Syedna Succession Case: Nass is like a will, can be changed, says defence
Justice Gautam Patel was informed that the 20th Imam had relied upon the Quranic verse, “For whatever verse we might abrogate or consign to oblivion, We bring a better one or the like of it” to show that the appointment of the Imam could be changed.
Mumbai: The counsel for defendant Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin on Tuesday continued submissions before the Bombay high court to show that nass, once conferred, could be changed by the Dai as had been done by their Imams as well. The counsel relied on a book written by the 20th Imam, wherein a nass was likened to a will that could be changed till the last moment, and said that just as a final will is acknowledged as the only valid will, similarly the last nass is considered the final nass as per Dawoodi Bohra tradition.
Justice Gautam Patel was informed that the 20th Imam had relied upon the Quranic verse, “For whatever verse we might abrogate or consign to oblivion, We bring a better one or the like of it” to show that the appointment of the Imam could be changed. The court was informed that the word ‘verse’ in the Quranic verse esoterically implied Imam.
Senior advocate Fredun Di’Vitre, while continuing submissions on revocability, change and/or supersession of a previous nass, informed the bench that there had been three instances when Imams had changed the successor designate, and only the last one was considered the true successor and became the Imam.
While elaborating on the third instance, that of the 18th Imam, Di’Vitre cited the book al-Hidaayah al Amiriyyah written by the 20th Imam. He referred to passages where the Imam justified the appointment of multiple successors by the 18th Imam and why Imam Mosta’ali’s succession prevailed over that of his brothers.
Di’Vitre stated that the book clarified that while the brothers were appointed as Wali-e-Muslemeen (Leader of the Muslims), Imam Mosta’ali was appointed as Wali-e-Momineen (Leader of the Believers) and hence became the Imam. The 20th Imam had clarified that the 18th Imam knew that the appointment of his other sons was not to the post of Imam, but yet made the appointments due to political exigencies, added the defence counsel.
The counsel then cited the deposition of the plaintiff and witnesses and their examination, wherein they had agreed that al-Hidayah was an authoritative book but differed on the translation of the word ‘abrogation’ used in the Quranic verse referred to by the 20th Imam. Di’Vitre submitted that the plaintiff had said that the Arabic word used in the verse did not mean ‘abrogation’ but ‘change’ as per their translation.
Di’Vitre further submitted that though the 20th Imam had made a prescriptive and doctrinal statement about nass, Prof Devin Stewart, who was an independent witness, had denied the same, and hence his evidence was not credible in that respect. The court was also told that Prof Stewart had taken a stand that nass was unchangeable.
Di’Vitre referred to an article written by Prof S M Stern, a scholar on oriental religions. Prof Stern, in his article on the al-Hidayah, stated that the main thrust of the 20th Imam in his book was pertaining to the right of an Imam to change his successor designate. In view of this, Di’Vitre submitted that the unchangeable nature of nass was in relation to the Imamate going from father to son, and did not imply that nass, once conferred, could not be changed.