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.
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

#3631

Unread post by Social Awareness » Tue Apr 11, 2023 10:06 am

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.
Dear Aunty ji

with imamat or without imamat it doesnt make it shirk, which you stated before

anajmi
Posts: 13507
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

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

#3632

Unread post by anajmi » 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.

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

#3633

Unread post by Social Awareness » Fri Apr 14, 2023 5:58 am

एक दिन में दो अलग-अलग धर्म गुरुओं का बयान सुनिए Madani और Dawoodi bohra प्रमुख ने क्या कहा



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3trVuDfy-M

do read all comments they are really interesting :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

#3634

Unread post by Social Awareness » Fri Apr 14, 2023 6:04 am

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.
right

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

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

#3635

Unread post by allbird » Sat Apr 15, 2023 6:53 am

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.
I am not even going to step into the practice of Shabeena


https://www.arabnews.com/node/295752#:~ ... ngregation.

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

#3636

Unread post by Social Awareness » Tue Apr 18, 2023 4:37 am

when is final verdict coming out

anajmi
Posts: 13507
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

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

#3637

Unread post by anajmi » Tue Apr 18, 2023 1:13 pm

>> 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.
He (ﷺ) did not discourage anyone. He (ﷺ) just didn't want to create the assumption that it is obligatory. People forcing taraweeh on to youngsters is not a bad thing. I force my son to come with me sometimes. Not always though. Extra nafil in the month of ramadan carries the reward of fard. There are many other benefits, but i don't want to get into that. i don't see the point.

Sceptical
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:38 am

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

#3638

Unread post by Sceptical » 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.

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

#3639

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Thu Apr 20, 2023 5:20 pm

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.
This is just my thinking: I would hope that for the sake of the country, the verdict is fair. Imagine if it is clearly unfair to impartial observers, what is the message that the country is sending?

A person with whom PM Modi is on good terms, and that person (MS BS) who is the leader of a 4th order minority (Bohras are a minority amongst Ismails which are a minority amongst Shias which are a minority amongst Muslims which are a minority in India) can get away with an unfair advantage in court. Then what is the chance that a business or anybody will have to get a fair verdict against some powerful and connected India business or other such cases. The long-term harm to India is a lot more in my mind. So, my prayer is that the verdict is impartial and open. But I could be wrong.

Abiklas44+
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed May 19, 2021 8:57 pm

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

#3640

Unread post by Abiklas44+ » Thu Apr 20, 2023 6:57 pm

Summed it up beautifully,sir

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

#3641

Unread post by Social Awareness » Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:20 pm

MS is clearly winning not because the courts are impartial but because KQ team is just running around and could not produce single proof about the Nass


KQ winning should have balanced the lost sense of community but it is too late, he kept silent for too long while the ship was sailed, bohra have dark and hopeless future ahead unless the people wake up and see by them self (which I dont see happening in near future)

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

#3642

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Sat Apr 22, 2023 3:39 am

On a related topic (the relation being a reliability of the HT reporting), I saw this article from HT a little before the inauguration by PM Modi which left me wondering how much the HT reporting on the court case is accurate.

The article link is below:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/m ... 14205.html

The statement of interst from the above article is reproduced below:

> The Print reported that the total Indian Bohra population is estimated to be in the range of about 10-12 lakh with many settled abroad. According to a rough estimate, the Bohras account for 10 per cent of the total Muslim population in India.

-------------- end of the quote from the article --------------------------------

Unless I am missing something, this is off by a factor of 30 or so. The are saying Bohras are 10-12 lakh worldwide (reasonably accurate), and 1 in 10 Indian Muslim is a Bohra (whaaaaaaat).

I mean, Indian Muslims are about 20 crores (200 million), and Indian Bohras are about 6 lacs (0.6 million). How could HT get it so wrong?

So I sometime wonder if other things were mis-stated in HT. In that sense it the above article is cautionary and relevant to this thread.


zinger
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:40 am

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

#3644

Unread post by zinger » Mon Apr 24, 2023 3:51 am

these are just my 2 cents.

from whatever little i have understood so far, i believe sadly, Syedna Qutbuddin/Syedna Fakhruddin will loose the case. the reasons for this are:

1. the side of MS has proven that nass "can" change and it has in the past
2. they have proof of nass being made on MS (how true or fake it is, is another topic for discussion)
3. Syedna Fakhruddin has been unable to furnish any kind of solid proof of nass being done on Syedna Qutbuddin, other than verbal "indications"
4. MS side have doctors who claimed Syenda Burhanuddin was capable to speaking at Cromwell hospital

MS's close ties with Modi should "hopefully" not cloud the judgement.. but cant say for sure

the other thing that "might" happen is that the Judge "might" say that this is a question of religous beliefs and a judgement cannot be passed and it is up to the community to decide who they wish to follow individually, although this does seem improbable...

fact is, most people have made up their minds about who they wish to follow/believe in. Those who are waiting for judgement to be passed before making their minds are nothing but 2-bit fools who have no brains or spine of their own

Sceptical
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:38 am

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

#3645

Unread post by Sceptical » 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?

zinger
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:40 am

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

#3646

Unread post by zinger » Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:24 am

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?
for point 1 - Imams and Dais changing nass
for point 2 - some diary entry and some other such letters or something.. not entirely sure, but i do remember reading it

this thread has all the information, it should be there somewhere

also, this is purely my personal opinion, conjecture at best

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

#3647

Unread post by Social Awareness » Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:13 pm

If NASS is done it cannot be changed I am very sure about it because if it is change it means raza naa saheb has made a blunder which is not possible if its Devinely inspired

Sceptical
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:38 am

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

#3648

Unread post by Sceptical » 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?

zinger
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:40 am

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

#3649

Unread post by zinger » 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
Posts: 762
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:46 am

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

#3650

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Sat Apr 29, 2023 1:29 am

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
This attachment that I attached in the link above was given to me by bhai "mustafazr". I want to acknowledge him for the same. thanks.

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

#3651

Unread post by dal-chaval-palidu » Sat Apr 29, 2023 2:31 am

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
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?
Attachments
Mumbai_High_cour_order_17-19oct2022.pdf
(172.01 KiB) Downloaded 119 times

zinger
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:40 am

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

#3652

Unread post by zinger » Tue May 02, 2023 9:03 am

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?

you have raised many valid points; none of which i have answers to. but like i said time and again, this post of mine is purely my personal opinion

Moiz_Dhaanu
Posts: 408
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:57 pm

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

#3653

Unread post by Moiz_Dhaanu » Fri May 05, 2023 7:08 am

Relaunch of Fatemi Dawat Legal Website with Updated Content

We are pleased to announce the relaunch of the Fatemi Dawat Legal website with updated content including an archive of news coverage of Final Arguments from November 2022 through April 2023, a visual timeline showing milestones of the Suit, and a short summary of selected issues. Visit the website at https://fatemidawatlegal.com/

*Update* details: On 5th April 2023 the final arguments in the historic Dawoodi Bohra Succession Suit concluded in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court before the Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel. The final arguments lasted 46 days and more than 150 hours of arguments were heard by the Hon’ble Justice Patel. The Judgement in the Suit is awaited and the Hon’ble Justice Patel will be passing Judgement in due course.

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

#3654

Unread post by Social Awareness » Sat May 06, 2023 8:37 am

meanwhile mussy is in MP collecting money in the name of masjid iftetah poor villages and towns are collecting money in crores and giving him while those towns are filled with poor Bohras who are not well educated or have big businesses mostly survive barely

Fatema Yamani
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2022 3:59 pm

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

#3655

Unread post by Fatema Yamani » Wed May 10, 2023 12:22 am

Dr moiz had joined fatemi dawat?

That's a news for me

Fatemi dawat organizing his sayyum

He died 2 days back

Fatema Yamani
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2022 3:59 pm

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

#3656

Unread post by Fatema Yamani » Wed May 10, 2023 12:24 am

Dr Moiz was very close to smb in his last years. He must be knowing many things going on.

Looks like his family is with FD

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

#3657

Unread post by Kaka Akela » Wed May 10, 2023 5:45 am

No sorry, his wife is daughter of SMB and his son is the son in law of SMS. And he and all his family is with SMS.

Fatema Yamani
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2022 3:59 pm

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

#3658

Unread post by Fatema Yamani » Wed May 10, 2023 8:01 am

Then why FD organising his sayyum and sipara and says jaman is from dr moiz family.
Attachments
Screenshot_20230510_094727.jpg

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

#3659

Unread post by Kaka Akela » Wed May 10, 2023 8:29 am

Let me explain: there are 2 Dr Moiz with different last names. You had not mentioned the last name initially. I was speaking of Dr Moiz b s Nooruddin.
This is Dr Moiz b s Mohiuddin, who is nawasa of STS, and was close to him , but not close to SMB and not an insider to SMB. This Moiz b s son is married to KQ's daughter Dr Tahera who is a professor at Harvard or Univ of Chicago.

Fatema Yamani
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2022 3:59 pm

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

#3660

Unread post by Fatema Yamani » Thu May 11, 2023 5:00 am

ohhh okay got it thanx