Copyright defendants demand cross-examination of Aga Khan
Aga Khan's offer to meet rejected by defendants.
By Salim Jiwa
VANCOUVER – Two men spurned an offer by the Aga Khan to meet privately in a bid to resolve a copyright lawsuit filed by the Ismaili spiritual leader and are now instead asking to examine him under oath.
Nagib Tajdin, a Kenyan businessman who also resides in Montreal, and Toronto lawyer Alnaz Jiwa, were sued by the Aga Khan for infringing his copyright to pronouncements he authored for delivery to his followers. The two men are principals behind a 1,500-page book they have printed and have sold contrary to the Aga Khan’s wishes.
Tajdin and Jiwa have been clamouring for a five minute meeting with the Aga Khan and have publicly stated they would give up the fight against their spiritual leader if such a meeting were held.
Now, a letter from the Aga Khan’s lawyer, filed in Canadian Federal Court makes it clear that the Aga Khan agreed to meet with the defendants and agreed to waive costs and punitive damages if Jiwa and Tajdin would apologize, submit all unsold copies of the books and acknowledge the Aga Khan’s copyright.
The rejection of that offer is surprising considering the men said in their sworn affidavits that they would immediately stop printing and distributing books if they got the five minute meeting.
An email from Tajdin even challenges Toronto Lawyer Brian Gray and claims that he does not actually represent the Aga Khan and that he has had no direct contact with the Ismaili spiritual leader and global philanthropist.
Gray has stated categorically that he had a one-on-one meeting with the Aga Khan to discuss aspects of the lawsuit and the offer to meet the defendants was conveyed on the basis of specific instructions from the Aga Khan.
The two men have been in denial that they have been sued by the Aga Khan – and produced forensic reports that purport the lawsuit was filed by an impostor. They also deny that a sworn affidavit signed by the Aga Khan in front of a famous American lawyer and a notary in Boston is faked.
The offer by the Aga Khan to meet the two individuals in the context of spiritual leader and follower was conveyed to the defendants in an email dated May 24 – prior to the Aga Khan’s visit to Canada to open several projects.
“I can tell you that I have spoken to His Highness personally and alone, with no one from the Ismaili Secretariat participating and he made it very clear to me that he wanted the distribution of these books stopped and he considered this a very serious matter for the Imamat,” wrote Gray to Tajdin and to Jiwa.
Gray also said that the Aga Khan told him he has not given his consent to Tajdin to publish his works. The portion of the offer made by the Aga Khan to resolve the matter through a meeting is produced below in image form. The offer was made by Gray in the same letter in which he told the defendants they were badly mistaken in their belief that the lawsuit was not filed by the Aga Khan. Instead of accepting the offer to meet the Aga Khan in exchange for giving up the book, the defendants opted to challenge Gray to produce their spiritual leader for cross-examination under oath.
However, Gray added that the Aga Khan would not meet with the defendants unless they agreed to the settlement offered above.
In June, Gray received an email from the defendants asking that he confirm the availability of the Aga Khan for cross examination.
“If you cannot confirm the Aga Khan’s availability for cross-examinations immediately, we will assume, rightly, that he is not the real plaintiff..” wrote Tajdin.
The two defendants say they would like to cross-examine the Aga Khan under oath either in Toronto or Paris.
In a further bid to demonstrate his copyright to his works entitled “Farmans” and the fact that no one has been given the right to publish his works, the Aga Khan has produced an official Canadian certificate registering those rights.
- .
In other news relating to the lawsuit of the Aga Khan against Jiwa and Tajdin:
* Lawyer Brian Gray has returned a cheque submitted by Tajdin/Jiwa in the amount of $20,000 for the proposed cross-examination of the Aga Khan. He has told the defendants he has advised his client not to appear and in any case, cross-examination may not be necessary considering a motion for summary judgment is before the courts.
* In an affidavit, Alnaz Jiwa has complained he is being treated as “Satan” by members of the Ismaili community because of the litigation. He has complained of threats and humiliation.
* Jiwa continues his insistence that the whole process was begun by Dr. Sachedina and that he is the real plaintiff. Jiwa has insisted on a cross-examination of the Aga Khan in Toronto or Paris but as mentioned above, Gray has turned down that request calling it premature.
* The Aga Khan’s lawyer has asked for a ruling by the federal court to separate the two defendants during cross-examination. Gray has asked that Jiwa should not be present during the examination of Tajdin nor should Tajdin be present during the examination of Jiwa.
Additional document uploaded today is the affidavit of Alnaz Jiwa in which he complains of being labeled as Satan and seeking the cross-examination of the Aga Khan under oath.Alnaz_Affidavit_Exhibits_letters
Affidavit of Nagib Tajdin containing offer by the Aga Khan and a demand that his lawyer allow the cross-examination of the Aga Khan..Nagib_Affidavit_Exhibits_letters
Aga Khan files certificate of copyright to a production entitled “Farmans”Aga Khan_Certificate_of_Registration_Copyright
Related articles:
- Lawyer: Aga Khan will prove he authorized copyright lawsuit
- Two accused of violating Aga Khan’s copyright remain defiant
- Building bridges: Aga Khan to initiate new Canadian museum
- Aga Khan ‘pained’ by clash of ignorance, praises Obama approach
Posted by News Editor
on Jul 31 2010. Filed under Canada, EDITOR'S CHOICE.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. Bloglaw! This reply is in reference to your post dated August 05, 2010 – 04:49 PM. Addressed to the News Editor and me. A simple question to you, if I want to launch a complaint against you on bad behavior in Jamatkhana, will I get an audience with Mowlana Hazar Imam? Why are the Defendants bent on having an audience with Mowlana Hazar to squeal on Mowla’s appointed Ismaili Institutional member? When there is no reason for this call! As far as I am concern, this is no longer an unprecedented set of circumstances. The opportunity was given to the Defendants like I have said earlier, the Defendants shamelessly moved away. The defendants still have an open opportunity to salvage Imam-Murid relationship. The onus is on them!!! I think you should read the written directions received from the Court: The Honorable Madam Justice Heneghan dated 04-AUG-2010 directing that “I will first address the Defendants’ request for a special sitting of their stay motions. This request is denied. The mere submission of a letter pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (the “Rules”) ………. With my good prayers, Allah Hafez! Nizar Ali K. Shivji
And don’t forget the penalties she said she would impose for not completing the examinations by deadline!
Thank you & Mr Editor. This case, situation and set of circumstances are unprecedented. There is no comparable precedent in our history. So we cannot compare it to a complaint as you suggest.
Their request for a meeting is not to squeal as you put it against the top leader/s. There is enough of squealing in court documentation and in posts. They need guidance direct from the Imam because and they have good reasons as you know. I will not go into them as they have been aired in earleir posts.
Essentially they are trying to use the court process opportunity to meet their Imam for 5 to 10 minutes and they are prepared to do this at any time and place Imam chooses. If granted, In those 5 to 10 minutes they I assume will seek forgiveness, ask Imam for Guidance they need. They may speak for 3-5 minutes and Imam 5-7 mins. The letters exhibited from the defendants are also mindfull of protecting the Imam and saving cost, time and in the interest of expediency.
I am not surpised by the courts decision on their motion nor would I draw any conclusions from it. Franky that was not unexpected. expected. Yam.
Bloglaw, there are no reasons at all to meet Imam. If they want to meet Imam then they should have accepted the offer. They never had the intention to stop the publication.
Read this,
“…and I hope that within 72 hours of your receiving this message, you confirm to me directly, exceptionally, that you understand both the gravity of this matter which already had an unfortunate precedent about which you were cautioned, and that it can be closed immediately and definatively.”
And on 26th January, 2010, Nagib wrote to Michelle Parkes,
” ….His Highness has asked me in His letter to confirm some matters directly to Him.
……please would you be kind enough to convey to Him that I can take the first flight for Europe.
……Also convey to Him that I have immediately started implementing upon recieving the letter but I need clarification on couple of points.”
Look how Nagib has used the word “confirm”. Also read “immediately started implementing upon recieving the letter”. Implementing what?
They have twisted the words same way you are twisting. Same style and method and create unrelevant issues to confuse every body.
Imam-e-Zaman has communicated in four different ways to ask defendents to stop. [ 2 letters,stmt of claim and Boston Affirmation] ….yet they continue to defy Imam’s wishes…..
IF I WERE the defendents ….I would immediately reply to Mr Brian Grays offer to settle. I would accept ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS without any changes or arguements whatsoever AND ask that a meeting is NOT necessary. I would leave it at that and start implementing the settlement.. i . e . recall books , sign undertaking not to ever publish and infringe copyrights in future etc .
I would have faith in Imams wishes and follow Imams Farmans to me , directly and indirectly thru court documents . NOW ALL THAT would require Faith & Iman in Mowla and being able to accept that HE knows all.
I would ask for taubah , and IF Imam wished to meet me , that would be Imams sole decision.
Defendents and supporters:
: Would the above work ? I suggest you wouldnt lose anymore than you already have and infact would save you from worse consequences .Its ok to be misguided , although your intentions may have good when you started all this in 1992 . Its ok to right the wrongs of your methods and actions. Allah is most Merciful.
So, brothers , whats stopping you from doing the right thing for yourselves , the Jamats and the Imam-e-Zaman ?
What are you proving ? what will you gain ? What is your purpose in being defiant ? ITS NOT TOO LATE yet .Its never too late to do the right thing. A Murid-Murshid relationship is based on Farman Bardari. I dont need to remind you of that .
With prayers for Mowla to guide us all on Sirat-ul-mustaqueem ,.
Allahu Alim = Allah knows best
Salaam = Peace .
Zak: Ya Ali Madad
The Defendants are obsessed with one thing on mind and that is vengeance. Settling scores against Imam’s appointed leadership is what they yearn for, their desire to continue to publish the Farmans and most importantly defy our Beloved Imam.
They are swimming in a “Sea of Vengeance”, nothing you or I or the rest of the Jamaat will express or say is going to change their minds.
They are riding in a train that is running only on one track and going in one direction only. I have given up on them.
@nazneen
i am glad i am not on the “DEFIANCE of Imam-e-Zaman Express to nowhere but Hell”
Allahu Alim
Ya-Ali-Madat, Naznen! The obsession is kind of fixation that clouds the mind of person, which in turn if is not healthy than it can consume the person concerned. The vengeance is described in many words but I read in one the books on religion which say very clearly, “VENGEANCE IS NOT OURS BUT ALLAH’S.” He is all knowing, and those who wish to settle on negativity, it is their prerogative but the end result is they are suffocating themselves.
The reality will always elude them. They have lost the essence of being rational and a balance life! Allah Hafez, Nizar Ali K. Shivji!
Docket Update – Defendant’s told to get on with previously scheduled cross examinations and a cost sanctions warning if they’re use delay tactics.
Partial Extract Quoted:
Written directions received from the Court: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan dated 04-AUG-2010 directing that “I will first address the Defendants’ request for a special sitting of their stay motions. This request is denied.
……
The current request by the Defendants to seek a stay of the cross examinations which are scheduled, by agreement, to take place between August 9th and August 26th, appears to be an attempt to derail the orderly progression in the perfection of the motion records in support of the two motions for summary judgment. The Defendants have failed to show, in their motions for a stay of cross examinations, why such stay should be granted. Furthermore, the Defendants have failed to show that there is urgency in the matter of hearing their motion for a stay. Third, neither party has shown that there is urgency in the hearing of their respective motions for summary judgment.
……
In the result, the Defendants’ request for a special sitting to hear their motions for a stay of the cross examinations that are scheduled to be undertaken between August 9th and August 26th, is denied
……
I note that any delay in the conduct of the scheduled cross examinations, on the part of any of the parties, may lead to costs sanctions.” placed on file on 04-AUG-2010 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)
End Quote.
Thanks for update. Stay tuned.
Another strike against the defendant…. Madam Justice also agrees with Plaintiff’s motion re: “special management”.
Quote…. In my opinion, it is appropriate that this matter be specially managed but in the absence of a perfected motion record in that regard, I cannot deal with the Plaintiff’s request….Unquote.
Motion will be perfected once the defendants file response to plaintiff’s motion.
Will Defendant’s now have the wisdom to re-visit Gray’s offer?
To The Defendants:
Based on latest and accepting your claims (Jul 30th filing) of undue hardship the litigation has caused you, and your eagerness to abide by His Highness’s direct instructions, consider the following to attain closure?
Personal audience with His Highness wherein He hands you His affirmation (Boston dated ) and tells you that “He personally executed the document”.
At which point you (the defendants) agree to execute the following and counter-signed by His Highness.
Defendants acknowledge:
1. Aga Khan has copyrights in his works (Farmans, Talikas etc)
2. our actions have constituted infringement of that copyright
3. to delivery up of the remaining books to IIS by (date) and,
4. agree to an injunction from further copyright or distribution of Aga Khan’s works.
In return, His Highness agrees to:
1. withdraw the lawsuit and waive damages and legal fees.
Above would take one minute. It would accomplish what you’ve expressed as your desire and bring the lawsuit to closure.
In accordance with Imam-Murid protocol, one would expect that you would not say anything else, unless the Imam initiates a conversation.
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. Panjebhai! I think, I have unmasked you but that is not relevant at this time. But if our paths do cross, please forgive me if I end up with a big smile and bust into laughter! I think the resolution is in offing in this court case. The defendants should have read by now the latest ruling by the presiding Judge. The Judge has decisively identified the areas where ambiguity created the indistinctness. It is a slap on the wrist of the Defendants.
The way I have presumed this scenario; the presiding Judge is somehow telling the defendants, there is wrong doing on their part which has to be corrected. I think the Defendants will rethink their stance with utmost sincerity and could soften their demands with Mr. Gray. The locked doors are reopened for them. If they miss out this opportunity, then I do not know what to say other than God help them!
In conclusion, ABU ALI (May his soul rest in eternal peace, Ameen!) whom I revered LIKE my father told to me in his last days: “NEVER NEGOTIATE WITH MOWLA, HE IS ALL KNOWING, NOT MATTER WHAT YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE, BEG FOR HIS INFINITE RAHEM AND YOU WILL BE BLESSED IN MANY, MANY FOLDS!! Allah Hafez, Nizar Ali K. Shivji!
Ameen.
@ Nizarbhai
Defiance got them where we are today . Continued difiance is NOT the way out of this . Allahu Alim . Allah knows best and guide us all . Ameen .
@Panjebhai
The above would work to resolve this matter for the best of Defendents , Jamats and Imam-e-Zaman. Allah guide us All . Allahu Alim .
Written directions received from the Court:
1. Request of the Defendants for a request for special sitting for their “Stay” Motion is denied.
2. The current request by the Defendants to also seek a stay of the cross examinations which are scheduled, by agreement, to take place between August 9th and August 26th, is also denied as it appears to be an attempt to derail the orderly progression in the perfection of the motion records in support of the two motions.
3. Judge Heneghan notes that any delay in the conduct of the scheduled cross examinations, on the part of any of the parties, may lead to costs sanctions.
Alnaz and Nagib; Cross examinations will be on schedule and if you try to cause any further delays there will be cost sanctions. So, we are waiting to find out what will be your next Maneuver.
FROM COURT DOCKET 4aug2010:
_____________________________
Written directions received from the Court:
The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan dated 04-AUG-2010 directing that “I will first address the Defendants’ request for a special sitting of their stay motions. This request is denied. The mere submission of a letter pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (the “Rules”) does not mean that a state of urgency exists. During the teleconference held on July 2, 2010, Counsel for the Plaintiff and the two Defendants agreed that cross examinations in connection with the motions for summary judgment would be conducted between August 9th and August 26th. On that date, the parties were offered a date in October for the hearing of the motions for summary judgment and Counsel for the Plaintiff was unavailable. In any event, the parties were not ready to have a hearing date scheduled since cross examinations had not been conducted and their motion records were not perfected. The current request by the Defendants to seek a stay of the cross examinations which are scheduled, by agreement, to take place between August 9th and August 26th, appears to be an attempt to
>>> derail the orderly progression in the perfection of the motion records in support of the two motions for summary judgment.
The Defendants have
>>> failed to show, in their motions for a stay of cross examinations, why such stay should be granted.
Furthermore, the Defendants have
>>>failed to show that there is urgency in the matter of hearing their motion for a stay.
Third, neither party has shown that there is urgency in the hearing of their respective motions for summary judgment. I note that Counsel for the Plaintiff is seeking, by way of notice of motion in writing filed on July 22, 2010, an Order that this action be specially managed. The notice of motion in that regard is not yet perfected, insofar as the Index of Recorded Entries shows that the Defendants have not yet filed responding motion records to this motion filed on behalf of the Plaintiff. In my opinion, it is appropriate that this matter be specially managed but in the absence of a perfected motion record in that regard, I cannot deal with the Plaintiff’s request. I
n the result, the Defendants’ request for a special sitting to hear their motions for a stay of the cross examinations that are scheduled to be undertaken between August 9th and August 26th
,>>> is denied. The Defendants can bring their motions in this regard before a general sittings of the Court. The various other matters addressed in the correspondence referred to above can be dealt with by the Case Management Judge, following disposition of the Plaintiff’s motion to have this action designated as a specially managed proceeding pursuant to the Rules. I note that any delay in the conduct of the scheduled cross examinations, on the part of any of the parties, may lead to costs sanctions.” placed on file on 04-AUG-2010 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)
- 2010-08-03 Ottawa Letter from Plaintiff dated 03-AUG-2010 (1st letter rec’d August 3, 2010) re: availability to schedule the Motion for a special sitting. received on 03-
The defendents motion to stay / stop the cross exams WAS DENIED by Court
I guess case will proceed as previously scheduled ..
LINK TO COURT DOCKET :
====================
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-514-10
Doc Date Filed Office Recorded Entry Summary
- 2010-08-04 Ottawa Written directions received from the Court: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan dated 04-AUG-2010 directing that “I will first address the Defendants’ request for a special sitting of their stay motions. This request is denied. The mere submission of a letter pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (the “Rules”) does not mean that a state of urgency exists. During the teleconference held on July 2, 2010, Counsel for the Plaintiff and the two Defendants agreed that cross examinations in connection with the motions for summary judgment would be conducted between August 9th and August 26th. On that date, the parties were offered a date in October for the hearing of the motions for summary judgment and Counsel for the Plaintiff was unavailable. In any event, the parties were not ready to have a hearing date scheduled since cross examinations had not been conducted and their motion records were not perfected. The current request by the Defendants to seek a stay of the cross examinations which are scheduled, by agreement, to take place between August 9th and August 26th, appears to be an attempt to derail the orderly progression in the perfection of the motion records in support of the two motions for summary judgment. The Defendants have failed to show, in their motions for a stay of cross examinations, why such stay should be granted. Furthermore, the Defendants have failed to show that there is urgency in the matter of hearing their motion for a stay. Third, neither party has shown that there is urgency in the hearing of their respective motions for summary judgment. I note that Counsel for the Plaintiff is seeking, by way of notice of motion in writing filed on July 22, 2010, an Order that this action be specially managed. The notice of motion in that regard is not yet perfected, insofar as the Index of Recorded Entries shows that the Defendants have not yet filed responding motion records to this motion filed on behalf of the Plaintiff. In my opinion, it is appropriate that this matter be specially managed but in the absence of a perfected motion record in that regard, I cannot deal with the Plaintiff’s request. In the result, the Defendants’ request for a special sitting to hear their motions for a stay of the cross examinations that are scheduled to be undertaken between August 9th and August 26th, is denied. The Defendants can bring their motions in this regard before a general sittings of the Court. The various other matters addressed in the correspondence referred to above can be dealt with by the Case Management Judge, following disposition of the Plaintiff’s motion to have this action designated as a specially managed proceeding pursuant to the Rules. I note that any delay in the conduct of the scheduled cross examinations, on the part of any of the parties, may lead to costs sanctions.” placed on file on 04-AUG-2010 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)
- 2010-08-03 Ottawa Letter from Plaintiff dated 03-AUG-2010 (1st letter rec’d August 3, 2010) re: availability to schedule the Motion for a special sitting. received on 03-AUG-2010
- 2010-08-03 Ottawa Letter from Defendant dated 03-AUG-2010 in response to the letter by counsel for the plaintiff, dated Aug. 3, 2010, re: special sitting and discoveries. received on 03-AUG-2010
Dear Brothers/Commenters
Ya Ali Madad,
I believe that as true murids of Mowla, we will come out winners if we spent all our time on reciting salwat rather than commenting on what the topic so hurting to every true Ismaili. Let Mowla do his things in his own ways, and we do help Him with reciting more and more salwat.Please do this and see the results for yourself. Thank you and Ya Ali Madad always as usual.
Ameen
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. Bloglaw! This reply is in reference to your post dated August 05, 2010 – 04:49 PM. Addressed to the News Editor and me.
A simple question to you, if I want to launch a complaint against you on bad behavior in Jamatkhana, will I get an audience with Mowlana Hazar Imam? Why are the Defendants so bent on having an audience with Mowlana Hazar Imam to squeal on Mowla’s appointed Ismaili Institutional member? When there is no reason for this call!
As far as I am concern, this is no longer an unprecedented set of circumstances. The opportunity was given to the Defendants like I have said earlier, the Defendants shamelessly moved away.
The defendants still have an open opportunity to salvage Imam-Murid relationship. The onus is on them!!! I hope and pray also that Mowla in His infinite grace and mercy, grant the Defendants the audience they are seeking
I think you should read the direction received from written directions received from the Court: The Honorable Madam Justice Heneghan dated 04-AUG-2010 directing that “I will first address the Defendants’ request for a special sitting of their stay motions. This request is denied. The mere submission of a letter pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (the “Rules”) ………. With my good prayers, Allah Hafez! Nizar Ali K. Shivji
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. Habib Ali! I will not dispute in your saying. We all are hurting! This court case is physically bringing the division which we do not wish to happen! However, religiously we are reciting the Salwat and praying to Mowla for His Grace and Mercy. With my good prayers, Allah Hafez! Nizar Ali K. Shivji
Mr. Shivji. In my career spanning more than 30 years in Canadian and U.S. journalism, many have attempted to denounce us for the work we do. But as professional journalists we have thick skins. I’ve lived through terrorist threats and threats to the lives of my children but never wavered from doing honest journalism. Everything we have written is verifiable journalism. But thank you for your vote of confidence and very best regards to you.
====================
Editor, were you bold and insightful enough to question 911 as a deception right in the beginning ? And what about the Anthrax mails which followed on the heels of 911 ?
Ya-Ali-Madat, Murad! Your thoughts are constructive and practical. Any website which is launched with owners not identified gives eerie feeling to the readers. I, personally enjoy cruising on websites which are identified and authenticated. The reason being, it will not produce any news based on their thoughts and bias opinions but on collective basis and authenticated. However, I will not dwell more on this subject. It is closed.
Coming to the thread of the topic, I will agree with you that in Canada grey marketing of goods is legal. As far as the Farman book is concerned the publisher has announced the authorship but the Defendants have put claims on Hazar Imams’ work.
Therefore, I beg to differ with you on the basis, the Defendants do not have the copy rights. The sole proprietor is Hazar Imam. If they had bought the copy rights on these Farmans then they would have been home free. Apparently, the Defendants have tried to dodge the legal system. They have failed to recognize the fact that Hazar Imam is their Spiritual Leader. They were able to gather all these information because they were Ismaili Muslim.
Honestly speaking, they have abused and shattered this relationship by stealing Hazar Imam’s Farman which is illegal and in accordance with the law the Defendants are legally accountable for their ill-deeds.
This is the add on this post. If the publishing of Farmans were not meant to gain monetary gain, then what was ulterior motive to publish the Farman Book? Is it to gain recognition, legitimatize their websites in Ismaili Muslim Community as only voice on Ismailism? Or was it to glorify them? Vanity thy name is Defendants! !
By the way, I have placed my thoughts and opinions on any website that have accepted my post, and I am grateful to them. Mr. Murad, I am open for any criticism on this post. I will accept it with due courtesy and respect! Allah Hafez, Nizar Ali!
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. News Editor! It appears there is possibility now that this litigation could soon be over. But the aftermath would be disastrous. It can only be perceived how much Mowla’s Murids are lenient and charitable! Mowlana Hazar Imam is all forgiving, when one turns to Him in repentance and contrition. I am sure, He will grant His mercy.
MHI has also ordained the Ismaili Muslim Constitution with stipulations to safe guard the interests of His Murids. He has taken into consideration that none of His Murids are victimized under any pretext. But there is no provision to protect the Murid who fails to recognize Mowlana Hazar Imam’s authority. Here the spirituality will move away, if one is not able to comprehend the right and the wrong.
Spirituality can guide a Murid to understand the rightful significant of life. The Ismaili Muslim Constitution is ordained with a purpose so that no violation occurs. MHI is all knowing but He will not forsake for what He has worked so hard in His entire life to instill in us the realism. Understandably, the life is fragile but it still has to be maintained with practicality and pragmatism!
The Defendants now feel that the victory will not elude them. As yet the Court of Law has not pronounced the verdict in their favour. The Defendants appear to feel, the balance of power has tilted in their favour. It is improbable if the judge would overlook this infringement. I would be very surprised if the judge would accept the spiritual connotation in this particular court case! The meeting with Mowlana Hazar Imam could happen but it is too soon to predict that now.
Finally the ex-communication theory is already thought by many Ismaili Muslims. Here I will hesitate a little, if MHI wanted to ex-communicate the Defendants, He would have done so. Therefore, why we should supersede Mowla’s decision? But as I understand the hearing on ex-communication can be instigated but it is Mowla’s decision that will determine the Defendants’ affiliation! I think there is still hope for the Defendants to salvage Imam-Murid relationship! But the onus on them! With my good prayers, Allah Hafez! Nizar Ali K. Shivji
Do you know what happens if one is charged with contempt of court? He goes to jail, so now, Nagib is threatening to put our Imam in jail if He did not appear for the cross examination. what would you do to a “murid” like him?
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. Mum! The Defendants have moved away from their Spiritual Life. They have shifted their focus on materialism. They are gloating with the understanding that the verdict could be pronounced in their favour. I do not know the Defendants. It now that I am able to know them by their names. Mr. Nagib Tajdin, Mr. Alnaz Jiwa and the Company have stoop to the level of a ruthless lawyer who wants to win the court case at all cost.
Mowlana Hazar Imam is all knowing, very charitable, bountiful, and tolerant. Mowlana Hazar Imam is all forgiving, when one turns to Him in repentance and contrition. I am sure, He will grant His mercy. I am praying and hoping that Mr. Nagib Tajdin and Mr. Alnaz Jiwa rethink their position, and salvage Imam-Murid Relationship. With my good prayers, ALLAH HAFEZ! Nizar Ali K. Shivji
Imam has given explicit guidance that we must all abide by the laws of the countires in which we live and work. Why would Imam choose not to apear in any court IF there was a court order for Imam to do so. Imam and his leadership are more than exemplary. MHI not only knows the law but has the best legal advice and representation available and accessible.The defendants have submitted requests and a motion to save costs, time and for expediancy.I dont see any implied threats by the defendants to the Imam. On the contrary I see seva, love and devotion. Their issue is with the top leader in question and some other leaders hiterto not identified.
Bloglaw. You departed from reality a long time ago and never found your way back did you.
At this stage let us agree to disagree for now. Let us agree that if at a later date if I am wrong I will apologise and seek forgiveness, and if you are you will do the same.
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. Bloglaw! I am taking this opportunity to thank you personally for your contribution and not your credential! You have chosen the adversary role; therefore, some of us became the challenger. You have your beliefs and we have our beliefs. But in the interim none of us had any chance to take a few steps backward to understand, we are all human beings and Hazar Imam’s Murids. As a result, I will speak on my behalf that I will not wait for a later date to apologize to you; I will take this step forward with humbleness and absolute humility to beg for your forgiveness, and I sincerely hope you will accept it. By the way, welcome back! Allah Hafez, Nizar Ali K. Shivji!
Mr Shivji;
I sincerely did not take offence and therefore no apologies are necessary. However I do appreciate your candour and sentiments expressed.
I understand also because this case is more complex & very emotive than meets the eye and has more multi dimensional aspects and consequential foundational ramifications, than many may not fully appreciate today
Thank you for the welcome
YAM
Editor: Bloglaw is lost in a network of winding passageways and is desperately trying to reach some sort of goals.
Bloglaw. No one questions the fact that if the Aga Khan is ordered to appear, he would. Did the Imam say anything about also following the laws of multiple nations as far as copyright is concerned? But perhaps you don’t recall if copyright was specifically mentioned when the Aga Khan instructed his community members to be good citizens of countries they live in and to follow the laws of those countries as good citizen should?
And Editor I also recall gudance to leaders and murids, on cooperation, unity, conciliation, tolerence, feedback, critique following farmans,etc etc. Why is it so difficult for you are a journalist to look at both sides of the coin so to speak objectively and unemotionally.
We are cold as ice. Initially we gave them equal time. Then we took a deep look at your friends and concluded there was only one side to this story. Perfectly normal in journalism.
With respect I have not seen the facts and evidence you have from which you have concluded that there is only one side in this case. In my experience taking only one side in not normal and responsible journalism. Did our ethos and ethics have any role in reaching your reporting or conclusion
Don’t lecture about journalism. Journalism is about facts. Reaching a conclusion. When we see enough evidence, we reach a conclusion and we have. The Aga Khan is right, your friends are terribly wrong on the facts. No journalistic ethic says that we should not draw a conclusion based on facts. The facts are plain. There is nothing in journalism that precludes a reporter from attacking a viewpoint or challenging an untruth – and we’re doing exactly that. There is nothing in journalism that we’ve not experienced or dealt with. Investigative journalists in particular will expose scams, untruths etc – and we have done that a multitude of times in the past and won awards for that.
OK so the issue is how do reporters get stories. They get stories because they have connections with sources or community members. How this story came about was through an email that was circulating within the Ismaili community. The email was verified through federal court records and a story was written about that. There is no conspiracy or anything to hide about how this story was broken by Vancouverite. It is often the case that we break stories on communities that are culturally close to us – for example – the Sikh community or the general Indo-Canadian community. Now, the email was not directed at us – but circulating generally. When that email was forwarded, we checked the court records and as soon as we had the facts we scooped it. The second story was done on the basis of approval received by Mr. Gray from the Aga Khan to release the affirmation. Again, that matter is not a state secret and it was stated in the story. Hopefully that clears up some of the confusion in your mind. Make no mistake about the fact that as long as this story is in the public eye, it will be followed. Secondly, we and others routinely peruse federal, provincial court records and would have run into this sooner or later. We are sure that you do not object to public interest journalism and do not object to reporters covering court cases? Anything that is before the courts is in the public domain and the public has a right to know. That is pretty standard. Also, the Aga Khan runs media interests. We’re sure he took into consideration that there would be media interest in this story once a case is filed. We don’t know what you object to though. Do you object to publication of a court story? We routinely fight any attempt to suffocate the press in any way.
>>>On the contrary I see seva, love and devotion. Their issue is with the top leader in question and some other leaders hiterto not identified.<<<
1] I DONT see any seva love and devotion in the defendents actions, on the contrary , I see the exact opposite…DEFIANCE beyond belief !!!
…
2] What exactly is the issue with the top leaders ? I dont see how infringing on our Imams copyrights solves any ‘issue’ there may be with leaders ..Surely defying the Imam-e-Zaman’s directs letters and affirmation regarding this copyright infringement is NOT the way to solve whatever “issues” these defendants may have , neither is it seva , love , devotion NOR is it Firman Bardari …
Allahu Alim = Allah knows best
Zak: Bingo!
Bloglaw; Why should the Imam chose to appear in any court when the Defendants have chosen to ignore the fact that the Imam is the real Plaintiff. Why should the court chose to order the Imam to appear in court if the court is satisfied that He is the real Plaintiff? Finally, why would the Imam chose not to appear in court if he is summoned by the court? Now that the Defendants requests for “stay” of all proceedings and cross examinations have been denied they will not get what they are looking for – saving costs, time and expediency – I am humoured by the words “saving time” and “expediency” as in Judge Heneghan’s interpretation the Defendants’ Motions apears to be an attempt to derail the orderly progression in the perfection of the motion records. Judge Heneghan has also zeroed in on possible other motives and has warned that any delay in the conduct of the scheduled cross examinations, on the part of any of the parties, may lead to costs sanctions.
You have missed the point or plot on this one Soulmate. With respect. The judge has denied a special sitting that is all which is understandable and not unexpected. The stay requested was pending a special sitting which is normal again to save costs and time and expediancy.
Bloglaw! Read me post again and again and again and then tell me who has missed the point. As usual you have gone off on a tangent. And please note that the judge did not only deny a special sitting but also gave a ruling also denying requests by the Defendants to seek a stay of the cross examinations. Furthermore, if you say that if the judges decision is understandable and not unexpected, please explain why the defendants, in the first place, even bothered to request a stay? In the process the defendants only ended up humiliating themselves. The truth is that when the defendants made their request they expected the decision to go in their favour. So, now for you to claim that the decision is understandable and expected is just your clear attempt to save face. No?
YAM, BLOGLAW! Shame, on you to question Hazar Imam!!! If you feel you do not to want to abide by the laws of the land, nobody is forcing you to do so. As the countries Charter says: you are a free citizen but you have to bear the penalty of your ill-deed.
I am not an attorney and am not able to substantiate the under mentioned. This litigation is one of the court cases on infringement. It gives special consideration to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Court has accepted the Plaintiff’s submission. The court is not obliged to force the plaintiff’s attendance, until and unless a subpoena is issued by the court. ……
Regardless of whether the Plaintiff shows up or not; this infringement case could not merit a default judgment because the Defendants pleadings are flawed. The Defendants are pleading this court case on religious ground, libel, vilification, and defamation, and the list goes on and on …. Allah Hafez, Nizar Ali K. Shivji!
I am not and neither are the defendants saying they want to question ? Hazar Imam as you put it. They say they will be seeking direct guidance and forgiveness directly from the Imam. I beleive that is what they will do. Remember I dont know them personally not have ever met them.
You have misinterpretaed my comment to that extent at least.
I appreciate you say you are not an attorney and the motions and summary judgement are a part of the court processes. Many battles so to speak before a settlement in 90 % of the cases or a final judgment.
They have publicly, through an affidavit, sought to question the Aga Khan under oath. The optics are nasty for the defendants since they turned down an offer to meet with him already under different circumstances. We can all read Bloglaw.
If the Imam were called or agreed, it is entirely up to the defendants what they ask and whether it is limited to 5 or 10 minutes. Questioning under oath is standard in court, and can be by way of affrmation or on the Quran.You have missed the point.
You say they turned down another offer to meet. When and what are the different circumstances you are refering to?
The offer is in the affidavit of Tajdin. It is contained in the email from Brian Gray. Why did they turn that down? There was a lot of room for negotiation in what was being demanded of Tajdin. That should have been pursued further. Tajdin needs to settle down a little and do some thinking.
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. News Editor! Well said! I do not have to articulate more in this matter. Allah Hafez, Nizar Ali K. Shivji
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. Bloglaw! Am I right in assuming that the Defendants are gradually moving away from their stance? If the Defendants’ sole purpose in seeking the audience is to beg Mowla’s forgiveness then I hope and pray that Mowla in His infinite mercy, grant the Defendants the audience they are seeking.
I can neither read the minds of the defendants nor I can predict the outcome of this court case but it appears, it will come to resolution before the verdict is pronounced! Allah Hafez, Nizar Ali K. Shivji!
I hope and pray you are right that the lawsuit will be over very soon. But I do not understand the reaosn and basis you come to the conclusion that the defendants feel that victory will not eluide them ? And you also say that it is improbable that the judge would accept the spiritual conotation ? YAM
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. Bloglaw! If my memory serves me right, the under mentioned appears to have been taken from my post. Since you have addressed your post to Mr. News Editor, I will respectfully allow him to speak for himself. Mowla-Ali-Madat, Nizar Ali K. Shivji.
• I hope and pray you are right that the lawsuit will be over very soon. But I do not understand the reason and basis you come to the conclusion that the defendants feel that victory will not elude them? And you also say that it is improbable that the judge would accept the spiritual connotation? YAM.
Because they are fighting for the Imam Mr. Shivji
so if Imam wins they win too!
Without Prejudice
This is for information purposes only.
The defandant lawyer has in the past successfully won a trademark case whereby he successfully expunged trademarks registered by a company.
Details can be read at the site below:-
http://reports.fja.gc.ca/eng/1998/1998fc22682.html/1998fc22682.html.html
The appeal can be read at the site below:-
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/1999/a-349-98_18891/a-349-98.html
My point is that the defandants might be thinking diferently about the registration of the copyright of the farmans by the Plaintiff in June 2010. It is likely they might challenge that too.
Further I believe that by getting a offer of meeting the Plaintiff in person in May , the defandant are probably more motivated than before that the meeting will take place soon. They might also have come to the wrong conclusion that the offer of the meeting might be made by the leaders. who they do not trust and may think that if they agree to withdraw and agree to the terms and conditions beforehand, then the leaders might have a change of heart and cancel any future meetings.
I hope that the Plaintiff lawyers argue that if in deed a examination is required it should be not in the present of the defandants and they must appoint independants lawyers. The fact that the defandants have agreed to selling the books and have agreed that the author is in fact the Plaintiff, the judge may agree that a examination of the Plaintiff may not be required and may order a leaders to an examination. A private video teleconference between the judge and Imam may help too. It will be interesting to see what happens next week. It looks like the case may end soon.
Murad. The problem with these defendants is that they have shifted the playing field every time. First they wanted confirmation. When they got it from Boston, they said it was a fake. Then they asked for a meeting, when the Aga Khan offered them a conditional meeting, they rejected that and now want to question him under oath. So how can these two individual be trusted to carry through with their promises? They are absurdly paranoid. And they are not forward looking. They are destroying their kinship with the community. What will they say to the community when they are finally face to face and come to grips with the reality of who is really telling them to stop? Will they stop? Will they say sorry to the community and the Aga Khan? How will they explain all the rubbish on their website? Isn’t it far better for them to handle this quietly rather than with all this noise? Burning bridges everywhere is not a good idea. They need to be cautious because at some point reality will hit them in the face and they should map out their retreat.
However, both these defendants are naive. They could have installed a subject in their agreement that it would be binding on them on the condition that the Aga Khan confirms he is the plaintiff and that he wants them to stop. It was a starting point for a negotiated meeting point.
Editor, Precisely; logical thinking person would have taken that approach and Gray was probably expecting it. Another example was putting a fake label on the affirmation and crying that Gray would not give them contact info., which he was not reqd to do. Lay folks were able to track parties through internet in 2 secs.
I hope you are correct that they are naive and make amends.
However, looking at their education/professional background, and totality of their actions thus far, one may more likely suspect that they have an agenda that is being pursued.
Clearly shifting the goal every time speaks to an agenda.
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. News Editor! I agree with you, in my assumption the defendants have already burnt the bridge and to retreat is impossible.
They the (Defendants) have missed very many good opportunities some of them have been offered to them on a silver platter. Had they been consistent and realistic in this court case, they could have come out winners!
Today, I am not looking into the outcome of this court case but the overall scenario. Apparently, they (Defendants) have not analyzed and evaluated how strong their support is.
Are the minority Ismaili Muslim who has though not participated in this matter, in reality accepting their action? Categorically, NO!!
Agreed, there are many Ismaili Muslim who felt that Mowla’s Institution were very hasty in their recommendation to MHI to initiate the court Action. But these Ismaili Muslims, who have assumed this, have not taken into consideration the history of this issue, particularly, the ruptured relationship the Defendants had with the Imam and His Institutions.
The Defendants were impressionably wrong in their belief that the imam’s Institution was out to get them. So far I have seen or heard nothing to believe this insinuation. The Ismaili Muslims’ Institution has been very lenient and compassionate. Their concern was to resolve this issue within but it did not happen the way they had anticipated.
Today, the Defendants have realized (my assumption) to turn back now would be disastrous, they have suffered a total loss of integrity, and truth is gradually claiming its place. Now it will be a wait and hear scenario on what happens next! ALLAH HAFEZ, Nizar Ali K. Shivji!
Agreed and if you see earleir letters they have asked.
Why did not Mr Gray do so when he knew what the key issue is ? He says he has had direct instructions. If so I am sure Imam would have agreed. Maybe he misunderstood his instructions ! Please (If you have not) also read my comment in Heritage on the offer.
Mr Gray may be emminent and according to you the best in the business. In Mr Gray’s seriously wanting to settle this case as Imam will have directed he is lacking to say the least, if he is getting instructions from the Imam directly as he says he did (When?).
He could have settled this case when the affirmation was done. Read my posts at that time. Where is the professional courtesey and coorperation ? For example he claims Alnaz (A Lawyer) was not avilable in 30 July. Alnaz says he was. No evidence produced to say Alnaz was NOT etc etc.
See my emarlier post when I concluded I was not impresed with the lawyers and those leaders who have the day to day conduct of this case.
We can’t speak for the Aga Khan but it is our understanding that no one one wants to prolong this if it can be amicably settled quickly. The terms were laid out for a meeting. Your friends turned that offer down. Perhaps it is time to bring in a trusted third party that Alnaz and Nagib can deal with. All transactions between the two parties would then go through the trusted person. Perhaps that would remove the suspicion Alnaz and Nagib are plagued by, although we see no reason for any suspicion that people are not dealing with them in good faith. The appointment of a case manager may help resolve the issue. But it is time to get on with it, time to forget about the book and do what is right. Let the supreme Ismaili authority decide when and how or if Farmans will be published. Secondly, Brian Gray is serving his client to the best of his ability. Gray’s only concern is the best interest of the Aga Khan. And as his lawyer, that is what he is doing – protecting the legal interests of the Aga Khan.
Murad: This is not a trademark case; it is a copy right case. Two totally different situations with totally different issues. Pray, enlighten us as to the similarities between the two cases and how the decision of that trademark case will affect the decision of this copyright case. Are you implying that if the Defendant has won that one case, he will win all the other cases that he takes on? Secondly, if they were not motivated when they first got the offer of a meeting in person in May, why would they be motivated now, in August? What could have changed between now and then? Perhaps, they have now realized that they cannot possible win this case?
Soulmate: I know that this is a copyright case and the other was a Trademark case. However in Canada grey marketing of goods is legal. In simple terms a company can go to any supermarket and buy a product and resell it for a profit. Unless a company claims the product to be different , then it is illegal. eg I can go to a supermarket and buy a case of pop on special and resell it at a higher price.
In this case the defandants are not eg claiming to be the author of the speeches and farmans. They are simply collecting all the farmans and selling them. I am not a lawyer so I cannot go further on to discuss this form the legal point. I just said they maybe they might be thinking of using similar tactics. i do know know. I just happen to come across the trademark case and I did mention that this is for information purposes only and to give you some background of one of the defandants. I believe “the defiance article” did the same thing as to give some history of one of the defandant. Maybe someone will read all the material on line and get some use of it all.
I do not imply anything about what will happen in this case. I believe it will be resolved before a judgement. I would personally prefer a judgement and I have said that from day one. .
Soulmate: In litagation, in my opinion, settlements may take at different stages of a case. Sometimes it happens even before a lawsuit if filed and sometimes it is settled on the night before the actual trial takes place. The settlements offers can be made by either parties. The reasons for the offer to settle can be for a number of different reasons. eg financial, family , health, friends, time constraints, etc, etc. Sometimes this reasons are easy to recognise and sometimes it is difficult. The success of a settlement takes place when both parties interprete the offer correctly.
Now in this case , a offer is made. Have the defandants interpreted the offer correctly? Have the Palintiff interpreted the decline of the offer correctly? Have the community interpreted the offer and decline correctly?
Murad; For your information, settlement can take place even half way through the trial after the Plaintiff has rested his case. Generally, if the Plaintiff presents a bullet proof case and if the Defendants realize at that stage that they have no chance of winning, they may be tempted to make an offer to settle. At that stage, however, the Plaintiff generally asks for a lot more by way of settlement than would have been acceptable during the early stages of the lawsuit. In other words, what was acceptable in May might not be acceptable now. And what is acceptable now might not be acceptable a few months from now. For example, if the motions for summary judgment are ruled upon, there will be no room for further settlement because then the court will have rendered the decision. Then the matter will be settled by a court order. Therefore, if the Defendants want to settle, they should do so before the Motions for summary judgment are heard. Besides, I really cannot comprehend the other points you have made. You started talking about Alnaz winning a trademark case. I asked you to show how anything in that trademark case is similar to this copyright case. Instead of responding to that question you introduced another subject about buying a case of pop at a lower price and selling at a higher price. I am sorry, I don’t understand the relevance of buying and selling pop to the copyright lawsuit. You have also made another statement that “the success of a settlement takes place when both parties interprete the offer correctly… Have the defandants interpreted the offer correctly? Have the Palintiff interpreted the decline of the offer correctly? Have the community interpreted the offer and decline correctly?” Man, I am totally lost. Perhaps because of my old age, my brains no longer function propery so someone please help me to understand what Murad is saying.
Murad The defendants are not challenging the registration of copyright in Jun 2010 in accordance with the latest documents filed. The defendants have never questioned that the author is the Imam.
Now Bloglaw, if that is the case – acknowledge the author and don’t have permission to reprint – you lost argument. Copyright is automatic in Canada. The certificate is simply a reinforcement of the right of the Aga Khan. And it demonstrates that he has not assigned it in any way.
Mr Editor, You have missed my point I think. The defendants are claiming that the plaintiff (Author) is not the plaintiff/Author. Defendants are not claiming an assignment but consent. In most countires and in international law copyright is automatic. The registration filed after the lawsuit seems tactical. In each instance of any infringement in the future will require evidence of authorship and infringement as all farmans are not specifically disclosed under this registration and if so or not can anyone request a copy of all Farmans covered by that registration. For example you as a reporter in canada? I wonder the consequenaces by the legal team and the leaders were fully consedered and why was this registartion necessary at this stage. Maybe legally advised by Mr Gray and the legal team, for this lawsuit or for the future.
Bloglaw: You keep on and on with it…..defendants are saying the Imam is not the plaintiff, blah, blah.,.
We hear you. But let’s for a moment leave them aside.
I asked you before and got a course in business management.
I am therefore going to ask you again.
Do YOU think the Agakhan is not the plaintiff?
Please, don’t torture me with some irrelevant response.
My head is still hurting from your last spin.
Just a simple answer please.
And, in YOUR opinion, what will carry more weight in the court of law:
Forensics’ reports or the affirmation?
I couldn’t fully understand the message in the above post due to some typos and funky grammar and/or punctuations…anyways, I think, even if author is not the plaintiff…publishing and distributing anyone’s words without his or her explicit authorization is immoral and illegal under the common sense and copyrights laws in Europe, Canada, U.S. and other countries…
Late last year, When I heard about this so called book of Farmans of HH the Aga Khan, which by the way could probably win the award of being the most heaviest book in the world, I was shocked and surprised of such a book out there published by someone other than an authorized Ismailia institution…back then this lawsuit was not even filed yet.
So far, defendants have merely their own misinterpretation of some event happened couple of decades ago…which does not have any chance to stand leave alone defend them legally in any court of law…the absurdity of defendants must have caused a lot of nuisance to His Highness and His staff. I hope the Crown would not let them go even if HH the Aga Khan does forgive and drop the charges upon the settlement of the matter with His wishes fulfilled.
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. News Editor! NOW TOTHE TOPIC OF THE THREAD. I have no new thoughts and opinion to elaborate confidently. As the truth is gradually emerging regarding the Defendants and their intention, it appears, they are confused and they are trying to humble members of Mowla’s Institutions.
They had or can have the opportunity to have audience with MHI. But is this path open to them to enjoy Imam-Murid privilege now? Under what new conditions the defendants could be granted to have the audience with MHI? Will it be Imam-Murid privilege or under the alleged reason? Will this audience happen with MHI?
This disobedience on the part of the Defendants does not show any sincerity now to confirm their earlier statement glorifying MHI. It appears now; they have abused their privilege for failing to recognize MHI. They have executed their propaganda like professionals.
I have said earlier that there is no exemption or any kind of immunity if the defendants fail to convince the Court of Laws. Their loyalty and faith appears to have taken a second place. Obviously, the avariciousness and greediness has been placed in front position.
They still have the opportunity to move away from their claims to salvage Imam-Murid relationship. Mowlana Hazar Imam is all knowing and all forgiving, when one turns to Him in repentance and contrition. I am sure, He will grant His mercy.
In concluding, once again you have seized the HEAD LINES. Keep it up!
With my good prayers, ALLAH HAFEZ! Nizar Ali K. Shivji.
There are three powerful questions the Defendants can ask themselves:
1. In regards to the present conditions, are they willing to let go of their display of defiance, arrogance and snootiness?
2. In regards to the present conditions, are they willing to accept the fact the Imam is the real Plaintiff?
3.In regards to the present conditions, are they willing to let go of things that they are needlessly gripping to including resentments and grudges against Imam’s appointed leadership?.
Imam is merciful and forgiving. Take one step towards Him and He will move hundred steps towards you.
The Defendants are wasting time pursuing worthless agenda. The Defendants should stop running around futile activities, concentrate on working out the poison in their system, show humility, repent for their sins and stop pursuing worthless agendas.
And Inshallah! An audience with the Imam would be granted to them.
Managing all the above emotions would allow them the freedom to move towards greater happiness and joy.
As Soulmate has put forth his arguments and that is “These Defendants are beyond any help.” And I totally agree with him.
The Defendants are consumed with hatred and are revengeful and have no problems on who they will step on (including our Imam) to pursue their agendas.
@ Nazneen
i agree 100%
Ya-Ali-Madat, Nazneen! Well spoken, and well examined the emotional venom! Keep up with these excellent thoughts! I hope and pray also that Mowla in His infinite grace and mercy, grant the Defendants the audience which they seeking, and cleanse them of their wrong doing! Ameen! Allah Hafez, Nizar Ali K. Shivji!
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. News Editor! Well said! We should not gag on anyone who wishes to speak out. I believe in openness but we should not abuse the code of behavior and mannerism. I know, some us wishes to express fluently in English but suffer a blockade because the English is not our mother tongue. Despite this handicap, we accept the challenge to be in forefront like a vanguard. And I think, we should continue to do so without any fear but at the same we should remember that a phonetic sound and the spelling of a word do not go hand in hand. It is not standardized! Humorously, the word should not be used phonetically when written ……… LOL! With my sincere greetings, ALLAH HAFEZ! By the way, please convey my very best regards to Mr. Karim. Nizar Ali K. Shivji.
All we can offer is you is a smile
But I am glad you spoke out because it is completely fair to stand up and be counted when there is such an outrageous attack on our beliefs and those who we hold dear.
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. News Editor!
NOW I AM DUMBFOUNDED! I AM LITERALLY SPEECHLESS!
I will accept your good wishes; a smile is a therapy which makes it easy for us to communicate face to face. In fact, I am very happy today! May be it is the Lumberman sub I had with my coffee.
I will roar like a lion if any outrageous attack is made on our beliefs and those who we hold dear comes to any condemnation and denunciation. With my good wishes, ALLAH HAFEZ! Nizar Ali K. Shivji
You’re a good man friend and a philosopher too. Thanks. You feel good because you shouted out your feelings from the rooftops.
Well done Editor.
Nizar Ali K. Shivji, I just finished posting a response and saw this.
With a big happy smile on my face, I salute you and say: your simba roar is music to my ears. Praise be to God.
Please note that Nagib Tajdin has issued his Notice of Motion stating that he will make a Motion on August 6, 2006 at 9:30 AM, at the Federal Court.
The Motion is for:
1. An order staying the parties cross-examinations and other proceedings scheduled pursuant to the Direction issued by Justice Heneghan dated July 6, 2010.
2. An order for the Attendance of the named Plaintiff [Mawlana Hazar Imam] for an oral examination in Paris, France, within 21 days of the order.
3. An order requiring the named Plaintiff [Mawlana Hazar Imam] to serve his Affidavit of Documents within 15 days after the date fixed for the oral examinations if he [Mawlana Hazar Imam] does not attend the oral examination.
4. In the alternative, an order ordering the Plaintiff [Mawlana Hazar Imam] to attend to be examined for oral examinations for discovery in Paris, France, and to serve his affidavit of Documents within 21 days of the order
Correction: Nagib will bring his Motion on August 6, 2010. (2006 should read 2010).
Soulmate: Thanks for the update.
Pathetic. Unbelievable.
Please note that the Defendant Nagib has threatened Mawlana Hazar in his Direction to Attend of July 18, 2010 “if you fail to attend or remain until end of this examination, you may be compelled to attend at your own expense and you be found in contempt of court”. Can you imagine a murid who claims to have given oath of allegiance to the Imam threatening Him with contempt of court?????
Repugnant
Tauba …Taubah
Ya-Ali-Madat Mr. News Editor! July 31, 2010, is the black day in present record of Ismaili Muslim. We all are reading the news which is sad and upsetting which in turn makes us emotional, and very unhappy. But the calmness has to prevail before starting to place any kind of thorn crowns on defendants (CRUCIFY).
This takes us to WISEDOM OF OUR PIRS. Our Pir have truly said in our GINANS, the day will come, when we see the true colors of all our family members, and our brethren. But Mowla is the guiding light and He has anticipated this ill-fated outcome. He is all knowing. This was envisaged and it has happened! And Mowla will come out of this ordeal unscathed.
Imams’ authorities have been questioned from the time to time during the inception of Ismailism. But the Ismaili Muslim Imamat has survived and will survive throughout the eternity. This is a further test on our FARMANBADARI.
Every Ismaili Muslim has to bear in their minds the very common foundation on how the Ismailism was built. How much scarified was made by our Imams and His Murids. The Ismailism is a Religion and not a Government. We can take a government to task but not the Mowla and His created Institutions. Just to think of this is to question our Farmanbadari! We cannot issue a warrant like statement (official complaint/petition) to Mowla to ask Him to ex-communicate the defendants! If Mowla wanted to ex-communicate the defendants, He would have done this in the very beginning. Instead a court action was initiated. With my good prayers, ALLAH HAFEZ! Nizar Ali K. Shivji.
Why is it a black day? Tell us. In simple words.
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. News Editor! Sorry, my English vocabulary is not helping me. I am not able to come up with words you have kindly requested!
Occasionally, a day is allocated to something good or something bad. Thus, Saturday, July 31, 2010, is a heavy day especially for me. I am looking forward for a closure in this pending court case, but now I reading about insinuation, instigation, allegation, intimation, accusation, and counter assertion! On this day, the division is again occurring – pro and con (in support of – in against of). When I say, it is the black day in present record of Ismaili Muslim. I simply mean, it is a sad day. With my good prayers, ALLAH HAFEZ! Nizar Ali K. Shivji
Ok. Let’s make things simpler. Forget about accusations etc. This is a simple question – and the answer does not have to be pro or con. In your opinion, is it appropriate for an Ismaili Muslim to demand to cross-examine the Aga Khan under oath? Even a yes or no will suffice.
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. News Editor! First and foremost, I am not under cross examination!! I only shed my opinion when my conscience permits me. I prefer not to be placed in a situation whereby I have to subject myself under duress and interrogation. Had you placed your questioning in more civil manner then I might have consented to give you my opinion. However, I would like to very respectfully ask you the very same question you have asked me. Please be honest and no wavering answer!! Because dithering will not help!
In your opinion, is it appropriate for an Ismaili Muslim to demand to cross-examine the Aga Khan under oath? Even a yes or no will suffice. With my good prayers, ALLAH HAFEZ! Nizar Ali K. Shivji.
You have preached all kinds of tolerance here Mr. Shivji? Are you angry?
We don’t preach. We call a spade a spade.
It is absolutely improper, inappropriate and outrageous for an Ismaili Muslim to seek to question the Aga Khan under oath.
Editor: You asked a VERY simple question.
Though not addressed to me, YES, it is inappropriate.
Did you not disclose the stats on hits to your site?
We have all kinds of information/literature available at our literature counters for those who want to expand their knowledge. This is a secular and a non religious site.
You have politely explained before.
Please let’s focus on the issue.
We are conditioned by our past to remain silent in the face of provocation. But people need to know that it is okay to speak out, it is okay to state your true feelings about a situation. As you can see, our friend did give us his vote and we did salute him for that.
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. News Editor! A SPADE A SPADE! An earlier expression of the notion, albeit in different form which we now use. “Gods people shall not to call a spade a spade, a niggard a niggard.” This remarkable thought comes from Nicolas Udall’s ‘Apophthegmes. This phrase is introduced in English in 1542.
Bravo, Bravo! Mr. News Editor. My hats off to you!
I will speak very bluntly. Some have already expressed their rudeness on my posts. Do I care, NO!!! What I say, I put into practice! Am I angry, NO!! I have also developed a thick skin.
I will say categorically and unconditionally in my absolute faith in Mowlana Hazar Imam that it is absolutely improper, inappropriate and outrageous for an Ismaili Muslim to seek to question the Mowlana Hazar Imam under oath.
Mowlana Hazar Imam is all forgiving, when one turns to Him in repentance and contrition. I am sure, He will grant His mercy.
With my good prayers, ALLAH HAFEZ! Nizar Ali K. Shivji
Now we are talking Mr. Shivji! Hats off to you too for telling it like it is. Very best regards.
With respect the defendants are not seeking to question but seeking direct guidance and this is the only way or opportunity they have to have a meeting. They do not beleive the Imam does not wish to meet them. The question is if it is acceptable for any murid to seek guidance direct from the Imam personally where he or she have good reasons to beleive a top leader or leaders are not communicating or following the correct and complete information or guidance to and fro from the Imam, in this unprecedented set of circumstances? Mr Shivji ? Mr Editor ?
Bloglaw. If you had a sworn affidavit from Aga Khan would that constitute guidance.? Have they verified every Farman in their book.?
omigod, you know my stomach churns and my head gets heated up when I see this kinda trickery…I hope at the end of this lawsuit, all these disguises and hypocrites (John and Jane Does) get completely weeded out and thrown down into dark oblivions…as I am thinking that they are really going down beyond the very basic line of human integrity…leave along any religious, spiritual or ethical standards here.
News Editor: You asked for a simple clarification. Although your question was not directed at me, I will still give my firm answer to your question without beating around the bush. It is NOT appropriate for an Ismaili Muslim to demand to cross-examine the Imam. Period.
News Editor: In simple words, my belief is that while some religious sects do have “Black” days, Ismailis are not supposed to have black days. Our Imam wants us to be happy every day of our lives. That is also my prayer for every Ismaili on this planet.
Ameen Soulmate. May your prayer multiply a million folds and come back to you.
I think it is Ya Ali Madad…not Madat… Ya Ali is Mad at who?… You?
Anyways, there ain’t no black or white day….everyday is same especially in the context of Ismailism.
LOL, how pathetic it is to use symbolism such as ‘crown of thorns’ and words such as crucify? And please Editor, tell ‘em to keep these irrelevant sermons to themselves as they are clouding the original issue at stake.
Muhammed: Respectfully, on ‘Madad/Madat’, please don’t go there.
Karim, I Understand your point…but, you know, sometimes you’ve just had enough.
Anyways, a small point aside from the topic of the thread, Ismailism does not have any thing at all in its philosophy, its history or the practice that is associated or considered to be known or remember as sad, black, and gloomy or in anyways has any connotation in negative terms. Even death of an Imam or anyone else or any other trouble or issue is not…it really interprets the true dynamics of Bismillah-ir-Rahman-ir-Rahim and human life.
Muhammad: I agree.
And as Soulmate posted above too, our Imam has prayed for our happiness.
Mr. Shivji: Thank you for taking off the veil and sharing your true feelings in your last post to the editor. Very much appreciated.
Let me address your “thorns/crucify” remark, which I assume was in response to my post – “Time for bystanders (Panje bhai and bheno), to send in the official complaints for excommunication hearing”.
It is not a rally call for people to place a crown of thorns or crucify the defendants. Candidly, they are not worth that honour.
This was my personal opinion that folks may wish to reflect upon. Like you, I find the defendants latest actions repulsive, and those of like opinion should now stand up and be counted i.e. submit complaints for a hearing – the constitution provides this avenue. Individual Ismailis do NOT have the authority to excommunicate; the call is for a hearing, not to excommunicate or crucify them.
What follows is not directed to you personally, but provided as an addendum to my post.
Some may choose to be bystanders until they form an educated opinion. I was in that boat for a long period (primarily because I did not have all the facts and my non-judgmental values); I gave them the benefit of the doubt (which BTW the defendants appear to be construing as silent majority on their side). Imam and Leadership are capable of taking care of themselves; what saddens me is the use of heritage platform to mislead my unsuspecting brethren.
Indulge me – If one sees a person (or even a dog) starting to cross a busy road, should one stop that person from crossing or should one merely standby because of the belief that “Allah knows best and will take care of everything”.
From my vantage, I see the defendants egging on my brother/sister to cross the road.
My reading of the faith is that I’ve been blessed with, and obligated to make good use of, God given intellect and free will; for which I’ll have to account for when I meet my maker.
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. Panjebhai! Foremost, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for restraining yourself under the intense provocation. Please allow me to reassure you that my remarks were not solely intended at you. If you are offended, I humbly apologize to you.
I was worried when I read your post; I felt it was my duty indirectly to caution you because whatever we write on any blog can be construed as threats to Defendants. There is a probability that the Defendants could introduce all pertinent posts to Court of Laws to make their claim stronger.
Whatever I wrote was also to restrain myself. In some respect I have been also under very intense provocation. But I took it in my stride to convert the energy to happy and pleasant thoughts.
Like you, I find the defendants latest actions repulsive, and those of like opinion should now stand up and be counted. But it has to be done in just and equitable manner, and in accordance with the law of the land.
I do not want the Defendants to point their fingers to the silent majority and brand them as conspiring Hazar Imam’s Murids.
The reason I wrote against ex-communication hearing was simply to make aware anyone that MHI has so far has not initiated this action to ex-communicate the defendants, therefore, why should we SUPERSEDE MOWLA’S DECISION?
Honestly speaking, I have not gone very deep into Ismaili Muslim Constitution. Your thoughts to submit the complaints for a hearing to ex-communicate the defendants, appears to be farfetched at the present time. The verdict is still pending on litigation.
I would very earnestly request you kindly to rethink before you commit yourself. Please seek legal advice on this matter. Welcome back! With my good prayers, ALLAH HAFEZ! Nizar Ali K. Shivji
There are already constitutional requests by Ismailis to excommunicate them. If the process begins the Aga Khan can always veto a decision. However, the provision provides for any Ismaili to begin a complaint.
Someone please post again the circumstances under which the constitution bites back
Editor: Soulmate post from your archives: Quote
Soulmate June 4, 2010 – 8:44 AM
News Editor: The Holy Constitution Article 14.2 reads,
“Proceedings for disciplinary action against any Ismaili shall be commenced upon a complaint lodged by:(a) any member of a Council authorized in that behalf by the Council; or (b) any Ismaili.”
The Holy Constitution empowers “Any Ismaili” to commence proceedings for disciplinary action against any Ismaili…..UNQUOTE
Mr. Shivji: No offense taken and my gratitude for your candid comments. I hear you, but permit me:
1. Lawsuit involves copyright infringement and nothing else period.
2. Defendants have already injected irrelevant fluff that Judge will discard.
3. Copyright is governed by laws of the land, while Imam-Murid relationship by the bayat and constitution.
4. Constitution 14.2 (courtesy of Soulmate’s Jun 4th post) gives an Ismaili the right to submit a complaint.
5. Not calling for any action to harm the defendants; merely to stand up and be counted.
6. I will stand corrected on this – my understanding of normal hearings – hearing panel to assess reasonability of grounds, after which parties would be advised and asked to attend a hearing. Panel would document findings and make a recommendation. Higher body/full board would consider/adjudicate; and in our case recommendation submitted to MHI for final ruling. There may even be an appeal process built in. [my view and not based on any official process document].
We are both troubled and see the true colours of the defendants. I’ve held my breadth for a long time, but based on the latest and thought process that they may be construing silence as folks being on their side, led me to what I posted. Second, more hurtful, is their influence on unsuspecting brethren by way of inaccurate heritage broadcasts. As I said earlier, I will do whatever little I can to stop someone (even the defendants) from crossing the busy road…. bound by my Aql/free will values.
I understand and respect your opinion. So, keep’em coming in open shabdha. Dialogue is good and we’re indebted to the Editor for giving us open/impartial platform. I am surprised we haven’t heard from Bloglaw as yet; perhaps soon after he has dissected the latest.
Nizar, if our paths do cross, forgive me if I end up calling you Uncle. Peace be with you always.
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. Panjebhai! Agreed! We have to thank very sincerely the News Editor for his due consideration in providing us with open/impartial platform.
You have taken the words from my mouth about our friend – Mr. Bloglaw. I hope I meet him some day! He is steadfast in his belief and I do not think he will bulge an inch from what he has written so far in his posts. He is committed and dedicated.
Coming back to the thread of the confronting topic; I have devoted sometime today to get some unbiased insight into ex-communication, infringement, Court’s conclusion, and what resources can we relate to Defendants to convince them to think again and reconsider their stance in this court case?
It appears, the defendants have moved away from reality in their belief that they are righteous and blameless. However, good luck to them!
I do not think the silent majority will side with the Defendants even if they have qualms with Ismaili Muslim Institutions. Our culture is very deeply rooted and now they have also recognized the true colors of the Defendants.
If you start the petition to ex-communicate the Defendants now, you will be able to muster as many signatures as you want. With my good prayers, ALLAH HAFEZ! Nizar Ali K. Shivji
Mr.Shivji: Count you in as one of the many signatures? [no need to answer]. With respect, I would not wish them good luck. Prayers for them to understand/act righteously – yes.
Sickening to be associated with them as spiritual brothren.
16(g) of motions…. “Allowing the discovery to proceed will conclusively resolve the litigation, either by confirming that the Aga Khan is the real plaintiff, in which case the defendants would cease their activities,…”
Who are they kidding. Did defendants conveniently forget MHI affirmation and affidavits (snr lawyer and notary) or Gray’s offer for the meeting requiring a signed statement of what they have always proudly prefaced – to cease if MHI is the real plaintiff.
How about that discovery order from the defendants…. to MHI
“YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ATTEND AN EXAMINATION for discovery….
“YOU ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BRING WITH YOU… (a.All documents, etc .. b.Video/DVD recordings of 1992 mehmani).
“IF YOU FAIL TO ATTEND…. YOU MAY BE FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT.”
The more the defendants get cornered, the more their true colours become evident. And they proudly refer to themselves as spiritual children. Who are they trying to fool.
Even if one still gives them the benefit of the doubt, that they want to hear from MHI’s mouth that he is the plaintiff, why ask MHI to bring the additional material?
Where is humility? Pride appears to be their driving force. And, real sad that they’re using their heritage platform to mislead and drag others on the path they wish to tread.
Time for bystanders (Panje bhai and bheno), to send in the official complaints for excommunication hearing.
Follower, Much obliged for your referral (http://www.lawsuit2010.com) on the previous string. Excellent read and puts it all in perspective.
PanjeBhai: Much obliged for giving the credit for the referral to the wrong person!
Welcome back brother. And if you decide to initiate the complaint, please don’t forget to include “Soulmate” as the second complainant.
Sorry Soulmate and Follower. I did submit a correction shortly after I pushed the button on the original, but perhaps it didn’t get to the Editor.
Soulmate, Credit is 100% yours; wanted to highlight in this string for anyone who missed it earlier. thx again.
PanjeBhai: Welcome back!
Ya-Ali-Madat! In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful – Al-Fatiha.
Those who break Allah’s Covenant after it is ratified, and who sunder what Allah has ordered to joined, and do mischief on earth; these cause loss (only) to themselves. This is what I have read in English Translation of Quran. I have decided to elaborate on words like covenant, mischief, and loss. These three words can provide us with the answer we are seeking with this confronting issue. It is not easy, it not straightforward, it is complicated. But there is always a way out!
The Ismaili Muslim’s Constitution is ordained by Mowlana Hazar Imam. His PROUNCEMENT has stressed upon Farmanbadari, He is only telling us to accept His Farmans without any disagreement or deviation. To agree or disagree, it is up to us.
When somebody knowingly disobeys the Farman of Mowlana Hazar Imam then he is consciously moving away from Farmanbadari. There is no excuse and this does not exempt even a member of Mowla’s Institution. And there is also no immunity for these members in our Institution. In simple words, they have failed in their allegiance to Mowla. The Ismaili Muslim Community is diverse, and strong in their faith, loyalty, and faithfulness. But there is a remote and isolated chance that somebody with intent, decides to overlook. For that reason, it is his loss.
The Court of Laws recognizes equality and does not see aristocracy and the status of the person. It will dwell on truth and nothing but the truth! The Plaintiff’s lawyers want the defendants to apologize to Mowlana Hazar Imam so that the settlement can be imminent, enticing further with the agreement to waive all damages which are cited. Obviously, the cost for all damages would be waived and Imam-Murid relationship would be salvaged
When Mowla’s Murid has inadvertently or intentionally created mischief, causing harm or damage; Mowla is still all forgiving when one turns to Him in repentance and contrition, He may grant His mercy. But repetition and recurrence of any misbehavior is interpreted as having a shattered relationship with Mowla.
We are a large community of scholars, intellectual, rational and logical people. We understand what is right and wrong. We will not trade the right for the wrong.
Sometime, it is better to leave things as they are because to hurry up the process will only create compounded confusion with regrettable ending.
With my good prayers, ALLAH HAFEZ! Nizar Ali K. Shivji.
To the Defendants:
“How can you stoop so low?”
You have fallen to a level of a person without any morals.
One of the teachings of our Imam is to respond to evil with kindness and forgive the unforgivable
The kindest thing I can do is to forgive an enemy for the throbbing pain, suffering and sadness inflicted purposely on my life and the lives of other “FIDAYS”.
Hate is a very strong word and it is like an acid that destroys the vessel in which it is stored so for the love of my beloved Imam I don’t hate you but I am DEEPLY saddened by your latest actions. Honestly I feel very sorry for your soul that is blackening by the minutes.
Editor: Sorry If I sound very harsh but with this latest actions of the defendants I just could not keep my feelings in check.
Naaznin: On May 24, 2010, the Imam offered to grant both of the Defendants a personal audience and to forgive them if they would be willing to abide by His instructions. Instead of accepting this magnificient golden gift, these Defendants chose not to abide by the Imam’s instructions and continued to challenge the Imam. They are now attempting to drag the the Imam to appear before them for Examination for Discovery. More than two months after the gracious offer by the Imam, the Heritage website owned by Nagib Tajdin still continues to slander the Imam, His aides and all those who do not agree with them. Librarian umed (Nagib) has again attacked Dr. Sachedina, Brian Gray and Vancouverite as follows;
“Vancouverite information and interpretation is completely out of sync with reallity. The Emails and Exhibits are precise in these matters: Brian Gray wanted the defendant to sign that they accepted that the lawsuit was by the Imam first which we know now that the lawsuit has been initiated by Dr Sachedina in his personal capacity. The statement of claim itself is quite insulting to the Imam as it removes all traces of Imamat and makes the Imam as an ordinatery novel writer who in the vocabulary of Vancouverite gives “opinions” to the Jamat. It has always been clear that Gray has no direct access to the Imam, he can not arrange any meeting with the Imam.”
Wow! These Defendants still believe that everyone except themselves are involved in “forgeries” or conspiracies against them.
The Imam, Himself, had responded to their allegations of forgery as follows:
“If anything, the Defendant’s [Nagib Tajdin] allegations of forgery may be considered slander and defamation against the Plaintiff [Mawlana Hazar Imam] and his aides. The Plaintiff [Mawlana Hazar Imam] reserves the right to pursue any and all legal remedies concerning these allegations made by the Defendant [Nagib Tajdin].” Source: http://www.lawsuit2010.com/Defiance.html
I honestly believe that these guys are now beyond help!
Thanks for the link Soulmate.
What a merciful Imam. If the defendants don’t agree to such mercy and forgiveness that HH the Aga Khan has offered them, then what else would they need?
Thank you editor for the update
MY THOUGHTS
_____________
….. all I can say is ALLAHU-ALIM , Allah knows best …
…
Right now I just dont have words to express how i feel or what i think..i am just numb to my inner core …
.May Imam-e-Zaman have mercy on the defendants and Guide us all. Ameen..
News Editor. Fantastic News Story! And what a heading! I can’t wait to read part two. According to the motion documents filed by the Defendants, they have now officially declared you to be a co-conspirator along with Gleason and Sachedina. Tell me the truth. When did you last speak with Dr. Sachedina? Did Sachedina give you the direction to write this story?? OR Did he really write this story himself???
I, Salim Jiwa, would state under oath that I have had no correspondence directly or indirectly with Dr. Sachedina and that I’ve never spoken with, communicated with him in my life. I would not recognize him if I saw him since I have never met him. Any suggestion to the contrary is a blatant lie.
News Editor: If you have never spoken with Mr. Sachedina, then obviously Nagib has lied in his sworn Affidavit. Has he then committed felony or purjury?
I think it is now your civic duty, responsibility and obligation to step forward to somehow notify the judge that Nagib is a liar.
We have made a public statement of fact. He has filed an allegation in an affidavit asserting something as a fact. It is up to the Aga Khan’s lawyer to deal with the matter. We doubt very much that this would be useful to Mr. Gray or that he’d attempt to subpoena us over this minor matter. It is never a good idea to drag independent journalists into a legal situation.
Editor: Your reporting is balanced and with integrity.
I have followed your reporting for some 30 odd years and I have never seen you tip the scales.
Stand tall and keep up the good work!
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. News Editor! I am truly and honestly disappointed to read when sincerity and integrity of a fine and hard working News Reporter is questioned! It is sad to note that you have to publicly take an oath in your column to refute the claims that have surfaced. I think, this perk (finger pointing) goes hand in hand in your profession! You do not have to worry if you feel you are right and your conscience is clear. With my good prayers, ALLAH HAFEZ, Nizar Ali K. Shivji
Mr. Shivji. In my career spanning more than 30 years in Canadian and U.S. journalism, many have attempted to denounce us for the work we do. But as professional journalists we have thick skins. I’ve lived through terrorist threats and threats to the lives of my children but never wavered from doing honest journalism. Everything we have written is verifiable journalism. But thank you for your vote of confidence and very best regards to you.
Ya-Ali-Madat, Mr. News Editor! Earlier in your column, I have dwelt in my two posts on journalism. If what is written is not verifiable journalism then all is HEARSAY!
Unfounded information and unconfirmed reports mainly dealing in defamation, slander, libel, insults, smear, and denouncements does not carry any weight in the minds of the learned; no matter how strong is the popularity of the scholar or the writer.
In fact, it will destroy the writer’s credibility. The ethic simply says that there should no infringement! Secondly, the sole purpose to gain readership is not healthy either.
So please enjoy your career in good faith and belief in God! He is spiritually, THE PROTECTOR. With our prayers! ALLAH HAFEZ, Nizar Ali K. Shivji!
I do not doubt you have never met Dr Sachedina but would you really not recognise him? Surely you will have seen him in all those Padhramni videos; as a journalist would you not have been curious as to who the individual was? I do not mean to detract from the main topic but just find it odd that you think you would not recognise him if you met him.
You see, I worked with mainstream media all the time. As such, my beat was crime and terrorism. On one or two occasions I covered the Aga Khan’s visits to Canada but it was a one shot deal. In fact, I’d probably recognize one or two Ismaili council members but probably not more than that. Religion was simply not part of the work I did and most of my knowledge is confined to terrorism where I have expertise. I have not watched any videos of visits etc. Much of the time I’ve preferred to stay an outsider looking in on most issues.
So what has tempted you to wander in instead of remaining an outsider looking in? Lest any of your regulars assume I am a supporter of the other parties, let me state categorically that I have not the slightest respect for them or their agenda – I just can’t see whose interest this site is serving now that there is lawsuit2010 to counter the heritage site. You chose not to post my earlier comments questioning their motivation and you may not wish to “publish” this either; it matters not as I have communicated my point to you.
This site is not under the influence of the mightiest kings. Say what you have to say point blank. Don’t beat around the bush when you deal with me directly. This is a story of wide public interest and is covered on that basis. Let me know if you questions about journalism will you?
Yes, it is indeed a story of wide public interest.
Please continue to keep us in the loop.
I personally visit this site atleast a dozen times a day to see any new developments.
And personally, it does not matter if you are covering The Agakhan for the first time or the hundreth time. Your reporting is
balanced, interesting and just.
Hey Karim. I’ve been fortunate to have had a one-on-one impromptu chat with the Chief. Covered opening of Burnaby mosque. But generally my career was based on crime and terrorism. A reporter who gets the chance to break this story as we did would be foolish to ignore it..
Abuzar: If you would like to question the motivation of those who run the Heritage or Lawsuit2010 websites, I think it would be wise to question them directly. I am not so sure that the Heritage people will respond to you, but I can almost guarantee that people who run the other website will respond to you without any delay.
The motivations of Heritage and Lawsuit2010 are abundantly clear – my post was slightly vague in that had I repeated what I had posted earlier and which the Editor chose not to allow then that would have been considered a backdoor attempt to make the point again – my censored post in fact questioned the defendant’s agenda.
As for wide public interest – is it not presumptious to equate a small number of Ismailis (who themselves form a very tiny part of the public) repeatedly visiting this site as evidence of public interest? To be blunt the biggest winner is Vancouverite and how much so! Since it broke the story it has made changes to its “design” and introduced a forum as well. And how did it get the chance to break the story? Given that the editor knows so little about the leadership, appears not to be overly religious and the case is civil not criminal and certainly no suggestion of terrorism how did vancouverite happen upon this story?Pray tell all
Abuzar. Vancouverite was started after I retired from The Province. The reason for redesign was not that Ismailis were coming to the site but the fact that the previous theme was no longer compatible with wordpress 3.00 which is the publishing platform. And why would Vancouverite owe you an explanation for where the story came from? Vancouverite is a secular news outfit and sees this as a story of great public interest. You contradict yourself when you say only a handful of people visited the particular story – repeatedly. Then you say Vancouverite benefited. What is your logic? We have stats on who visits, from where and how many are unique visitors. And finally, what are you trying to prove?
Abuzar: You asked the News Editor how Vancouverite happened upon the story. Even a dimwit can put two and two together to figure out how he got the opportunity to do the story. But I know you are not a dimwit and if you have been following Vancouverite, you would have known that the News editor called the Plaintiff’s lawyer to get some information. The Plaintiff’s lawyer advised the News Editor that he would need clearance from His Highness. After the lawyer got such clearance, he gave the information to thr News Editor. Quite simple isn’t it? And I am pretty certain Brian Gray had no instructions from his Boss that he should only give information to the News Editor based on how religious he is or how much he knows about the leadership. Finally, while the News Editor might appear to you as not being overy religious, please enlighten us as to how you get the right to judge him so!
I wonder why the launchers of lawsuit2010 are hidden and discrete? If they want to be a good site what are they afraid of? I think they should identify as who they are in real or else they could become another heritage. I like this site as everyone knows who the owner is and is not afraid to become forward and give out their thoughts. If the owners stay in hiding we do not know the agenda of the site now or in the future. So they want to be discrete but will know everyone who hits their site , just like the defandants site.
Murad: Are the Launchers of Lawsuit2010 hidden and discrete? Check out the “Reports” section. You and I and the other people who post here are hidden and discrete, but they aren’t. I also like Vancouverite site as much as you do, because here though the News Editor is known, we can all come forward and blast our thoughts as anonymous people in “hiding”. For example, my real name could be Alnashir, but I could be masquerading as “Soulmate”. Such anonymity empowers us a lot; doesn’t it?
PS
Murad???: I have checked out that website and their agenda appears quite clear..to expose what the Defendants have been up to for a couple of decades.
So let them know who visits their sites.
Editor,
I have no quarrel with you – I just feel that by keeping the story alive we are simply providing ammunition to ant-Ismaili factions who are gladly drawing parallels between what (they perceive) is going on in the Ismaili community with what has been happening in another Shia community. Am I really contradicting myself – as I read it this page says 3,441 visits today but like all other sites it does not tell me how many were repeats, how many were redirected from another page on the same site etc. And how you profit from the number of hits is no one else’s business. I honestly believe 826 comments in the previous article about this case is way above being “constructive” – a lot of the comments added no value at all and the thread should have been closed a lot earlier.
I am not trying to prove anything – I like many others are of the view that you did not just chance upon this case. I have lost track but I have a recollection of Vancouverite being mentioned in connection with the case couple of days before the LIF announcement.
This count is for views. We can provide views, unique visits, page views, time spent on site, ip, country, city etc. The widget being used grabs view stats automatically. We have no fight with you. And we understand there could be pain from misinterpretation of personal beliefs and core Ismaili beliefs and we have said that several times. Again, we are not an Ismaili medium but the story has enormous news value.
Also remember the story is alive as long as the case in a public court is not over. We don’t cover internal Ismaili issues.
Soulmate,
I really do not have a quarrel with any of you – not even Bloglaw- partly because that is the sort of person I am and partly because as you say we are all hiding behind aliaes and for all I know any of you could be my brother or my father! I do however take exceptions when any posts challenge what I consider common sense. Are you not getting the timelines a bit mixed up – Vancouverite broke the story before the LIF announcement. And let me tell you that there is a growing consesus amongst people fairly well placed and well connected that some information has been “leaked” to this site and your alias has featured in there too! My comment about religiousity was not meant to be the criterion for granting interviews – I would hope that the hypothetical dimwit would have worked out that I was suggesting that the Editor is unlikely to have been following all matters Ismaili with any real zeal. As for the right to judge – only Allah has that; were I being judgmental I would not have prefaced with appears.
In the fashion set by “uncle” Nizarali – apologies if I touched a raw nerve
Ya-Ali-Madat, Abuzar! Thank you so much for being candid in your comments. Frankly speaking, I have my style in writing columns. There are times when there is uncertainty and the information is not substantiated. Therefore, in this kind of circumstances, I keep in mind the law of the land with understanding that I am not quoted officially.
Finally, you do not have to apologize to me. In fact, your observation is in itself is a credential for me. Allah Hafez, Nizar Ali K. Shivji!
Abuzar, Most, if not all, of us are extremely appreciative of the Editor’s fair and unbiased reporting. Vancouverite is a reputable registered news service (which lawsuit2010 is not). It has been the primary, if not the only, site available from day 1 where one can count on getting the truth/facts timely. The Editor has also facilitated a free flow of opinions, which turned out to be the only counter to heritage blog. Heritage does not allow posts opposing their view – most of us have been excommunicated by the heritage doorman. The recently open lawsuit2010 does not have blog facility, neither does it easily pop-up if one googles. Have you looked at the # of hits this site gets and the interest in this story. If you feel you do not need Vancouverite’s service, you can restrict your browser, but no need to punish the rest of the world, eh!!
Editor: I have read you since the ’80s
PanjeBhai: Totally!
Coming back to you Editor, I remember the BBY opening as though it was just last month. Yes, you were fortunate. If I am not mistaken, your article appeared in The Province.
Am I correct?
I have authored stories for The Province on the Aga Khan. It very much depends on an assignment you get. So most of the time, the reporter responsible for a particular beat would get the story. It was an amazing site to witness the opening of the Burnaby mosque and I think it was Prime Minister Mulroney who remarked that an Ismaili Muslim mosque was designed by a Jewish architect and opened by a Christian PM. Later there was a dinner. And during that time, I had a chance to talk to the Aga Khan.
Editor, there is no such thing as Ismaili Muslim mosque.
Says who?
Please enlighten with your understanding of Ismaili Muslim Mosque(s), where have you seen them, how are they used, who owns them, what is the relationship of Ismailis to the mosque(s).
Any Muslim prayer house is a mosque. We can refer to a Sikh temple as a temple or Gurudwara. You can refer to Ismaili mosques as Jamatkhanas. We can call Muslim mosques masjids. What is your point and what are you trying to prove?
Also AZ. We don’t have time to deal with mundane issues. We have tons of stories, photos and comments to look at. If you have further issues about linguistics consult someone else. And who really cares what you want to call a house of worship.
Editor, no issue, it is not polite to converse when someone is not willing You are right, it doesn’t matter what one calls the house of prayer.
AZ. My background is with mainstream media. Generally we tried to avoid communal, ethnic lingo. Ismailis call their prayer houses Jamatkhana. Sikhs call their prayer house a Gurudwara. However, because we write for all people, we try to avoid this when we can so that all can understand what we mean. Any Islamic house of prayer is a Mosque. Other houses of prayers are temples, churches, synagogues etc. If you have an issue with calling it an Ismaili Mosque – is it because you don’t think it is a mosque? Why?
http://www.iis.ac.uk/view_article.asp?ContentID=106346#Jamatkhana
Good AZ. This article describes the function of a Jamatkhana and the recent origin of the term. But it does not state that it is not a mosque does it? We have been to many mosques during our journalistic life and many mosques serve multiple purposes and are even housed within synagogues in some places. Once again, we are mainstream media and our aim is to make sure every person understands the terms we use. If you read the forum comments you’ll see terms such as Mowla, MHI etc. These terms would leave a reader not familiar with Ismaili lingo a bit confused. We have made the point that we are not an Ismaili publication. Hopefully this clarifies for you why we use generic terms rather than ethnic, cultural of religious terms for some descriptions – especially if the word or term is unlikely to be understood by the majority of our readers.
Dear Abuzar: You are absolutely right. Lawsuit2010 is NOT a registered news service and I am pretty certain that thay have no intentions of registering or facilitating a free flow of information. Besides, I know that they have much respect for Vancouverite’s news reporting and absolutely no respect for Heritage News reporting
Surely Mr Editor, your journalistic instint and 30 years of experience will have made you do some research on Dr Sacedina since the start of the Lawsuit and you will have seen his pictures. He is always at most if not all Darbars and pictures too. And whilst I am not calling you a liear Ialso do not unfderstand how a any murid does not know or has seen the head of our five major institutions let alone a journalist of 30 years standing, who has also been covering this story & unprecedented lawsuit since the start.
If you can not recognise him it follows that our institutions have not done a good job of reaching out to the Jamat and and making sure the Jamat is aware of and can recognise their top institutional leaders.
Maybe in your biased enthisuiasm you meant say that before the law suit you could not have recognised him and you have never met him or spoken to him? If so there are many other examples you may need to revisit.Many murids including leaders at the lower levels of leadership would be in the same position I beleive ?
News Editor: Bloglaw is calling you a liar!
Yes, poor man
NO Soulmate ! If Editor did not do any research or investigative journalism in reporting since April, he would would recognise Sachedina. If he did not then that speaks bundles about him being as an experienced and responsivble journalist who did some research on this story? Hence I also said maybe he did not mean what he wrote ? Easiliy done !
If so that speaks a bundle. Editor which is it ?
Dr. Sachedina is a devoted servant of the Imam. We have no reason to put him under a microscope. We’d rather spend time digging up the lives of people like you and your fellow wolves. We don’t need to know any of the Imam’s appointees. We trust that right decisions are always made. We don’t wear our faith on our sleeves. That is between the creater and the created. You will notice that we are fighting for the rights of only one entity. Most Ismailis would want us to do that.
I don’t know all top institutional leaders. Do I need to know them? Why?
Soulmate.. Opps mistake again. I meant If you do not understand it I am sorry I cannot help you any further. Sorry folks for the errors.
You are surprising. Religion is not democratic. If you want democracy you have to look for a secular setting. You seem to agree with them that leaders are not in tune with those they lead. Is that your implication? If you agree with them, say so. Don’t hide. We don’t hide. Clearly, there will always be dissatisfaction and if you find a better way than appointments, pave the way and show how to do it.
There are multiple news stories on their site that are from paid wire services. These wire services are to be used only by those who pay the substantial cost of having these services. Why don’t you go look?
Here is one example of a copyright infringement: Don’t tell us you don’t think that is not a gross violation?
Ismaili Center and Museum at Wynford Park in Toronto | Ismaili.NET …
28 May 2010 … Home Ismaili.NET – Heritage F.I.E.L.D. …. TORONTO (Reuters) – The Aga Khan, the billionaire spiritual leader of the world’s 15 million …
ismaili.net/heritage/node/29495 – Cached.
Do you see that this is a Reuters wire story? Have they paid for it? Do they have permission to use it without pay? Copyright is not preserved simply by attribution. Reuters does not produce stories for free.
Similarly, there are dozens upon dozens of news stories from other wire stories.
Running stories from press releases relating to AKDN and other issues is completely fine.
Hope this satisfies you that when we speak we think for a very long time?