Original plaintiff’s claims of concealing belief were belied by his actions
Di’Vitre commenced the sur-rejoinder to the arguments of senior advocate Anand Desai for plaintiff Syedna Taher Fakhruddin by pointing out that though the original plaintiff Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin claimed to be practicing taqiyyah, his acts were contrary to the definition of the word.
Mumbai: Fredun Di’Vitre, counsel for respondent Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, while replying to the plaintiff’s rejoinder that he had adopted taqiyyah (concealing one’s faith and beliefs) about the nass conferred on him, said that the original plaintiff could not take a dual stand in the garb of taqiyyah. Di’Vitre submitted that on the one hand the plaintiff claimed that he did not believe that nass had been conferred on the defendant on June 4 and 20, 2011 but on the other hand, had continued to remain silent about the nass conferred on himself.
Di’Vitre commenced the sur-rejoinder to the arguments of senior advocate Anand Desai for plaintiff Syedna Taher Fakhruddin by pointing out that though the original plaintiff Syedna Khuzaima Qutbuddin claimed to be practicing taqiyyah, his acts were contrary to the definition of the word. Di’Vitre informed Justice Gautam Patel that after seeing the original plaintiff not praying behind the defendant, those close to him had understood that the original plaintiff had not accepted the succession of the defendant. This, Di’Vitre said, was contradictory to the principle of taqiyyah, as the original plaintiff had given indications of his belief.
Di’Vitre further argued that if the original plaintiff was in taqiyyah, he had many opportunities from June 2011 to 2014 to get the 52nd Dai to ensure that his appointment was made known, but he did not do that either. The plaintiff had argued that due to the hostile atmosphere after 2011, the original plaintiff adopted taqiyyah and waited for the 52nd Dai to recover and clarify who was the real appointee.
However, Justice Patel observed that the original plaintiff was true to the oath of secrecy and hid the nass conferred on him even from his own family till 2014. This indicated that he was being true to the instructions of the 52nd Dai.
Di’Vitre then brought up the plaintiff’s claim that the behaviour of persons of higher learning changed after the sermon of December 1965 because they understood that though the original plaintiff was named the mazoon (second-in-command), he was also the mansoos (nominated successor) of the 52nd Dai. This, he submitted, was not valid, as there was no evidence to show that their behaviour changed and actions like doing sajda to him started only after hearing the 1965 sermon.
At this point, Justice Patel said that he would be dealing with the issues, first from the point of doctrinal validity of nass and revocation of nass, then proceed to the four nasses conferred on the defendant and then deal with the issue of whether nass was conferred on the original plaintiff.