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.
objectiveobserver53
Posts: 454
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:29 pm

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

#2491

Unread post by objectiveobserver53 » Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:07 am

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...
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
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:23 pm

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

#2492

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » 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..... :roll:

malgudidays
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:47 am

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

#2493

Unread post by malgudidays » Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:02 am

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.
Nobody is, but most of the anti-establishment folks over here identify themselves with them, and it does not behove somebody who claims to be objective observer to be so blatantly biased, prejudiced and spiteful.

malgudidays
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:47 am

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

#2494

Unread post by malgudidays » 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..... :roll:
Get well soon.

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#2495

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:59 pm

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
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.

UnhappyBohra
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:23 pm

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

#2496

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:23 am

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..... :roll:
Get well soon.
I am in excellent health. Not quite sure why you would say this unless you think I am someone that I am not! I am a card carrying “MS follower” for what it’s worth but you would never know who I am. Were it not for the threat of social boycott and pressure from family, I would have thrown my card away a long time ago. Anyone that you can imagine me to be, I am not. So good luck to you!! I am sure that annoys the hell out of you.

malgudidays
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:47 am

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

#2497

Unread post by malgudidays » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:57 am

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.
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
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#2498

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:27 pm

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...
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 :D

----------------------------- 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
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:47 am

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

#2499

Unread post by malgudidays » Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:39 am

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 :D

----------------------------- 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
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:23 pm

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

#2500

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:22 pm

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 :D

----------------------------- 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.
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
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:47 am

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

#2501

Unread post by malgudidays » Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:23 am

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.
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...

UnhappyBohra
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:23 pm

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

#2502

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:54 pm

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...
Hohoho in particular it claims that the Nizaris think so.... That someone would fling such an accusation when it is so ridiculous, points to a hidden agenda...each of the 99 versions of the manuscript was written by one faction trying to discredit another...MS brought it to court for the same purpose. The fact that he found only such a document to substantiate his claims speaks volumes.... Malgudi if you are in the least bit knowledgeable about our doctrine, and I suspect you are, then you know and I know that this claim that An Imam’s nass can be changed is utter nonsense. It comes from this new Muffaddali doctrine that Muffy is cooking up. So just stop the kidding around....I mean is the imam infallible or not?

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#2503

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » 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.

--------------------------------- below is the current entry on his (STS's) family -------------------

Syedna Taher Saifuddin married Aaisaheba Husaina Aaisaheba, who was also from the family of Da'i al-Mutlaq. After her death, he then married Wazeerah Aaisaheba, Fatema Aaisaheba and Amenah Aaisaheba.

He had a total of 11 sons and 8 daughters. His sons were Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, Husain Husamuddin, Abdut Taiyeb Zakiyuddin, Yusuf Najmuddin, Ismail Shehabuddin, Hatim Hamiduddin, Qasim Hakimuddin, Aliasghar Kalimudddin, Shabbir Nooruddin, Abbas Fakhruddin, and Mohammed al-Baqir Jamaluddin. His daughters were Asma Baisaheba, Maryam Baisaheba, Khadijah Baisaheba, Zahra Baisaheba, Shireen Baisaheba, Banu Baisaheba, Fatema Baisaheba and Zainab Baisaheba.[10]

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.

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#2504

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Wed Jan 29, 2020 1:07 pm

Any news/update on the testimony from Jan 24-28th related to the court case ?

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

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

#2505

Unread post by RedBox » Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:07 am

why is Mufaddal saifuddin not appearing in court at all

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

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

#2506

Unread post by RedBox » Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:07 am

Dawoodi Bohra Succession High Court Suit
The cross-examination of His Holiness Syedna Taher Fakhruddin Saheb TUS (the Plaintiff) concluded on 29th January 2019, after hearings on 27 days at the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
Next was the cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s expert witness, Professor Devin Stewart, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Emory University, USA. Professor Stewart is an independent expert on Ismaili, Shia and Islamic history and doctrine
Professor Stewart’s cross-examination concluded on 6th December 2019 after 6 days of cross-examination. His testimony was covered in online and print media by the Mumbai Mirror, Indian Express, Free Press Journal and others.
The cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s next witness, Mukasir-e-Dawat Dr. Syedi Husain Bhaisaheb Burhanuddin Saheb AAB, PhD in Quranic Studies from the University of Cambridge, who has translated documents in the Arabic and Lisan-ud-Dawat languages into the English language, commenced on 23rd January 2020 and 4 days of cross-examination have been completed. Two further dates of 18th and 20th February 2020 have been assigned.
Maulana TUS irshad that Mumineen do "Hasbunallahu wa ne'mal wakeel" Tasbih (450 times), pray "Nasr-wal-Mahaba" & other doas, & take out Nazrul Maqam AS. May Allah Taala grant Syedna Fakhruddin TUS Nasr-e-Aziz & Fath-e-Mubeen.

UnhappyBohra
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:23 pm

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

#2507

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:37 pm

RedBox wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:07 am
why is Mufaddal saifuddin not appearing in court at all
We will know by the end of the Indian day whether MS has the guts to show up in court with his lies. It’s a no lose situation for STF - in my humble opinion- whether he shows up or not.

zinger
Posts: 2031
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:40 am

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

#2508

Unread post by zinger » 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

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.
He does now

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.
He doesnt anymore

UnhappyBohra
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:23 pm

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

#2509

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:13 am

MS may not be afraid of God but he is afraid of getting thrown in jail for perjuring himself. His name is not on the list of witnesses. He will stay home with his lies.

ajamali
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:51 am

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

#2510

Unread post by ajamali » 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.

canadian
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:57 pm

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

#2511

Unread post by canadian » Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:19 am

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.

Moiz_Dhaanu
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:57 pm

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

#2512

Unread post by Moiz_Dhaanu » Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:55 am

In the complete history of dawat and from the time of Rasullulah(sw) ...no "haq" na Imam or dai..has ever stayed at home or not come out to face a challenege made to them for their "rutba". ..it proved that they were on "Haq"..even if it meant that they had to give up their life...but DMBS, even though there is no danger to his life ( will still not come in court)..this says quite a lot about his false claim of being Dai.

On the Urs Mubarak of Syedna Qutbuddin shaheed(ra)..its a stark reminder to all Mufaddali bohras to ask their souls as to why their leader is so afraid to come to court..is he not on haq?

DMBS: Dawedaar Mufaddal Bhai Saheb

juzer esmail
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:24 am

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

#2513

Unread post by juzer esmail » 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
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#2514

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » 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?

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#2515

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:37 pm

https://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014 ... qaddas-ra/

And if there are question related to this video, who will answer in court?

Also, are the references 58 and 59 in the link below publicly available?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/53rd_Syed ... odi_Bohra)

ajamali
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:51 am

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

#2516

Unread post by ajamali » Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:16 pm

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?
As I understand it, the witness list will be presented on Tuesday. Omar Malik’s affidavit will be presented on March 10.


Biradar
Posts: 903
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:13 pm

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

#2518

Unread post by Biradar » Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:01 pm

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.
First, MS not showing up has nothing to do with courage. As far as he is concerned, this court case is just a minor annoyance which makes no difference to him at all. Vast majority of Bohras (> 99%) already follow him and even a negative outcome will make no difference to them. At this point the split in the community is complete, and the stark reality of the matter is the Fatemi Dawaat will be just a footnote in the many schismatic movements that have occurred amongst the Bohras and Islam in general.

Second, the reality of the matter is that SKQ's children really don't have much "intellectual force". They are equally superstitious and backwards looking as Muffy's Iblisi Toli. They may be somewhat better but that is like distinguishing between one gulag and another. In reality, starting with SMB the Bohri leaders have always supported tyrants, murderers and thugs. Did SKQ raise his voice when SMB was having fun with Modi, Bal Thakre and other Hinduvta leaders, who have now taken over the country and are splitting it apart from their racist and anti-Muslim policies? No, he did not. SKQ sat in his luxurious homes in Saify Mahal, Thane and Bakersfield, enjoying a nice and peaceful life. As he was sidelined he simply enjoyed himself by traveling and building up various real-estate in different countries. And, sending his kids to various expensive private schools, including in Australia and elsewhere, and universities at the expense of the community.

Let us see examples of the lack of "intellectual force of SKQs children": they have not even completed the things they said they will do. For example, they started "Ikhwan as-Safa" series. Failed to complete it. They started "Qur'an interpretation series". Failed to complete it. Started "Islamic Finance" series. Failed to complete it. Their weekly newsletter became twice a month and now is only published occasionally. The website is hardly updated.

Most important of all: they have not provided a clear answer to the various claims put out by MS on nass issue. They are hiding behind the case and saying things can't be openly discussed at present. But why? Years have gone by and the water has long flowed under the bridge. People have lost interest in the issue as as far as mainstream Bohras are concerned the battle is already fought and won by Muffy. The key was the video/audio from the hospital for which they have remained totally silent. It is possible that SMB was heavily drugged and confused but clearly something happened in the hospital for which the FD people have no explanation.

Now, I am personally convinced that SMB did nass on SKQ but 50+ years of silence and fun lifestyle makes it hard to be convinced that SKQ or his kids are good leaders or guides for the community. They need to seriously apologize to the community as they were silent when many horrible things were happening, and hence confess they have no moral authority to lead.

Now, again, I am not saying that Muffy is the right da'i, but clearly at this point the question of right and wrong is moot. SKQ by his own 50 years of inaction in which sat at home enjoying himself became bereft of any moral high ground. While genuine dissenters were being tortured and beaten he sat quietly, having fun with his children. Muffy is cut from the same cloth, but is just more ruthless and willing to do anything to gain power. So please don't tell us about Muffy being sacred "to face the intellectual force of SKQs children". Muffy does not care. He has won already and this case makes absolutely no difference to him at all.

mustafazr
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 5:09 am

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

#2519

Unread post by mustafazr » Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:57 pm

Shz Mufaddal Saifuddin not showing up has absolutely everything to do with his lack of "courage". His absence is a great detriment to his legal case, but his legal team is keenly aware of his inability to conduct himself in a public setting (where he doesn't control the metaphorical microphone). He would get absolutely skewered in a cross-examination, so to avoid that, they have chosen to not bring him, at a great expense to any credibility the court presumed in his favor.

As for whether he "cares" or not about the outcome, that's entirely irrelevant. Maybe he will begin to care when a judgement against him causes him to lose control of all community trusts in the country.

As for the accusations you lodge against SKQ RA, it's easy to be an armchair (smartphone?) critic, quite a bit harder to do something productive about it. Dawat is for everyone, you are welcome to join and actively work toward the betterment of Mumineen & community members worldwide.

Biradar
Posts: 903
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:13 pm

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

#2520

Unread post by Biradar » Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:48 pm

The only people who have greatly benefited are the immediate family of SMB. His brothers, his kids and his monstrous family who have lived off the community resources for decades. Please spare us the lecture on "join and actively work toward the betterment ...". How do you know I am not doing it already? Presuming much?

First, let us see the community "leaders" display some moral courage and rectitude. Enjoying endless ziyafaats and tafri was the strength of SMB, his brothers and now his children. Before being shamed here on this very forum, SMB used to eat about 10 ziyafaats daily, sometimes even right after performing ashura bayaan. He did not stop, they simply stopped advertising it in the open on malumaat and other forums. SMB loved hunting (a nasty habit his son has acquired now). Again, after being shamed here and elsewhere, they stopped putting his pictures of murdering elephants, lions and other animals online.

In any case. There are many precedences of da'is not coming to court in person. For example, in some court cases STS had his deposition taken at home. Of course, he did come to court sometimes, but not always. Again, I am not a supporter of Muffy, who I believe has hijacked and usurped the dawaat. But, the reality is that FD folk have no real moral high-ground or authority either. Unless there is some contrition for the way they stayed silent for decades while atrocities were perpetuated in the name of SBM and his henchmen.

As to your statement: "he will begin to care when a judgement against him causes him to lose control of all community trusts in the country". This is the first thing SKQ tried after the passing away of SMB, that is, try to gain control of some community properties by filing cases in various courts. He did not succeed. Also, it is highly unlikely Muffy's Iblisi Toli will lose control of "all community trusts in the country".

Incidentally, given that you seem like an obedient chela of FD people, can you please tell me if this case for gaining control of "all community trusts in the country"? Many times SKQ and STF have said they have launched the case to establish haqq and not gain monetarily from the outcome. Or was that just show-sa like all the things this notorious family does? Maybe you are in the know and really it is all for money, money and money. The only goal, it seems of these people's life.