The recording of evidence of His Holiness Syedna Taher Fakhruddin Saheb TUS, the Plaintiff in Suit 337/2014, which had been originally filed by his predecessor His Holiness the Late Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin Saheb RA (the Original Plaintiff) in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, continued on 20th and 21st June 2018 in Courtroom No. 37 of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, presided over by the Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel.
Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb was asked 94 questions over four sessions of cross-examination by Mr. Iqbal Chagla, Senior Counsel for the defendant Shehzada Mufaddal Saifuddin. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb has so far been asked 857 questions to date.
Mr. Chagla asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether the later appointment of an Imam or a Dai revokes an earlier appointment. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb replied that such a revocation could never happen.
The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether a Dai has the power to recall, rescind or revoke a nass that he has conferred if he feels that there are circumstances that warrant it. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb replied that he does not believe that, once exercised (i.e. once a nass is conferred), the power to select another for appointment continues. The reason, Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb explained, is to be found in Dawat texts and doctrines that the appointment of a successor is the entrustment to one who is entitled; but also to one who the Dai perceives to be like himself and about whom he has received divine guidance. Once, therefore, this is done and all these elements have come into play, there is no question of exercising any authority or power to effect a change. The conferment of a Nass is an exercise of a spiritual or divine authority and not an exercise of a worldly or temporal power.
Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb also noted that the 51st Dai His Holiness the Late Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb RA in testimony given in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court made it clear that a nass cannot be changed once it had been conferred. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb provided the details of the testimony in Court the next day – (High Court Suit No. 941 of 1917 and the Appeal No. 42 of 1921, pages 422-423).
Mr. Chagla asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether it was his suggestion that once a nass is conferred on a Mansoos, there is no possibility of a situation where the Mansoos dies without ever assuming the mantle of the Dai. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb replied saying that was not his suggestion, noting that in his evidence-in-chief and cross-examination he had pointed to certain historical events where the Mansoos passed away during the lifetime of the Prophet or the Dai who had appointed him. The person who passed away achieved that high station in heaven, and another successor was appointed in his place.
The Hon’ble Justice Gautam Patel asked Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb whether his own translation of the Quranic verse 2:106 means that a “Verse/Sign” can be changed (in an earlier question, Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb agreed that the 20th Imam interpreted “Verse/Sign” as signifying the Imam). Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb disagreed, stating that if the passage (containing this interpretation from the 20th Imam’s book al-Hidaya al-Amiriyyah) is read in context, it will be seen that the book presents an argument against revocation of nass of the Imamate. It says that other designations or appointments are different and can be changed, but the Nass of succession cannot be changed or revoked. Syedna Fakhruddin Saheb continued, noting that the book (al-Hidaya al-Amiriyya) says that it is only people of weak or lesser intellect who understood the other appointments to be equivalent to a Nass of succession.
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.
Ali Ebrahim
