https://www.dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/
In your PM you do not address my question but you called me "Baby" and said you had expected a harder question. Well Adam Baby, why don't you answer this simple question first before you tackle the hard stuff.
Firstly, I am a woman. So call someone else "he."Adam wrote:@Crate Lake
In your PM you do not address my question but you called me "Baby" and said you had expected a harder question. Well Adam Baby, why don't you answer this simple question first before you tackle the hard stuff.
For the record, I already replied to Crater Lake in detail, and hasn't countered the answers. Seems he can't "handle the truth".
Firstly, I am a woman. So call someone else "he."
Secondly, I cannot read an email in it's entirety that starts by discrediting an audio that everyone on this site has heard
This audio matches exactly with the video
Adam wrote:@Crater Lake
Firstly, I am a woman. So call someone else "he."
Sorry. I thought you were an Old Dude.
Is that why you called me baby?! You must call all old dude "baby" you perv.
I did not discredit the Audio. Infact discussed it in the PM I sent you. (If you have the courage to read it).Secondly, I cannot read an email in it's entirety that starts by discrediting an audio that everyone on this site has heard
You did discredit it. You said it cannot believed because it is from a munafiq site.
I did ask you for the reference of the Audio. No reply.
I received it in an email in July 2011
The Quran teaches me "If a faasiq comes to you with news, then authenticate it first".
The video posted on the 53 reasons site is the same video posted on the FD site (probably edited by the Qutbis to make it more muffled).
I already told you. The Audio's are in CLIPS.This audio matches exactly with the video
How can they match "exactly".
Can you please send me your version of "matching? No reply.
I watched the video on the MS sponsored site with the audio clips I had received. I found the places where the audioclips began and then amped up the audio in the video. They matched to the T. The audio of the video sent to the masjids was extremely muffled. The clips that were emailed were more clear. Attaching them here. They came to me from someone who is on MS's side - as evident from file names.
In the Nass nu taj audio, Aqa Burhanuddin takes Syedna Taher Saifuddin's name several times but we never hear Moiz Bhaisaheb say it.
In the Maru naam audio Burhanuddin aqa stops after reading "Muffadal Bhai par nas nu taj". He then says "Su naam che? Naam su che? Mohammaed nam che?" This matches the point in the video at 26:50.
In the Nas + Mouala...+ Ijabat audio, he says Shk. Mohammed ne <something> banaya che rutba ma charaya che!!!! Listen from 0:45!! Then around 1:30 Burhanuddin Moula repeatedly tries to recite Ya Sayyedas Shohadai BUT Moiz bhaisaheb interprets it as "Be ilhamillah wa be ilhame waliye hame tamne aa sharaf aapiye che." Which is a blatant lie.
Do you need any more references Adam? The Maru naam Mohammed che audio matches the video from the point that you guys keep pointing out 26:50. You can hear "Shk Mohammed ne <something> banaya che, rutba ma charaya che" at 13:51 in the video after which Aqa Moula can be heard reciting Sayyedas Shohadai...
Here is the link to the MS sponsored video. The audio is extremely muffled vs what's in the audio clips. But you can still hear it if you have good speakers and your volume is on high. It matches with the audio clips I posted.
http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/?s=nass+video
Adam sorry. You cannot escape the truth. It has been captured in audio and video on the sites you are promoting.
[/color]
You are right! The strategy muffy used was for decades: he has been getting every qasre aali bs to become an aamil. And you know what happens to those who don't listen to muffy. We are talking about way back before his "nass" in London. So now that he has all these bs under his control - financially - do you think any of them are going to leave their cushy seats to go and work like normal people in the real world?! They've sold their souls to Satan - literally!ghulam muhammed wrote:If they can bribe politicians day in and day out and give Modi Rs.100 crore for elections then imagine how much MS must have PAID these so called "Royals" to change sides. Its as simple as that and doesn't require rocket science to understand that its all about money............ faith, belief, righteousness, integrity, honesty etc. my foot !!!
You forgot to add one more important thing that not only does he make them Amils but also ensures that they get all the "Plum" postings in cash rich countries and cities, have you ever seen these so called royals in places like khargone, beed, betul etc etc.haqniwaat wrote:The strategy muffy used was for decades: he has been getting every qasre aali bs to become an aamil.
Alam Bhai,alam wrote:The non QasreAali and non-MufaddalBs hard core followers who are AAMILSAHEBS and High post positions are being fired left and right, but the intelligent (street savvy) among them have quickly figured out where the moola is. Don't forget, even QJ, Shehzada Abbas Bs, shabbirbhaisaheb And many others have been stripped of important posts in Dawat since SMB stroke. That is a constant reminder of the capriciousness of this regime.
People at the top positions in a corrupt system just cannot think and function out of the box, especially when complicated with secretive haqiqat sabak tasawwoor, fear, and threat of being ostracized.
This zahir-baatin thing with TaizoonBs is just a tip of the iceberg of the deeper problems in an ideology that has become corrupt with greed, self-righteousness, pride and jealousy, the four evils of basic human nature.
You did discredit it. You said it cannot believed because it is from a munafiq site.
I received it in an email in July 2011
You keep harping about two broken phrases that Moula was said that DO NOT constitute a nass
So that makes you a Munafiq too as you are posting on this site. Thanks for confirming that.Adam wrote: Yes. I did say it was posted on a Munafiq site. (You agree this is a Munafiq site right? - they HATE 51st and 52nd Dai)
Your whole argument revolves around ONLY one premise that the Dai cannot make a mistake and that he is MASOOM (Infallible). Now please prove from Daimul Islam that the Dai is Masoom because according to many members on this forum no such thing appears in the Daimul Islam.Adam wrote:I'm guessing that person is hinting that Syedna RA made a "mistake" and realized it after he said those words and stopped.
1. His Tasawwur of the Dai - making a mistake is flawed.
Adam wrote:@ Crater Lake
You did discredit it. You said it cannot believed because it is from a munafiq site.
Yes. I did say it was posted on a Munafiq site. (You agree this is a Munafiq site right? - they HATE 51st and 52nd Dai)
I also said that the Quran says that "if a faasiq brings news to new, verify it".
This site, for me (and hopefully you) is a "faasiq". Hence, I choose to verify the contents.
Secondly, YOU, according to my doctrines, have turned against the Dai Mutlaq, hence your "news" needs to be validated as well.
I received it in an email in July 2011
That really doesn't mean anything. I asked you for a reference / source.
Or else, I could say "I received an Email" from KQ saying he's done a Private Nass on me, and no one is supposed to know. And supposedly a private Nass is valid according to doctrine.
Here's what else I wrote to you. Since you wanted this to be public.
You keep harping about two broken phrases that Moula was said that DO NOT constitute a nass
Please tell me, if the Azeem us Shaan Dai of the Imam, is sitting in a crowd, with ONLY 1 person standing in front of him , saying the above 3 mentioned quotes, naming him "mufaddal", using the words "Nass" and "Taaj" and "Rutba", and then this Saheb doing Shukr, and another Shehzada doing Shukr, and the Mukasir doing Talaqqi and the Dai giving Raza, and placing his hand on his back etc etc etc etc (if KQ was also infornt of him, you could still debate the name "Mufaddal")
Not to forget the following:
1. Multiple witnesses on many occcasions prior to that
2. A Document
3. Another audio
(All the above in line with Fatemi Nass practices)
DOES NOT "constitute a Nass"?
Then tell me what does!
A private Nass without any witnesses or any proof? (which is in violation with Dawat texts).??
Have a look at this website especially this link:
http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/ ... s-website/
Tell me which part of the video do you think Moula was not aware.
Someone else mentioned this on the Forum (i'm not sure if it was you).
They said Syedna RA said "Mufaddal Bhai ne Nass nu Taaj" and then stopped.
I'm guessing that person is hinting that Syedna RA made a "mistake" and realized it after he said those words and stopped.
1. His Tasawwur of the Dai - making a mistake is flawed.
2. IF Syedna made a mistake, named a wrong person, and used the words "Nass" near his name, and that could have had HUGE ramifications (as you can see), then it was Syedna's responsibility to clarify it, by saying "oops/ excuse me, i've already done Nass on someone else / please ignore what I just said ... But he didn't.
3. These thoughts are similar to the Sunni version in the Tafseer of the "Satanic Verses" ayat. Where they claim Rasulullah made a mistake and then back tracked. This is completely against Fatemi beliefs.
4. IF you believe that Syedna made a mistake (or whatever you'd like to call it), OR read a script he was not supposed to read, and then realised where he was going wrong and then stopped. This automatically means:
A) Syedna's aqal was intact and capable of differentiating from right and wrong. (which your site denies)
B) He could read (which your site denies)
C) He could speak (which your site denies)
That means, he also was aware and was in control of his senses and surrounding to put things straight.
Based on the above, if he knew things were going completely wrong and against his wishes, (and was AWARE of it), why play along with whatever happened after that? Why give the hand for Salaam? Why sit through an entire Shukr of Nass Araz without showing the tiniest bit of distaste? Why extend his hand to put a shawl? Why CLEARLY say (heard in your video) "khuda barakat apey" when given Najwa. If these people were outright munafiqs hijacking my dawat, sidelining my Mansoos, and putting the lives of my beloved mumineen at stake he could have either remained quiet, or even done Badd Dua! But he didn't. When Najwa was given (After all that) He said "Khuda barakat apey". He didn't sayربنا اطمس على اموالهم or any such thing. He said "khuda barakat apey". He was aware. And did Dua.
Rasulullah, throughout his sickness, when they called on his "brother" and brought the wrong guy, what did he do?
Did he pat him on the back and say, "thanks for coming, but please call my brother"? Did he give his hand for Salaam? Did he say "khuda barakat apey"?
NO.
He turned away.
That was the easiest thing to do. And Syedna RA could have done the same or similar.
[/size]Adam wrote:Reminder to Crater Lake:
Adam wrote:@ Crater Lake
Yes. I did say it was posted on a Munafiq site. (You agree this is a Munafiq site right? - they HATE 51st and 52nd Dai)
I also said that the Quran says that "if a faasiq brings news to new, verify it".
This site, for me (and hopefully you) is a "faasiq". Hence, I choose to verify the contents.
Secondly, YOU, according to my doctrines, have turned against the Dai Mutlaq, hence your "news" needs to be validated as well.
That really doesn't mean anything. I asked you for a reference / source.
Or else, I could say "I received an Email" from KQ saying he's done a Private Nass on me, and no one is supposed to know. And supposedly a private Nass is valid according to doctrine.
Here's what else I wrote to you. Since you wanted this to be public.
Please tell me, if the Azeem us Shaan Dai of the Imam, is sitting in a crowd, with ONLY 1 person standing in front of him , saying the above 3 mentioned quotes, naming him "mufaddal", using the words "Nass" and "Taaj" and "Rutba", and then this Saheb doing Shukr, and another Shehzada doing Shukr, and the Mukasir doing Talaqqi and the Dai giving Raza, and placing his hand on his back etc etc etc etc (if KQ was also infornt of him, you could still debate the name "Mufaddal")
Not to forget the following:
1. Multiple witnesses on many occcasions prior to that
2. A Document
3. Another audio
(All the above in line with Fatemi Nass practices)
DOES NOT "constitute a Nass"?
Then tell me what does!
A private Nass without any witnesses or any proof? (which is in violation with Dawat texts).??
Have a look at this website especially this link:
http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/ ... s-website/
Tell me which part of the video do you think Moula was not aware.
Someone else mentioned this on the Forum (i'm not sure if it was you).
They said Syedna RA said "Mufaddal Bhai ne Nass nu Taaj" and then stopped.
I'm guessing that person is hinting that Syedna RA made a "mistake" and realized it after he said those words and stopped.
1. His Tasawwur of the Dai - making a mistake is flawed.
2. IF Syedna made a mistake, named a wrong person, and used the words "Nass" near his name, and that could have had HUGE ramifications (as you can see), then it was Syedna's responsibility to clarify it, by saying "oops/ excuse me, i've already done Nass on someone else / please ignore what I just said ... But he didn't.
3. These thoughts are similar to the Sunni version in the Tafseer of the "Satanic Verses" ayat. Where they claim Rasulullah made a mistake and then back tracked. This is completely against Fatemi beliefs.
4. IF you believe that Syedna made a mistake (or whatever you'd like to call it), OR read a script he was not supposed to read, and then realised where he was going wrong and then stopped. This automatically means:
A) Syedna's aqal was intact and capable of differentiating from right and wrong. (which your site denies)
B) He could read (which your site denies)
C) He could speak (which your site denies)
That means, he also was aware and was in control of his senses and surrounding to put things straight.
Based on the above, if he knew things were going completely wrong and against his wishes, (and was AWARE of it), why play along with whatever happened after that? Why give the hand for Salaam? Why sit through an entire Shukr of Nass Araz without showing the tiniest bit of distaste? Why extend his hand to put a shawl? Why CLEARLY say (heard in your video) "khuda barakat apey" when given Najwa. If these people were outright munafiqs hijacking my dawat, sidelining my Mansoos, and putting the lives of my beloved mumineen at stake he could have either remained quiet, or even done Badd Dua! But he didn't. When Najwa was given (After all that) He said "Khuda barakat apey". He didn't sayربنا اطمس على اموالهم or any such thing. He said "khuda barakat apey". He was aware. And did Dua.
Rasulullah, throughout his sickness, when they called on his "brother" and brought the wrong guy, what did he do?
Did he pat him on the back and say, "thanks for coming, but please call my brother"? Did he give his hand for Salaam? Did he say "khuda barakat apey"?
NO.
He turned away.
That was the easiest thing to do. And Syedna RA could have done the same or similar.
i just spoke to her. she would like you to join us (yes, I'm also leaving today evening) to witness the volcanic eruptions in maui. get raza from the haq na dai - KQ - before you come, not from the fraud dawedaar mufatlal. that volcano is known to swallow liars and deceivers.Adam wrote:Still no reply from Crater Lake
I've sent the old lady a PM as well.
In the early days of Islam, Najran was a large centre of people who had changed from idol worship to Christianity. The Holy Prophet (S) had sent letters to the heads of different countries inviting them to Islam. One such letter was addressed to the Christians of Najran. It read as follows:ContentedBohra wrote:What is the meaning of Mubahila?