Dawoodi Bohra Forum

allbird wrote: ↑Tue Apr 11, 2023 8:13 am Simple answer my little friend, Tarraweh are prayed in Jamma'h while washeq's are prayed individual. More diluted for you... Tarraweeh are prayed like Farz namaz while Washeq's are sunnat namaz.

anajmi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 1:02 pm The Prophet (ﷺ) offered the Taraweeh prayer in his mosque the first night when he was joined by one or two people, and on the following night he was joined by a fair-sized congregation. On the third night, he looked through his door and found the mosque full of people. Therefore, he did not come out. When asked why, he said that he did not wish that this prayer should become obligatory.

People continued to pray it in a disorganized manner. Umar (ra) then organized into what we have today. It is still not an obligatory prayer. It is actually the same as tahajjud or qiyam ul layl, but called taraweeh when offered in Ramadan. Taraweeh means to take a break or rest. As the musalli take a break after every 4 rakat. You can offer it at home, alone, or with your family. In congregation you get more reward.

anajmi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 1:02 pm The Prophet (ﷺ) offered the Taraweeh prayer in his mosque the first night when he was joined by one or two people, and on the following night he was joined by a fair-sized congregation. On the third night, he looked through his door and found the mosque full of people. Therefore, he did not come out. When asked why, he said that he did not wish that this prayer should become obligatory.

>> Thanks, well explained unlike others who have immature replies. However it was called b'adah al Khair by Omar and this happened after the wafat of Rasusllah SAW. During the Hayat of Rasullah SAW there was no tarraweeh prayers and He did everything to discourage other by not showing up. Even today tarraweeh is not obligatory however in real practical terms tarraaweeh is forced on to the youngsters in middle eastern countries and even in local india/pakistan.


People continued to pray it in a disorganized manner. Umar (ra) then organized into what we have today. It is still not an obligatory prayer. It is actually the same as tahajjud or qiyam ul layl, but called taraweeh when offered in Ramadan. Taraweeh means to take a break or rest. As the musalli take a break after every 4 rakat. You can offer it at home, alone, or with your family. In congregation you get more reward.

>> Thanks, well explained unlike others who have immature replies. However it was called b'adah al Khair by Omar and this happened after the wafat of Rasusllah SAW. During the Hayat of Rasullah SAW there was no tarraweeh prayers and He did everything to discourage other by not showing up. Even today tarraweeh is not obligatory however in real practical terms tarraaweeh is forced on to the youngsters in middle eastern countries and even in local india/pakistan.

Sceptical wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 2:01 pm As salam alaykum,

I am coming back to the original topic on succession.

I do not live in India and have limited knowledge of the Indian legal system.

My questions :

- How independent is the Indian justice system? SMS is very close to Modi, so how impartial can we expect?

- The risk for STF is great because if SMS wins, they are definitely lost. For SMS, whatever the outcome of the trial is, nothing will change for him. He will remain Dai for the majority who already follow him blindly.

zinger wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 3:51 am
1. the side of MS has proven that nass "can" change and it has in the past

Sceptical wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 1:35 pm

zinger wrote: ↑Mon Apr 24, 2023 3:51 am
1. the side of MS has proven that nass "can" change and it has in the past

What are their evidences or examples?

Sceptical wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 7:41 am Nass is conferred with "ilham e Allah", so it cannot be revoked. This is my understanding.

This is why we follow Imam Ismail AS instead of Musa Kadhim because we believe that Nass was conferred Upon him, even if he would have died before Imam Jafar AS .

Same exemple of Nass conferred upon Imam Mustaeli AS instead of Nizar according to our beliefs.

Perhaps, it's only valid for Imams, and not Dai Al Mutlaq.
Is there any example of changing Nass during satar na zamaan?

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 2:52 pm I also wanted to add here the October 19th order from the Mumbai High Court. It gives insights into a few of the Questions, and Inshallah when the full set is available, it will be an interesting read.

A couple of observations. In the para 38, I am curious to know when the digital archivist inserted, by mistake, as per his own admission, “kare chhe” or “nass kare chhe”. The relevant para are 37 and 38. Here is what the order mentions: "He explained that there was indeed an error and a portion had inadvertently got transposed or translocated."

Just curious to know what was changed, especially since the whole debate is about where the words "nass kare chhe" where said or not?

And if people want some humour, please read para 32. Mumbai_High_cour_order_17-19oct2022.pdf

zinger wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:21 am

Sceptical wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 7:41 am Nass is conferred with "ilham e Allah", so it cannot be revoked. This is my understanding.

This is why we follow Imam Ismail AS instead of Musa Kadhim because we believe that Nass was conferred Upon him, even if he would have died before Imam Jafar AS .

Same exemple of Nass conferred upon Imam Mustaeli AS instead of Nizar according to our beliefs.

Perhaps, it's only valid for Imams, and not Dai Al Mutlaq.
Is there any example of changing Nass during satar na zamaan?

yes, that is the theological view

but i guess that the stance taken by the MS side is that Nass "can" change and they have proven it too...

and like i said, this is just conjecture on my part; a personal hypothesis

dal-chaval-palidu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 2:31 am

zinger wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:21 am

yes, that is the theological view

but i guess that the stance taken by the MS side is that Nass "can" change and they have proven it too...

and like i said, this is just conjecture on my part; a personal hypothesis

bhai zinger,

You may be right, and I could be wrong, but below are some things that give me pause:

1.) Consider the October 19th order from the Mumbai High Court. It gives insights into a few of the Questions, and Inshallah when the full set is available, it will be an interesting read.

In the para 38, I am curious to know when the digital archivist inserted, by mistake, as per his own admission, “kare chhe” or “nass kare chhe”. The relevant para are 37 and 38. Here is what the order mentions: "He explained that there was indeed an error and a portion had inadvertently got transposed or translocated." Now if the digital archivit (a person from Jamea) admits that "kare che" or "nass kare che" got inadvertently transposed or translocated, well, which bayan was this in? After all, isn't "nass kare che" the most relevant part of a bayan here, and is he kidding that this was done inadvertently? In the worst case, this could be fraud. But we need to get the full flow of this argument, not a small subset of questions. I am attaching the court order for ease of reference.

2.) STF had said in his letter about 7 years back that the medical records show that SMB did not have anything to drink for 48 hours before he was admitted to Cromwell Hospital. If that is correct, the bohra community may ask why did they wait so long? The bohras may not care about SMB's mazoom, but I hope that they care about how SMB got treated. The medical records, hopefully once they are available, could be of interest.

3.) Consider this info from HT, assuming it is accurately conveyed.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/m ... 7-amp.html

Several books are questioned, and that the 52nd and 51st dais had not referred to them.

"The attention of the bench was then drawn to the sermons of defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin during 2013 and 2014, pertaining to the issue of appointing successors during the time of the third, fourth and the fifth Dai. Desai submitted that in 2013, the defendant had maintained the line of his predecessors that the third Dai had intended to appoint the fifth Dai as his immediate successor but had not done so. However, in the 2014 sermon, he had stated that the third Dai appointed the fifth Dai as his immediate successor but later revoked the appointment and appointed his own son instead. This, Desai said, was to prove that revocation was permitted in the faith."

I don't know how the court sees such inconsistent statements? And that MS BS never came to testify and clarify statements.

4.) https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/m ... 4-amp.html

from the above article "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."

What does that mean? We know the Bohra beliefs; clearly, they are saying that they don't agree with it - else what is the sensitive part?

Bohra belief is that Jaffar-us-Sadiq appointed Ismail and Imam Ismail passed away while Imam Jaffar-us-Sadiq was still alive and hence Imam Ismail's son Imam Mohammad bin Ismail was the next Imam. The fact that they say something is sensitive and they don't want to press it means that MS BS believes that is not an accurate account. Now Bohras can think about it, and if SMB and STS said otherwise, well that help clarify who is right and who is not.

Even though the delay has almost been like "justice delayed may be justice denied", I still give credit that due to the court case, we will inshallah get to know these things - which we would have never known otherwise. That is the value of the court case - now people can decide for themselves and follow what they choose.

Also, this is a civil case and not a criminal case. Does that mean the bar is lower compared to a criminal case? Does anybody know? In a criminal case, one needs a "bullet proof" arguments. In a civil case, is it preponderance of argument for one side? Can anyone familiar with the legal system comment?