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.
zinger
Posts: 2201
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:40 am

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

#3481

Unread post by zinger » Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:03 am

so apparently, BJP had its executive committee meeting yesterday. Modi said that BJP needs to make an effort to reach out to Muslim communities, especially the educated ones. he mentioned Bohra and 2 other communities, dont know which ones now

certianly not something to be proud of, especially when he says lets join hands

Social Awareness
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:41 pm

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

#3482

Unread post by Social Awareness » Thu Jan 19, 2023 4:13 am

thats the last nail in the coffin of Burhanuddin and Qutbuddin both,

Muffy has appointed a good lawyer who is cunning, smart, and fraudulent just like him.

just like Muawiyyah who was master in spinning things. :lol:

I dont think another party will be able to bring a good excuse for this point.


Social Awareness
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:41 pm

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

#3484

Unread post by Social Awareness » Thu Jan 19, 2023 9:49 pm


Syedna succession case: ‘Can a Dai tweak doctrine for the sake of community?’


If present dai can sell masalla and kabrestan places for money, why cant he tweak to make his son the next dai? :lol:

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 762
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#3485

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Fri Jan 20, 2023 11:58 pm

zinger wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:03 am so apparently, BJP had its executive committee meeting yesterday. Modi said that BJP needs to make an effort to reach out to Muslim communities, especially the educated ones. he mentioned Bohra and 2 other communities, dont know which ones now

certianly not something to be proud of, especially when he says lets join hands
Look at the link below from Abhisar Sharma. Specifically, listen between 1:06 to 1:15 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2g6DN1bEhM

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 762
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#3486

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:23 am

From the above article: "Dwarkadas referred to four events namely a baithak (meeting of the Dai with the senior members of the community) in August 2011, an Urs (death anniversary commemoration) majlis in June 2012, a banquet in Saifee Mahal in June 2012, and a baithak in January 2014 just 15 days before the passing away of the 52nd Dai to show that the leader was actively conducting the affairs of the community as well as meeting an interacting with his family and community members."

Wait, I remember seeing the video of June 2012 of the 101st birthday in Surat. SMB did not say a word and at sometimes he was tied to the chair so that he could sit on it. This is their argument. That appears so weak to me. Show the video; and how can somebody with a straight face say that he was conducting the affairs of the community? Make no sense to me at least.

I came to this forum after a few days and my 2 pennies is that there appear to be 3 arguments of MS defense counsel and they don't look very strong:
  • That SKQ attended the June 6th majlis. Now, SMB just had a stroke and there is a majlis, and SKQ is in Mumbai. There will be prayers for SMB's good health, and so what is wrong in SKQ attending? Imagine if he did not attend a prayer meeting for SMB? That there is some important announcement is a reason to NOT attend. And because a supposed nass claim is made, does not mean SKQ has to immediately refute it. SMB is still alive, and the logical thing is to pray for him to heal and correct it. And SKQ thought it was a fraud and wanted to keep quite in the moment.

    SKQ's full brother (Hatim BS) passes away and SKQ attend the sadaqallah. and MS is leading it. What does one expect a senssible person to do? Make a scene at the sadaqallah? Walk away from his brother's sadaqallah? Depends how one looks at it. It was decency that he went thru it without creating a fight in public at the sadaqallah.

    SKQ's son Abdeali BS did an acknowledgement. Assume he did. Maybe he did not know. SKQ kept it secret
That is how I look at it; but then I will clearly grant that I am biased as I consider that SKQ is correct in his claim of nass.

allbird
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:01 am

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

#3487

Unread post by allbird » Sat Jan 21, 2023 7:17 am

So, is it safe to assume MS WON the battle ? or TB has last googly ball to throw. Maybe SMB suffered from Dementia after the stroke and didn't remember he did nuss on KQ. However if a Dai is infallible and all knowing, why did he wait 50 years to announce Nass and assign his mansoos in public while he was fit and kicking. Can some knowledgeable answer this question. one thing for sure that STS wanted KQ to be 53th Dai and instructed SMB to do so.

That's it people the game is over, keep paying Wajebat, Qadambosi, Ziyafat, Mashaikh, Hadiyat, Zakat, nazrual makam etc etc to MS on time and we all keep our membership to Dawaat-e-hadiyah and we buying our stairway to heaven.

james
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:06 am

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

#3488

Unread post by james » Sat Jan 21, 2023 5:20 pm

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:23 am
From the above article: "Dwarkadas referred to four events namely a baithak (meeting of the Dai with the senior members of the community) in August 2011, an Urs (death anniversary commemoration) majlis in June 2012, a banquet in Saifee Mahal in June 2012, and a baithak in January 2014 just 15 days before the passing away of the 52nd Dai to show that the leader was actively conducting the affairs of the community as well as meeting an interacting with his family and community members."

Wait, I remember seeing the video of June 2012 of the 101st birthday in Surat. SMB did not say a word and at sometimes he was tied to the chair so that he could sit on it. This is their argument. That appears so weak to me. Show the video; and how can somebody with a straight face say that he was conducting the affairs of the community? Make no sense to me at least.
Here we go again,

You very well know that June 2012 was the month of Rajab 1433H and nothing to do with the bullshit you are trying to sell here. On Urus Majlis night which IIRC corresponds to 7th June 2012, Khuzaima attended the majlis in Saify Mahal where he sat below tarteeb of the Mansoos of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS was seated next to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA and Khuzaima sat below the Naas and the Mansoos. However you try to back peddle, the fact remains Khuzaima had accepted Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS to be the Mansoos of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA in front of the entire Dawoodi Bohra community.


I came to this forum after a few days and my 2 pennies is that there appear to be 3 arguments of MS defense counsel and they don't look very strong:
You are an dishonest chap trying desperately to play the devil's advocate and what doesn't look strong to you is actually the polar opposite of any sane person's point of view.

  • That SKQ attended the June 6th majlis. Now, SMB just had a stroke and there is a majlis, and SKQ is in Mumbai. There will be prayers for SMB's good health, and so what is wrong in SKQ attending? Imagine if he did not attend a prayer meeting for SMB? That there is some important announcement is a reason to NOT attend. And because a supposed nass claim is made, does not mean SKQ has to immediately refute it. SMB is still alive, and the logical thing is to pray for him to heal and correct it. And SKQ thought it was a fraud and wanted to keep quite in the moment.
Khuzaima was informed by his daughter Fatema that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA had performed Nass on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS in Cromwell Hospital before 6th June 2011. An sms is sent out that Syedi Mukasir Saheb DM will be presiding over a majlis in Saify Masjid Mumbai where Syedi QaidJohar BS's nass announcement will be shown. Khuzaima presided over this Majlis instead of Syedi Mukasir Saheb at that time at the end moment. In front of him, Syedi QaidJohar BS's nass announcement is played. After that members of Shiate Ali offered KHUSHI SHERBAT to Khuzaima which he happily gulped down and they did wadhawano rasam to Khuzaima and did felicitation. It has been accepted by both plaintiffs that SHERBAT rasam is never done on sad occasions but only on HAPPY occasions. The irony is Khuzaima and his "expert" *cough doctors questioned on how Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA could have taken a sip of sherbet after a stroke while this fellow in full public view of the Dawoodi Bohra community is happily gulping down Sherbet on the happy occasion of Nass being conferred on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS. You will be heartbroken to know that the Judge has seen pictures of this event namely Khuzaima picking up sherbet cup without any assistance and then drinking it. :oops:
SKQ's full brother (Hatim BS) passes away and SKQ attend the sadaqallah. and MS is leading it. What does one expect a senssible person to do? Make a scene at the sadaqallah? Walk away from his brother's sadaqallah? Depends how one looks at it. It was decency that he went thru it without creating a fight in public at the sadaqallah.
This kind of argument shows Khuzaima in more bad light. For a full brother's death, Khuzaima can attend sadaqallah where Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS led it but this same "sensible" *cough fellow doesn't deem it important to attend the Janaza Namaz of the 52nd Dai Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA? Seems to me he was sensible enough during Hatim BS's funeral but his entire sensibility went out the window the moment he left Saify Mahal to do his dawedaari and the lack of the sense then led him to skipping the Janaza mubarak of the 52nd Dai RA.
SKQ's son Abdeali BS did an acknowledgement. Assume he did. Maybe he did not know. SKQ kept it secret [/list]
There is no assumption.Here, enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaVDhYGvEfc
:mrgreen:

If he did not know,then he is not a person of higher learning. Even this was quipped on the last day of the court proceeding. Isn't Lanati Abdeali the current Mazoon? *cough

Look at their state of affairs. Their Mazoon MAYBE didn't know for two and half years. Actually all this shows that Khuzaima and his ilk accepted the nass of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS and then did inkaar just like all the past dawedaars.
how can somebody with a straight face say that he was conducting the affairs of the community?
Some bonus points for you to bang your head against. After June 2011, on multiple occasions Abdulqadir Bs (DW3) has deposed that the likes of Aziz Qutbuddin and others from Khuzaima's family used to regularly seek raza from Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. In fact on one occasion, Khuzaima wanted to lead Maghrib Isha prayers at Raudat Tahera and Aziz had called up Abdulqadir BS. At that time, Abdulqadir BS was on his way to Saify Mahal and said he will seek raza when he reaches the hazrat aaliyah of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA. He couldn't make it in maghrib time to Saify Mahal and Khuzaima DID NOT lead prayers that time. So yeah,even Khuzaima's entire family at that time would tell you with a STRAIGHT FACE that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA was conducting the affairs of the community.

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

Here look at Aziz delivering paigham of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin RA to people of Secunderabad in 1434H after the STROKE of 2011. It's a very emotional video. I suggest you should watch it and may it help you to understand that the Dai of their time is always in the control of the affairs of the community. Capishe? :wink:

james
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:06 am

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

#3489

Unread post by james » Sat Jan 21, 2023 5:22 pm

james wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 12:29 am
dal-chaval-palidu wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 7:06 pm And he was told to keep it confidential until SMB passes away. And so, he did that.
No he didn't. Website registered in November 2013. Walls of text on his website even before the burial of the 52nd Dai RA. I'm not even sure he was claiming that he was told to keep it confidential until " the passing away of the 52nd Dai RA" This seems to be an embellishment of your doing.

Anyways a Single Alif is enough to show the humiliation the plaintiffs are suffering in the court.PW2 (Taher Qutbuddin) tried to discredit the notebook on the flimsy grounds the Shaikh Ibrahim Yamani signed his name without an "Alif" in Yamani. It was shown to PW2 that the Madeh the plaintiffs brought forward written by Shaikh Ibrahim Yamani for Khuzaima was signed with an "Alif". Digging the hole further,PW2 said he believed that Shaikh Abdulhusain Yamani (Son of Shaikh Ibrahim Yamani) signed the madeh. This led to the Judge saying this is a "Colossol OOPS moment" and he told the Defense Counsel that they are really rubbing it in. :mrgreen:
dal-chaval-palidu wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 7:06 pm So there were 3 witnesses (MS brothers), and his sister and brother-in-law were also present, and NOBODY CAME TO THE COURT AS A WITNESS FOR THAT NASS. If they were saying the truth, why would they not come and say so in court?
You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Here's some more information for you, Yesterday the Judge stopped the Defense Counsel for talking about the Handwriting Expert Dw12 with regards to his testimony of handwriting in the notebook. He said along the lines of why waste time when the handwriting has already been deposed and confirmed by 4 witnesses and it wasn't discredited by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs counsel can't debunk one witness then why do you want others to waste their time? :roll:


The hollow claims of the notebook being fabricated were just that. The notebook was examined by the Plaintiffs on multiple occasions and till date they haven't been able to put any holes in it.

The Banu Abbas ask ‘Has Egypt been conquered? Tell Banu Abbas that ‘the matter is long resolved’ :)

Repost as dal-chaval-palidu has returned to the forum after a few days. :cry:

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 762
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#3490

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:13 am

Sir James,

I don't have to bang my head, but I read this article (don't know how accurately the reporter captured it) and below is what it says, for what it is worth. I just wonder if correct, what insight it gives into the judge's thinking? Appears that the judge is not convinced of the conferral of nass.
Attachments
HTarticle.jpg

dal-chaval-palidu
Posts: 762
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#3491

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:17 am

And James,

Why don't you answer that claim that SMS made in court that nass was done on Imam Ismail, then on Musa Kazim, and then it was changed to Imam Ismail's son. Is that correct, and can it be done according to Ismaili doctrine? And is it consistent with what SMB and STS have said?

If so, why did the counsel for SMS mention that it was a sensitive matter and should not be talked about? If it is true as per SMS, why this reluctance to talk about it?

james
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:06 am

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

#3492

Unread post by james » Sun Jan 22, 2023 4:01 am

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:13 am
Sir James,

I don't have to bang my head, but I read this article (don't know how accurately the reporter captured it) and below is what it says, for what it is worth. I just wonder if correct, what insight it gives into the judge's thinking? Appears that the judge is not convinced of the conferral of nass.
Are you reduced to wondering about the judge's thinking based on some words in a news article whose accuracy you can't vouch for? :roll:

The claims made by the plaintiff were "impressions"
noun
plural noun: impressions
1.
an idea, feeling, or opinion about something or someone, especially one formed without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence.
You see without evidence these "impressions" don't amount to much or anything. Inspite of that, the defendant's side disproved the claims of the plaintiff with photographs,videos and direct evidence by witnesses.

As for the words of " issue of conferral of nass was not proved", you will have to take it up with the reporter. IIRC it comes down to the first and foremost step in this trial which is the plaintiff proving the nass on him. If that doesn't happen, all this is inconsequential in the suit.

PS: Don't worry about the Judge's thinking. He has been spot on with his observations. He has heard the words " Mufaddal nass Taj" and after that really laid into Mr Desai that the plaintiff's side is on very slippery slope if they still continue to claim that the 52nd Dai RA was incapable (Nauzobillah) In fact the Judge went to that extent that if this is the line they are continuing with then the 51st Dai RA made a mistake anointing his Mansoos who would be incapable (Nauzobillah)

and you will be happy to know that in the last hearing the Judge even said that the Dai which is infallible is not bound by the shackles of doctrine.The Dai would do anything he pleases to preserve the faith and even mentioned that the Dai can tweak the doctrine if he so wishes but not on the other inflexible parts of it.

Social Awareness
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:41 pm

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

#3493

Unread post by Social Awareness » Sun Jan 22, 2023 9:33 am

allbird wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 7:17 am So, is it safe to assume MS WON the battle ? or TB has last googly ball to throw. Maybe SMB suffered from Dementia after the stroke and didn't remember he did nuss on KQ. However if a Dai is infallible and all knowing, why did he wait 50 years to announce Nass and assign his mansoos in public while he was fit and kicking. Can some knowledgeable answer this question. one thing for sure that STS wanted KQ to be 53th Dai and instructed SMB to do so.

That's it people the game is over, keep paying Wajebat, Qadambosi, Ziyafat, Mashaikh, Hadiyat, Zakat, nazrual makam etc etc to MS on time and we all keep our membership to Dawaat-e-hadiyah and we buying our stairway to heaven.
why game over bro? simply go to TF side, they arent going to stop even if they lose the case. if you just want a community to stay in, TF is better choice.

Social Awareness
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:41 pm

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

#3494

Unread post by Social Awareness » Sun Jan 22, 2023 9:36 am

so basically james is saying, khuzaima was fraud and neech admi, yet burhanuddin kept him mazoon for 50 long years, called him his son and a brother, gave him especial status for too long. if khuzaima is neech does it makes burhanuddin neech too?

james
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:06 am

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

#3495

Unread post by james » Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:17 am

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:17 am And James,

Why don't you answer that claim that SMS made in court that nass was done on Imam Ismail, then on Musa Kazim, and then it was changed to Imam Ismail's son. Is that correct, and can it be done according to Ismaili doctrine? And is it consistent with what SMB and STS have said?

If so, why did the counsel for SMS mention that it was a sensitive matter and should not be talked about? If it is true as per SMS, why this reluctance to talk about it?
Time and time again you fellows on this forum have indulged in Chinese whispers and then it was proved otherwise. You will need to bring concrete evidence of what you are claiming i.e. "claim that SMS made in court that nass was done on Imam Ismail, then on Musa Kazim, and then it was changed to Imam Ismail's son."

The below is cited from the news article.
Referring to the examination of Kinana Mudar Dawoodi, assistant director of Jamia, a Dawoodi Bohra institution in Dubai, Desai cited the appointment of Ismail as the sixth Imam and his son Mohammad as the seventh Imam. Dawoodi had stated that the fifth Imam had appointed Ismail as his successor. However, though Ismail passed away during the lifetime of his father, the Dawoodi Bohra community believed that as he had been pre-ordained to be the next Imam, they accepted him as the sixth Imam.


The counsel for Syedna Saifuddin informed the bench that as the issue of the Imamate of the fifth, sixth and seventh Imams was a sensitive one, they would not be pressing on it.

The bench, on its part, sought to know how a doctrine could be extracted from one instance, and said it expected the parties to refer to documents, evidences and texts to show whether revocation of nass was impossible as a doctrine.

When the bench sought to know from Desai whether Dawoodi had been cross-examined on the inferences he drew with regard to the Imamate of the fifth to seventh Imams, Desai replied in the negative but said that another witness had been cross-examined on the same. However, Justice Patel replied that he was required by law to reject any inferences drawn by one witness, which were corroborated by another witness. “The same witness who has made the inference has to corroborate it,” he said.
Kinana BS was not even cross examined on this issue.

Social Awareness
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:41 pm

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

#3496

Unread post by Social Awareness » Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:20 am

so basically james is saying, khuzaima was fraud and neech admi, yet burhanuddin kept him mazoon for 50 long years, called him his son and a brother, gave him especial status for too long. if khuzaima is neech does it makes burhanuddin neech too?

Social Awareness
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:41 pm

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

#3497

Unread post by Social Awareness » Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:38 am

court case over?

juzer esmail
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:24 am

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

#3498

Unread post by juzer esmail » Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:56 pm

Social Awareness wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:38 am court case over?
The trial shall resume from 30th January, meanwhile

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/m ... 34124.html


Social Awareness
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:41 pm

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

#3500

Unread post by Social Awareness » Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:56 am

juzer esmail wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:56 pm
Social Awareness wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:38 am court case over?
The trial shall resume from 30th January, meanwhile

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/m ... 34124.html
they cant find a pious person in the whole world to inaugurate Islamic centers. always a mass murderer like Modi is invited?

Kaka Akela
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:01 am

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

#3501

Unread post by Kaka Akela » Mon Jan 30, 2023 6:46 pm

Well my friend your moniker is Social Awareness but you are social careless.
Our dawat and dai's policy has always been to support and get along with the party that is in power currently. They don't care whether it is BJP Or Congress, whether it is Democrat or Republican. This is a smart policy to safeguard his flock against tyranny.
As far looking for a pious person, he is the pious of them all. Most of the times the dai already does the iftetah a day or two earlier in private by himself without much fanfare or broadcasting, then he does a public iftetah by inviting political persons. You may not be old enough to know that same procedure was followed for the iftetah of masjid Al Anwar and for Raudat Tahera.
Criticizing a dai's amal is beyond your breadth of wisdom.

Social Awareness
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:41 pm

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

#3502

Unread post by Social Awareness » Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:28 pm

Kaka Akela wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 6:46 pm Well my friend your moniker is Social Awareness but you are social careless.
Our dawat and dai's policy has always been to support and get along with the party that is in power currently. They don't care whether it is BJP Or Congress, whether it is Democrat or Republican. This is a smart policy to safeguard his flock against tyranny.
As far looking for a pious person, he is the pious of them all. Most of the times the dai already does the iftetah a day or two earlier in private by himself without much fanfare or broadcasting, then he does a public iftetah by inviting political persons. You may not be old enough to know that same procedure was followed for the iftetah of masjid Al Anwar and for Raudat Tahera.
Criticizing a dai's amal is beyond your breadth of wisdom.
uncle with all respect,


Inviting a politician is not a problem, but inviting a butcher is a problem even if he is a PM or a President, it is just like inviting shimr or yazeed for an islamic event.

there is no compulsion to invite PM for any event. true dai would know it whom to invite


juzer esmail
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:24 am

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

#3504

Unread post by juzer esmail » Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:59 pm

Social Awareness wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:56 am
juzer esmail wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:56 pm
The trial shall resume from 30th January, meanwhile

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/m ... 34124.html
they cant find a pious person in the whole world to inaugurate Islamic centers. always a mass murderer like Modi is invited?
*सानेहा देखिये, जिसके दौर में मदरसों को सबसे ज़्यादा बदनाम किया गया उसी के हाथ से मदरसे का इफ्तेताह....!!!*

*लगता है हमारी दावत भी अमृतकाल से गुज़र रही है।*
😭😭

Social Awareness
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:41 pm

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

#3505

Unread post by Social Awareness » Tue Jan 31, 2023 6:22 am

Last nass, not first one, is valid: defence counsel

BULLSEYE

so they do agree that first nass was done on mazoon

LOL


Social Awareness
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:41 pm

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

#3507

Unread post by Social Awareness » Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:38 am

yes NASS can be changed according to will because all these dawat property was Burhanuddin baap ki jaagir, he paid money for all the land world wide from his pocket, all the kabrestan and madressa property was built by his money which is earned by doing majdoori with his father taher.

so obviously he can give it to his son according to his will.

Social Awareness
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:41 pm

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

#3508

Unread post by Social Awareness » Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:42 am

they posted ayat of Quran for it, so basically mazoon was so nalla and bekaar that Muffy was better than him and mazoon got replaced for it.

so basically bohras was respecting and bowing to a mazoon who was soo useless for 50 years.


james
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:06 am

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

#3510

Unread post by james » Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:12 am

ajamali wrote: Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:10 pm Take a step back and look at the bigger picture here. Once again MS produced a book by a dushman as evidence - and a book that is so unreliable that they were able to produce two versions of it!! Yet in previous sessions they were reluctant to enter into evidence the bayan of the51st and 52nd dai. At the same time they are not hesitant to invoke the names of said dais when it serves their purpose!
dal-chaval-palidu wrote: Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:56 pm Update from Fatemi Dawat Legal.

http://fatemidawatlegal.com/category/bo ... tory-suit/

.........................

Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb was then shown another extract from the same book (al-Hidaya al-Amiriyya) by Mr. Chagla and asked whether he agrees that the 20th Imam says in that book that circumstances may dictate that an appointment of a successor to the Imam or Dai that is already made by nass, might not be appropriate. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb disagreed with that suggestion and replied that the book does not say that.

Mr. Chagla asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether he had heard of a Hasan bin Ali Khan bin Taj. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb responded that he had, and that this person was a leader of a revolt against the 29th Dai. Mr. Chagla then produced an extract from a book al-Muzayyanah al-Muwashhah fi Sirah Syedna Dawood bin Qutubshah, which Mr. Chagla asked if it was authored by the same Hasan bin Ali Khan bin Taj.

Mr. Chagla showed Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb an English translation of an extract from that book and asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb to verify the correctness of the translation. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb responded that he could not tell without seeing the entire book. Mr. Chagla then showed Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb the original book.

Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb, having seen the book, noted that there is a notation on the last page that says that the book is defective and there was an endorsement to that effect in the original book. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb also pointed out that that the translation is based on an inaccurate transcription done by the Defendant in which an important word has been added that is not in the original text. The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel marked the inaccuracy in blue ball pen in the Court’s copy of the exhibit and then asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether the discrepancy changes the meaning, or results in an obvious and meaningless error. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb said that this additional word which has been added gives a completely different meaning to the text to justify an incorrect translation that suggests that there is an option to change (nass), whereas this is not what the original says. Mr. Chagla asked if he could identify the word that he said had been added or altered, which Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb identified.

The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel has scheduled the further cross-examination of Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb for three days on 3rd, 4th, and 5th July 2018.

-------------------------------------------------------------

If the above stated is accurate, can some legal minds tell us how the court would react to it? Would the court take a serious view of this?

Or, is this a case of a book which only exists with only those 2 sides (MS and STF), and hence in the worst case it becomes a case of "they said, we said"? Or, can they ask for the original and test the addition of the word to alter its meaning?

And if STS said in court a 100 years back that nass cannot be changed, does that not override anything else said about 200-300 years back?
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/m ... 21952.html


In light of what transpired yesterday in Court and the news article that followed it, one can clearly see how the FateliDawat trolls were told incorrect and incomplete proceedings of the Court.

Hasan bin Ali bin Taj has been referred by Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA as "Maula" in his own book. In fact the complete 1930-31 version of 'Al-Muzayyanah’ has the alamat of Syedna Taher Saifuddin RA on it. Moreso,this book was one of the 4 rare manuscripts converted to micro film and gifted to the then Prime Minister of India by the 51st Dai RA. More so, Aziz Qutbuddin has referenced to this kitaab in his thesis. More, PW2 had said that he was taught this kitaab but was told of the inaccuracies in it. Why teach it in the first place if it was inaccurate? :mrgreen: Judge even quipped at one point on the "absurd implication" by PW2. :lol:

I would have asked ajamali to repent on labelling someone a "dushman" when the 51st Dai RA himself has praised Hasan bin Taj as "Maula" but then again once a troll, always a troll!


PS: I wonder where dal-chaval-palidu has run off to. So many of his curiosities are getting answered daily. :roll: