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

[dal-chaval-palidu]

If so, did your lawyer (Mr. Iqbal Chagla) point out that this was a distorted text? What was the witness and the judge's response? This is all elementary as you state, so I am sure those smart lawyers caught it and corrected the witness. What was response from the judge to a distorted text being submitted? Did the judge rebuke them? And how did it proceed/end?

And for the FD folks, the question would be:

" However, as always, other Fatimi texts refute the Qutbi claim, and establish the text of al-Hidāyah al-Āmirīyah as a true Fatimi work. Syedna Mohammed bin Taher RA and Syedna Idris Imaduddin RA reference al-Hidāyah al-Āmirīyah as the work[1] of Imam Amir AS.

What’s more, Taher Fakhruddin’s sister, Bazat Saifiyah Qutbuddin in her M.A Thesis paper extensively references it as Imam Amir’s AS work.[2] Further, Husain Qutbuddin in one of his initial Q&A sessions mentions al-Hidāyah al-Āmirīyah as Imam Amir’s AS work, in great detail.[3]"

Is the above stated accurate? Please clarify your position. Thanks.

The Professor didn't state that the book claims this. He questioned the validity of the book in general. There's no need to respond. That was his own position. That's what he was hired for. To dismiss the book that challenges their changing nass position.

.....

Saif53,

Come on, I don't buy that. If the professor questioned the validity of the book in general, why would the SMS lawyer not point out that the book has been quoted by many Dai(s) (let alone children of SKQ). That it has been quoted by many Dai(s), that alone definitely makes the book valid. This argument (that nass once conferred can be changed) which the lawyer is so intently trying to prove, are you telling me the lawyer said: "No need to respond, that is his position", and he let it go. Give me a break. The lawyer would fight tooth and nail for what appears to be critical to his case - and based on the Udaipur Times article, he appears to be, by repeatedly coming back to that issue.

[dal-chaval-palidu]

Dawoodi Bohra Succession Row: Mufaddal Saifuddin Won't Testify First

https://www.mid-day.com/articles/dawood ... t/22646324

In this it says

"Argus Partners, the solicitor for Saifuddin confirmed the development."

Are these the same people as Mr Chagla, or, are they a differnt law firm?

[ajamali]

Dawoodi Bohra Succession Row: Mufaddal Saifuddin Won't Testify First

https://www.mid-day.com/articles/dawood ... t/22646324

In this it says

"Argus Partners, the solicitor for Saifuddin confirmed the development."

Are these the same people as Mr Chagla, or, are they a differnt law firm?

It was the same with the Moosa Qazim issue. They tried to prove it for half a day and then tried to retract it the next day. Apparently having gone home and referenced takarrub.

This is not new. This has been mentioned on the forum before.

[Qadir]

So, when the whole topic of prof stewart discrediting the kitab saying it claims imam Hussain had something to do with Imam Hassan's shahadat, i said that there's something missing from the argument.
All the FD people were on their toes getting happy about it and unknowingly doubted Imam Aamir's kitab which even KQs children have referenced in past.
Now that its been proven that I was correct in saying that the argument initially was not valid because the information people on this forum provided was incomplete.
FD people are discrediting Imam Aamir's kitab and also claiming that something about Musa Kazim was mentioned in court.
I once again say that information provided on this Musa Kazim thing is incomplete. If FD people can provide one valid evidence such as a news article or something from TFs bayaan or something else from their leadership, I will put forward my opinions. I don't know and so does anyone else know what exactly why Musa Kazim was mentioned and if mentioned in what context.

James, your post was uncalled for. Ajamali, you hearing something from someone even if its TF is not valid just like how KQ saying he was told by SMB he is mansoos is not valid.

Below is the udaipur times news article.

https://udaipurtimes.com/news/dawoodi-b ... s10698.htm

It is a public newspaper and if it stated things incorrectly, why does SMS / QaidJohar BS not correct them? Previously, the Kothar has put their views in public - For example, QaidJohar BS wrote a letter to Hindustan Times stating their position sometime in April 2013. Why not do it here.

And if they deliberately misprint, India has libel laws. Take legal action.

So bhai Qadir,here is a news article stating what people are saying. Please gives the SMS refutation to this. And, if not, FD puts information on their website. Why not the Kothar put their viewpoint out too?

I don't see Musa Kazim being mentioned once.

i want everyone to know where things stand. There is no single evidence (a news article or mention from FD leadership) about Musa Kazim being mentioned in court and if so in what context. I am not saying that his name never came up, because i am not one of the lawyers of the case but so are not the FD people on this forum. Until any evidence is not put forward, it is false to say that SMS's side believes Musa Kazim was ever a mansoos and even if a kitab mentions that we need to know what exact details precede and succede the statement in question.

[Qadir]

The Professor didn't state that the book claims this. He questioned the validity of the book in general. There's no need to respond. That was his own position. That's what he was hired for. To dismiss the book that challenges their changing nass position.

.....

Saif53,

Come on, I don't buy that. If the professor questioned the validity of the book in general, why would the SMS lawyer not point out that the book has been quoted by many Dai(s) (let alone children of SKQ). That it has been quoted by many Dai(s), that alone definitely makes the book valid. This argument (that nass once conferred can be changed) which the lawyer is so intently trying to prove, are you telling me the lawyer said: "No need to respond, that is his position", and he let it go. Give me a break. The lawyer would fight tooth and nail for what appears to be critical to his case - and based on the Udaipur Times article, he appears to be, by repeatedly coming back to that issue.

The lawyer probably didn't have enough knowledge about the kitab and it being referenced by KQs children at that time and his judicial skills favored dropping that questin and moving on to the next.
I don't know if there was a next day or not but maybe it might be brought up next time if the prof decides to show up again (or gets invited by FD leadership, which is probably not gonna happen after what he said)

[ajamali]

Saif53,

Come on, I don't buy that. If the professor questioned the validity of the book in general, why would the SMS lawyer not point out that the book has been quoted by many Dai(s) (let alone children of SKQ). That it has been quoted by many Dai(s), that alone definitely makes the book valid. This argument (that nass once conferred can be changed) which the lawyer is so intently trying to prove, are you telling me the lawyer said: "No need to respond, that is his position", and he let it go. Give me a break. The lawyer would fight tooth and nail for what appears to be critical to his case - and based on the Udaipur Times article, he appears to be, by repeatedly coming back to that issue.

The lawyer probably didn't have enough knowledge about the kitab and it being referenced by KQs children at that time and his judicial skills favored dropping that questin and moving on to the next.
I don't know if there was a next day or not but maybe it might be brought up next time if the prof decides to show up again (or gets invited by FD leadership, which is probably not gonna happen after what he said)

You are smoking something if you believe the lawyer exercises any discretion over what to ask. Having attended a few sessions in court, I have seen that Chagla is fed every question by BJ/Taha with QE overseeing the whole thing. So you cannot blame anything happening in court on the lawyer. All the arguments are being fed in real-time by those present.

The fact is that Muffy’s Boys are just ill informed and desperate because they are pedaling and back pedaling a lot to cover up their lies. STF side is calm and serene and in command as they are there to tell the truth. Why do you think Muffy only allows only his very innermost circle only to be present in court? It’s because they cannot bear for any of their sheep to witness their constant humiliation. FD will allow anyone who asks nicely - within constraints of court imposed numbers - to attend because they have nothing to hide.

[ajamali]

Below is the udaipur times news article.

https://udaipurtimes.com/news/dawoodi-b ... s10698.htm

It is a public newspaper and if it stated things incorrectly, why does SMS / QaidJohar BS not correct them? Previously, the Kothar has put their views in public - For example, QaidJohar BS wrote a letter to Hindustan Times stating their position sometime in April 2013. Why not do it here.

And if they deliberately misprint, India has libel laws. Take legal action.

So bhai Qadir,here is a news article stating what people are saying. Please gives the SMS refutation to this. And, if not, FD puts information on their website. Why not the Kothar put their viewpoint out too?

I don't see Musa Kazim being mentioned once.

i want everyone to know where things stand. There is no single evidence (a news article or mention from FD leadership) about Musa Kazim being mentioned in court and if so in what context. I am not saying that his name never came up, because i am not one of the lawyers of the case but so are not the FD people on this forum. Until any evidence is not put forward, it is false to say that SMS's side believes Musa Kazim was ever a mansoos and even if a kitab mentions that we need to know what exact details precede and succede the statement in question.

Do you think that the newspapers will publish some article about a claim of incorrect nass on the wrong person over a thousand years ago? A point that is so important to you and I is way over their heads. I am so happy you guys are denying it here so vehemently because when it comes to light, you will be all the more embarrassed. But being Muffy’s sheep, I don’t expect you to hold him accountable.

A point I reiterate is: why are you asking us? Why don’t you ask your leaders who will not let you anywhere near the court to observe the proceedings? Ask them how Moosa Qazim was mentioned. Why is it that no one other than MS ignorant sons and his conniving brother and brother-in-law are present?

[UnhappyBohra]

There is no single evidence (a news article or mention from FD leadership) about Musa Kazim being mentioned in court and if so in what context. I am not saying that his name never came up, because i am not one of the lawyers of the case but so are not the FD people on this forum. Until any evidence is not put forward, it is false to say that SMS's side believes Musa Kazim was ever a mansoos and even if a kitab mentions that we need to know what exact details precede and succede the statement in question.

One does not need to be a lawyer to know what goes on in court. As AJ pointed out, supporters of FD (either open or incognito) are often present in court. So supporters of STF are always well informed about the proceedings. If they get mislead by noise on this forum or due to miscommunication, they can always seek clarification from leadership. As it happened, the details about reasons for Stewart discrediting the book were shared with those who sought them, within constraints of the restrictions imposed by the court. So we were all eventually quite clear about the details.

The Moosa Qazim claim is quite real so Fake53 etc should seek details from their bumbling bosses before they dig bigger holes for themselves.

[UnhappyBohra]

The Moosa Qasim question was “put” to STF first. When one side puts a statement to another, they admit to accepting it. So they put it to STF that nass was done on Moosa Qasim and STF categorically denied. Then I believe the idiots brought it up again during Stewart’s cross examination again - but I am not 100 percent sure of it.

[james]

It is obvious what’s happening here. James cannot somehow make the imam infallible while also making it OK for him to change nass. So he has stooped to ad hominem.

By thinking that you are attacking me,you are actually attacking ajamali as I used his own gibberish to highlight his nonsense.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11016&p=168042#p168042

It’s funny how you assumed that all of us had been fed a lie by FD and floated it out there as a fact. Apparently that’s OK on a public forum! AJ countered a false narrative with personal experience and you called him stupid. Apparently that’s OK on a public forum too.

I do not trust ajamali's fanciful trolling hearsay and just look how he has shifted to getting first hand information on the court sessions from someone attending it to being present in the courtroom itself. Next thing we know he will claim to be Professor Stewart.

From

I had reached out to a Fatemi Dawat member and was given the exact account. I have a first hand account of it from someone who was present in court.

To

Having attended a few sessions in court, I have seen that

[james]

Below is the udaipur times news article.

https://udaipurtimes.com/news/dawoodi-b ... s10698.htm

It is a public newspaper

https://udaipurtimes.com/events/all-wor ... s10700.htm

https://udaipurtimes.com/causes/general ... s10712.htm

https://udaipurtimes.com/causes/dawoodi ... s10712.htm

https://udaipurtimes.com/causes/15th-al ... s10712.htm


Cool story bro

[ajamali]

It is obvious what’s happening here. James cannot somehow make the imam infallible while also making it OK for him to change nass. So he has stooped to ad hominem.

By thinking that you are attacking me,you are actually attacking ajamali as I used his own gibberish to highlight his nonsense.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11016&p=168042#p168042

It’s funny how you assumed that all of us had been fed a lie by FD and floated it out there as a fact. Apparently that’s OK on a public forum! AJ countered a false narrative with personal experience and you called him stupid. Apparently that’s OK on a public forum too.

I do not trust ajamali's fanciful trolling hearsay and just look how he has shifted to getting first hand information on the court sessions from someone attending it to being present in the courtroom itself. Next thing we know he will claim to be Professor Stewart.

From

I had reached out to a Fatemi Dawat member and was given the exact account. I have a first hand account of it from someone who was present in court.

To

Having attended a few sessions in court, I have seen that

There is no contradiction here at all. The sessions I attended were early on. Not the ones which Stewart was cross examined. Duh.

[ezzoudine]

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.

[UnhappyBohra]

Haha “James” is holding AJ to his post from 4 years ago. Can he not imagine that people have undergone change of opinion in that period? The crazier MS started sounding and the more money-minded he became the more FD support has increased. I see that AJ is solidly with STF now. Those of us who are ITS card holders(For the protection of our family who wish to stay connected with the community) but are in misaq of STF, have undergone quite a transformation. We have changed from being Club Bohra members to caring about things such as whether the person we give our misaq to is the rightful Dai.

[UnhappyBohra]

It is obvious what’s happening here. James cannot somehow make the imam infallible while also making it OK for him to change nass. So he has stooped to ad hominem.

By thinking that you are attacking me,you are actually attacking ajamali as I used his own gibberish to highlight his nonsense.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11016&p=168042#p168042

It’s funny how you assumed that all of us had been fed a lie by FD and floated it out there as a fact. Apparently that’s OK on a public forum! AJ countered a false narrative with personal experience and you called him stupid. Apparently that’s OK on a public forum too.

I do not trust ajamali's fanciful trolling hearsay and just look how he has shifted to getting first hand information on the court sessions from someone attending it to being present in the courtroom itself. Next thing we know he will claim to be Professor Stewart.

From

I had reached out to a Fatemi Dawat member and was given the exact account. I have a first hand account of it from someone who was present in court.

To

Having attended a few sessions in court, I have seen that

You guys accepted a total moron as a dai over a charade in Raudat Tahera (where Burhanuddin Moula kept asking MS’s name - a clear attempt at deception) and you accuse AJ of Being “fanciful” because he attended some sessions in court and not others?? Hats off to your analytical minds....

[Crater Lake]

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.

Good one

[UnhappyBohra]

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.

Good one

And now James and Fake53 will do an en masse disappearing act because they cannot answer this question without implicating their bosses...

[dal-chaval-palidu]

Below is the udaipur times news article.

https://udaipurtimes.com/news/dawoodi-b ... s10698.htm

It is a public newspaper

https://udaipurtimes.com/events/all-wor ... s10700.htm

https://udaipurtimes.com/causes/general ... s10712.htm

https://udaipurtimes.com/causes/dawoodi ... s10712.htm

https://udaipurtimes.com/causes/15th-al ... s10712.htm


Cool story bro

So it is a Udaipur-based paper that reports on the reformist movement news, from Udaipur and abroad. So what? Are they saying anything wrong? If so, take legal action.

What I said before still holds. Did they say anything wrong/inaccurate in the article related to the Court case? If so, ask them to retract and correct it. If they don't, take legal action. Also, put forth the actual discussions from the court. Else, we go by what is available from the news reports. What else should I go by?

[james]

Good one

And now James and Fake53 will do an en masse disappearing act because they cannot answer this question without implicating their bosses...

You just described ajamali. He does the disappearing act when he can't answer the likes of hypocrisy personified Biradar.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9486&p=180110#p180110

As for you trying to attempt theological discussion with all your back slapping friends or multi ids,it is laughable. malgudidays tried to discuss and except for dal-chaval-palidu, all of you chumps did the disappearing act or went personal.You are truly an idiot if you cannot understand hypothesis.The book by Imam AS destroys the foundation of all dawedars of different times with a beautiful simple caveat.

As for you people shouting "Nass cannot be changed",if you really think hard it is you who has changed the Nass. From 2011-2014,you believed in the Nass of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS and then just like Sulaiman,you people changed the Nass.

You abusing Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS and calling him names doesn't make you more credible.Infact this singular thing will be your own undoing.Anyways,look how Abdeali Qutbuddin sings the virtues of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS.

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

Or look how Aziz Qutbuddin believes in misal sharif of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA in 1434H.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B216PUXk1Ks

[james]

https://udaipurtimes.com/events/all-wor ... s10700.htm

https://udaipurtimes.com/causes/general ... s10712.htm

https://udaipurtimes.com/causes/dawoodi ... s10712.htm

https://udaipurtimes.com/causes/15th-al ... s10712.htm


Cool story bro

So it is a Udaipur-based paper that reports on the reformist movement news, from Udaipur and abroad. So what? Are they saying anything wrong? If so, take legal action.

What I said before still holds. Did they say anything wrong/inaccurate in the article related to the Court case? If so, ask them to retract and correct it. If they don't, take legal action. Also, put forth the actual discussions from the court. Else, we go by what is available from the news reports. What else should I go by?

For an anonymous writer on a forum,you sure have a lot of demands for the Dawoodi Bohra community. You may find udaipur times to be unbiased based on their innocuous *cough reporting about Reformist movement news from abroad and Udaipur but then again you are likely to think that the likes of Arnab Goswami are unbiased too.

Let's recap a bit

I once again say that information provided on this Musa Kazim thing is incomplete. If FD people can provide one valid evidence such as a news article or something from TFs bayaan or something else from their leadership, I will put forward my opinions. I don't know and so does anyone else know what exactly why Musa Kazim was mentioned and if mentioned in what context.

Qadir mentioned that for him to put forward his opinions on Musa Kazim,he needs to see a news article or anything from Taher Qutbuddin.

You threw the udaipurtimes article in his face. Now my Ctrl F is broken,because I cannot find a single reference to Musa Kazim in the link provided by you.Would you like to try again?


Also,you put an incomplete part in BOLD.I have corrected that for you.

[Qadir]

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.

I will try to answer this question,

Nass is not complete without tawkeef. If nass was performed with tawkeef, it cannot be changed. That's why Imam Ismail is considered Imam because nass on him was along with tawkeef.
Now the question arises if nass can be changed or not, the answer is yes if nass was performed, it can be changed before tawkeef happens.
I don't know in what kitab its mentioned that Imam Jafar us Sadiq did nass on Musa and in what context, but it's probably from a kitab from imam or dai and TF also claiming to be dai will have to accept the kitab.
Best course of action right now would be to drop this topic and wait until we get some credible evidence regarding this matter.
Ajamali's friend who said what happened is not credible enough to continue this debate, any sane person would agree.

[UnhappyBohra]

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.

I will try to answer this question,

Nass is not complete without tawkeef. If nass was performed with tawkeef, it cannot be changed. That's why Imam Ismail is considered Imam because nass on him was along with tawkeef.
Now the question arises if nass can be changed or not, the answer is yes if nass was performed, it can be changed before tawkeef happens.
I don't know in what kitab its mentioned that Imam Jafar us Sadiq did nass on Musa and in what context, but it's probably from a kitab from imam or dai and TF also claiming to be dai will have to accept the kitab.
Best course of action right now would be to drop this topic and wait until we get some credible evidence regarding this matter.
Ajamali's friend who said what happened is not credible enough to continue this debate, any sane person would agree.

Right...tawkeef.....there was a big discussion in court on that topic and it was established that the word tawkeef, while it can literally be used as "to inform", in the context of the nass it is synonymous with nass.
There is a chapter in a Dawat text on nass and the Chapter is entitled(i paraphrase) "How to do Tawkeef." In essence once nass is done tawkeef is done.
Also Qadir you did not really answer the question. The question was:If one believes that Imam Jaferrussadiq ever conferred nass on Musa Qazim, can that person be called a Dawoodi Bohra?

Consider it hypothetical for now if you don't want to believe us that MS claimed that nass was done on Musa Qazim. If you are going to tailor your answer to what MS said in court, you are not being entirely honest

[Saif53]

@dal-chaval-palidu: You asked who *deliberately* misquoted the contents of Hidayat Amiriyah, by claiming that it talked about this murder of Imam Hasan.
I showed you proof of Crater Lake & objectiveobserver53 lied about this, very well knowing that the book did not contain this.
You have not acknowledged that.

@ezzoudine: Very simple. If anyone doesn't believe that Imam Ismail is the Imam after Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, then he isn't a Dawoodi Bohra.

Anyother questions about the statements regarding Musa al-Kaazim, would need to be backed up by evidence.
"If a faasiq person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth" Quran 49:6

[UnhappyBohra]

@dal-chaval-palidu: You asked who *deliberately* misquoted the contents of Hidayat Amiriyah, by claiming that it talked about this murder of Imam Hasan.
I showed you proof of Crater Lake & objectiveobserver53 lied about this, very well knowing that the book did not contain this.
You have not acknowledged that.

@ezzoudine: Very simple. If anyone doesn't believe that Imam Ismail is the Imam after Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, then he isn't a Dawoodi Bohra.

Anyother questions about the statements regarding Musa al-Kaazim, would need to be backed up by evidence.
"If a faasiq person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth" Quran 49:6

That was not the question. Answer the question.
If one believes that Imam Jaferrussadiq ever conferred nass on Musa Qazim, can that person be called a Dawoodi Bohra?

[james]

Right...tawkeef.....there was a big discussion in court on that topic and it was established that the word tawkeef, while it can literally be used as "to inform", in the context of the nass it is synonymous with nass.
There is a chapter in a Dawat text on nass and the Chapter is entitled(i paraphrase) "How to do Tawkeef." In essence once nass is done tawkeef is done.

Haha what?

Tawqeef is synonymous with Nass?

Haha what?

Once nass is done tawqeef is done?

Haha what?

You've lost the plot. Save the theological stuff for someone else. Go back to saying how Coronavirus is karma for Dawoodi Bohras. That is what you are.


Read this and apologize if you have any shame.

http://qutbibohras.blogspot.com/2017/05 ... -know.html

[UnhappyBohra]

Right...tawkeef.....there was a big discussion in court on that topic and it was established that the word tawkeef, while it can literally be used as "to inform", in the context of the nass it is synonymous with nass.
There is a chapter in a Dawat text on nass and the Chapter is entitled(i paraphrase) "How to do Tawkeef." In essence once nass is done tawkeef is done.

Haha what?

Tawqeef is synonymous with Nass?

Haha what?

Once nass is done tawqeef is done?

Haha what?

You've lost the plot. Save the theological stuff for someone else. Go back to saying how Coronavirus is karma for Dawoodi Bohras. That is what you are.


Read this and apologize if you have any shame.

http://qutbibohras.blogspot.com/2017/05 ... -know.html

hahaha you feed me a post from Qutbi Bohra blog, your premiere propoganda page, you expect me to READ it, you expect me to ACCEPT it as the truth and then APOLOGIZE for something I said?!!!

hahahah
hahahah

go back to doing what you do best...

making announcements...
and backpedalling
Do not do khafz
MUST DO khafz
you must lick every dirty spoon
DO NOT lick dirty spoons
gather during the Pandemic - but only in groups of 15
Do NoT gather

I am glad the Karma comment got your goat. There was a little truth in what was said - in your context - and it hurt. It pleases me to know that.

And I see that you still have not answered the question. If the theological stuff was left up to YOU, no one would learn anything because you never answer the tough questions.

[james]

hahaha you feed me a post from Qutbi Bohra blog, your premiere propoganda page, you expect me to READ it, you expect me to ACCEPT it as the truth and then APOLOGIZE for something I said?!!!

Steady yourself. Your typos and shouting in caps lock shows you are rattled.I provided you with an article where sources are cited for every word put on it. Unlike yourself,the Qutbibohra blogpost author doesn't hide under the garb of "There is a chapter in a Dawat text on nass" and paraphrasing of titles of the unnamed Dawat text.It also didn't offer nonsensical stuff like "tawqeef is synonymous of nass" or "once nass is done tawqeef is done". In fact the article cites the source of information or text right down to the page number which in all honesty will make you very uncomfortable.So yeah,this is your only option to label it as propaganda and discredit it. Wait,this seems to be your usual line of defense. Discredit every Risalah,every saying,every Kitab of Past Duat Mutlaqeen RA ( including Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA) and Imams AS.

I am glad the Karma comment got your goat. There was a little truth in what was said - in your context - and it hurt. It pleases me to know that.

It didn't bother me in the slightest.Keep spouting nonsense and I will keep bringing up your disgusting character each time you post stupidity on theology.

And I see that you still have not answered the question. If the theological stuff was left up to YOU, no one would learn anything because you never answer the tough questions.

As for the question you can't get past,I have zero problem in saying that I believe in anything or everything said by Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS.That's a given.


You guys have tripped up so many times in your quest to distort facts and spout lies that frankly I am sure if mention of Musa Kazim were to be accessed via court transcripts,it would amount to nothing salacious as the merry band of your back-slappers seem to insinuate.

It's a good thing for the likes of you that the mention of Musa Kazim is not in the public domain yet and you guys get to do the whole Chinese whispers charade.(Deja vu) Otherwise it would go the same route as the discrediting of a kitab authored by Imam AS and the likes of malgudidays would have a field day and you would be reduced to personal insults and silence.

Here's a question for you,


Why did you change Nass in 2014? From 2011-2014,you believed in the Nass of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS.

I suggest you consult the back-slappers before you even attempt to answer the above question.

[UnhappyBohra]

hahaha you feed me a post from Qutbi Bohra blog, your premiere propoganda page, you expect me to READ it, you expect me to ACCEPT it as the truth and then APOLOGIZE for something I said?!!!

Steady yourself. Your typos and shouting in caps lock shows you are rattled.I provided you with an article where sources are cited for every word put on it. Unlike yourself,the Qutbibohra blogpost author doesn't hide under the garb of "There is a chapter in a Dawat text on nass" and paraphrasing of titles of the unnamed Dawat text.It also didn't offer nonsensical stuff like "tawqeef is synonymous of nass" or "once nass is done tawqeef is done". In fact the article cites the source of information or text right down to the page number which in all honesty will make you very uncomfortable.So yeah,this is your only option to label it as propaganda and discredit it. Wait,this seems to be your usual line of defense. Discredit every Risalah,every saying,every Kitab of Past Duat Mutlaqeen RA ( including Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA) and Imams AS.

I am glad the Karma comment got your goat. There was a little truth in what was said - in your context - and it hurt. It pleases me to know that.

It didn't bother me in the slightest.Keep spouting nonsense and I will keep bringing up your disgusting character each time you post stupidity on theology.

And I see that you still have not answered the question. If the theological stuff was left up to YOU, no one would learn anything because you never answer the tough questions.

As for the question you can't get past,I have zero problem in saying that I believe in anything or everything said by Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS.That's a given.


You guys have tripped up so many times in your quest to distort facts and spout lies that frankly I am sure if mention of Musa Kazim were to be accessed via court transcripts,it would amount to nothing salacious as the merry band of your back-slappers seem to insinuate.

It's a good thing for the likes of you that the mention of Musa Kazim is not in the public domain yet and you guys get to do the whole Chinese whispers charade.(Deja vu) Otherwise it would go the same route as the discrediting of a kitab authored by Imam AS and the likes of malgudidays would have a field day and you would be reduced to personal insults and silence.

Here's a question for you,


Why did you change Nass in 2014? From 2011-2014,you believed in the Nass of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS.

I suggest you consult the back-slappers before you even attempt to answer the above question.

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. If you think that we did not always wonder why we never heard Burhanuddin Moula say the words explicitly and why we heard the quack Moiz say one thing when Burhanuddin Moula was saying another, you are kidding yourself. 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...

Also if you think that EVERYONE believes that the nass was done, you are sadly mistaken. They play along with what is convenient. As you yourself alluded, Bohras only care about Club Bohra and communal kabab eating.
A lot of now-FD people got distanced from the dawat-by-proxy during the years you mentioned because of Muffy's moronic behavior and the oppressive fatwas.
It is not surprising that people like you will believe anything he says - because unfortunately he WOULD say just about ANYTHING - haha.

And with that I sign off for the remainder of the month. I have better things to do this month than argue with the likes of "James" and Fake53.

[ajamali]

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?

[james]

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.




Also,



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?