credentials of who is doing it is as well. Maratib of Mazoon is also an indication of his high "ilm".
Firstly post the reference to it and I hope this time you won't refer to court or FateliDavat correspondence.
Once you post the reference,it will come to light even if one were to agree on whom the text was referring to,there is a lot of difference in a statement and an instruction.
As an example:
byculla will always speak the truth
byculla should always speak the truth
On a lighter vein,
byculla will never believe in fake whatsapp circulations
byculla should never believe in fake whatsapp circulations.
You yourself has admitted that people who have been made Mazoon or Mukasir are fallible and can go astray.
For a fallible entity,"SHOULD" as an instruction makes more sense. But perhaps you don't have the 98th Chapter in mind.So for the sake of clarity and truth,please post the reference and let's take it forward from there.
As a bonus,here's an example/lesson on nifaaq.
Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA said,“I believed Husain bhai and I unequivocally declared that he and his entire family are innocent of these accusations. I accepted his diyafat, honoured him with a shawl and prayed for his wellbeing.
After having done all this and after all that has transpired till now, if someone is still in doubt as to whether Husain bhai may have lied to me and was subsequently pardoned [even though he lied], then it is tantamount to having doubt in my judgement and the appropriateness of my actions. This stands true regardless of the rank and station of the person harbouring that doubt.”
Shehzada Mufaddal bhaisaheb immediately accepted their oath—with no other evidence, and without listening to Qutbuddin Mola’s side of the story
The ultimate context is the above enlarged text.
About the events of 1409 you should know that SMB RA had ordered to put to rest those events and stop talking about it. After wafaat of SMB RA. SKQ RA did NOT bring it up (in response) until your leader Mufaddal's followers started harping about it in majlises presided by MS and with his permission.. I have no further interest in any conversation with you on this 1409H topic.