Fundamental questions

[abde sayedna]

Is Sayedna saheb, in his position as Dai-ul-Mutlaq, correct when he says he is the sole trustee of all dawoodi Bohra properties and hence their management and control vests in him alone?

dear mr admin u r missing one word over here that trust
so it should be dawoodi bohra trust properties
as if ur ans to it moula is havind our hearts so properties in nothing n would like to inform u that moula has given us more than taken as per ur belief

[Admin]

Originally posted by abde sayedna:
...but i have inquired with near n dear person from udaipur n told that all the seven masjid r in control of sayedna saheb and only one masjid in being accesed by reformist

Abde sayedna,

Your information is wrong. Please check with a more reliable source. You may also want to consider the simple logic that if Sayedna saheb controlled all the masjids he wouldn't bother with court cases to lay claim on them.

[SBM]

Dear Admin
Plese do not mention Logic and Abde in the same sentence. Just like Udaipurpresident who knew about convention but could not produce proof. just like Gulp who talked about Zarih but couldnot produce proof(atleast he conceeded to his mistake) now is Abde who is a hanchman for Kothar but would not bring the proof. See the Mojiza happening here, he will also disappear like Udaipurpresident

[Danish]

Originally posted by abde sayedna:
so it should be dawoodi bohra trust properties

That's a good point to consider for reformists.

If the mosques acclaimed are indeed in their own names by the individual or a collective party of certain reformists by purchase or transfer, then religion does not have precedence over Real Estate ownership and property rights, HOWEVER AND UNLESS the Dai’s name and/or the Dawoodi Bohra Trust and/or any such names or titles that has any bearings on the actual legal document of acquisition [such as Type of Deed (trust, grant, reconveyance, quitclaim), Ownership Bond, etc.] that becomes part or whole ownerships and/or beneficiaries of that Real Estate. Also, some mosques are government properties given as "gift" and held in their Trust.

I am pretty certain that in Islam, anyone can acquire/lease real estate and have a mosque constructed or purchase readymade whether individually or collectively (in partnership) with their own resources and have an administration set up inclusive of imams, amils and ustaads that are knowledgeable in leading prayers, preaching and schooling. The Real Estate belongs to those very individual(s) and have full proprietary rights in their possession via Type of Deed and the imaam has full privileges over religious matters and can become part of a "non-profit" organization. The donations, charities, fees, government rebates/tax exemptions, mortgages, etc. towards the mosque are handled by the administration and overages (if any) are considered "petty cash" or "reserves". In the case of property being refinanced or sold, the proceedings are the sole legal rights of those dictated by the Deed. Burhanuddin, as a mastermind and leader of a community, does have religious privileges over all mosques and community affairs but does not possess sole proprietary rights as dictated by legal document, regardless of frivolous raza-mandies and gibberish safai-chitties which are NEITHER Islamic and NOR Civil.

[Hussain_KSA]

Dear Admin,

As brother Above Average bohra has mentioned about Quran according to what syedna or no one can be the sole trustee.

In other fatimid litrature like Daim ul Islam, Tohfatul Qulub or Tohfatul Masael also nothing is mentioned about such practise.

Kothar might have cited some kind of Risael to prove their claim. These letters and references of some previous court cases are the basis of their claim.

As brother Danish has mentioned about Dr. Zakir Naik. I did asked him personally about the present situation of Bohra cult during his recent stay in Jeddah, and he told me that "Its all against Islamic teaching". His father Mr. Abdul Karim Naik has opined the same.

[Alislam]

Br.Hussain,

Zakir Naik is no different from Kotharis.Both are equally dangerous.

A person who is supposed to be a scholar of Islamic studies and comparative religion fails to understand the simple 'right and wrong'.

Yezid is "Radi Allah Anh (RA) for him and Hussain(AS) was fighting a political war according to him.

Majority of sunnis even understand the status of Hussain and zakir Naik (saudi/salafi) being a scholar do not want to understand.

[Hussain_KSA]

Brother Alislam,

No one is perfect in this world. Dr. Zakir Naik has regretted on his words already. I think comparing him with kotharis or mushrekeen will not be logical. However every one has his own perception and I respect your vision too.

Brother Danish has mentioned his name so I thought it would be proper to bring his openion in this board.

I aplogies if I hurt feeling of any member of this forum.