|

Justice Harrington gives Aga Khan resolute win in copyright case


BY Salim Jiwa

VANCOUVER, B.C. – His Highness Prince Karim Aga Khan has won a resounding legal victory over two men who claimed they had consent to print his copyrighted messages to his followers.

In a judgment that smashed virtually every argument put forward by rebels Alnaz Jiwa, a Toronto lawyer, and a self-style photo journalist Nagib Tajdin, Mr. Justice Harrington issued a verdict in which he called into question the credibility of the two stating he drew the inference that they did not question the Aga Khan during a forced discovery process because the answers would not have served their purpose.

One stinging statement by Mr. Justice Harrington of the federal court of Canada states: ” I cannot for a moment accept that His Highness contemplated in these speeches or interviews that authority was given to one and all Ismailis to publish his Farmans. If, as the defendants suggest, the Shia Imami Ismaili Tariqah and Religious Education Boards (ITREBs) have fallen down on the job, that is a matter for the Aga Khan. He has not authorized Messrs Tadjin and Jiwa to step in their shoes.”

Two had claimed implied consent on the basis of a 1992 religious ceremony during which they put a copy of the illegal book on a plate. The Aga Khan place his hand on the tray but did not discuss the book at all. However, the two defendants insisted that it constituted a blessing of the work. Justice Harrington poured cold water on that claim by the defendants.

Justice Harrington took on what he called “unbridled arrogance” on the part of the defendants on another claim.

“Although the defendants are careful not to say that the Aga Khan has been inattentive to matters of concern to the Jamat, in a roundabout way they allege the same thing. They presuppose that the Aga Khan personally knew of their activities and by doing nothing about it, acquiesced. The evidence falls far short of laches. There is unbridled arrogance in this assertion. Why would one suppose the Aga Khan had personal knowledge of what a handful of his followers were doing? Furthermore, Mr. Tadjin only wrote to the Aga Khan in January 2010 to tell him exactly what he was doing. That letter elicited a very strong reaction, followed by this lawsuit. Again the burden is on the defendants, and they have failed to discharge it.”

Justice Harrington went on to say:

In July 1992, Mr. Tadjin learned that the Aga Khan would be coming to Montreal the following month. He had just caused to be printed a book entitled Kalam-E Imam-E-Zaman-Farmans to the Western World, Volume I. He sought guidance from the Imam before distributing it. Only about 20 percent of those in attendance were given the opportunity to attend personally before the Aga Khan. Mr. Tadjin was not selected, but his friend Karim Alibhai was. Thus he gave a copy of the book to Mr. Alibhai and asked him to present it to the Aga Khan and to seek guidance.

[37] The presentation of a member of the faithful to the Aga Khan is part of a Mehmani Ceremony. Normally a plate of fruit and nuts is presented to the Imam as a token of one’s offerings. According to Mr. Alibhai, who was not cross-examined on his affidavit, he, his wife and their young son presented a plate of fruits and nuts, with the book on top, to the Aga Khan who blessed them by placing his right hand on his shoulder, his wife’s shoulder and then his son’s.

[38] After accepting the offerings, the Aga Khan looked at the book and placed his hand on it.

[39] The following exchange took place in French:

M. Alibhay:

« Mowlana Hazar Imam, que pouvons nous faire pour l’Imamat? »

Aga Khan:

« Continuez ce que vous faites, réussissez ce que vous faites et ensuite nous allons voir ce qu’on peut faire ensemble. »

Mr. Alibhay:

“Mowlana Hazar (our Lord the present) Imam, what else can we do to serve the Imamat?”

Aga Khan:

“Continue what you are doing, succeed in what you are doing and then we will see what we can do together.”

[40] The Aga Khan did not open the book which has been kept ever since by Mr. Alibhai as a souvenir of that occasion.

[41] I am simply unable to construe this exchange as constituting consent on the Aga Khan’s part that Mr. Tadjin, and those who may work with him from time to time, publish any Farman. The most favourable reading I can give to the defendants is that the Aga Khan may possibly have suggested future discussions, but on the balance of probabilities I find that not to be so. Messrs Tadjin and Jiwa are reading into the exchange things that simply are not there.

[42] Since the book placed before the Aga Khan was identified as volume 1, during the hearing I asked Mr. Tadjin how the Aga Khan would know that the book contained all his Western Farmans from 1957 to 1981. The reply was by the thickness of the book. However, we know nothing of the quality or thickness of the paper, or the size of the print. The parties did not exhibit the book as it is not intended for the uninitiated. Thus it is arguable, but not probable, that the Aga Khan was only interested in the completion of Farmans up to 1991. Reverting back to Fox there is nothing “clear” about this.

[43] Since Mr. Alibhay did not identify Mr. Tadjin’s role, and said nothing about the fact that many copies were in stock, it could also be easily construed that this was Mr. Alibhay’s personal collection, not for distribution.

[44] The defendants argue that it is difficult for a non-Ismaili to fully appreciate the relationship between the Imam and a murid. While I have no doubt that Messrs Tadjin and Jiwa are very knowledgeable in their faith, leaving aside the Aga Khan himself (on which more will be said) there are other Ismailis lined up against them, Ismailis who have held prominent positions. Apart from Mr. Sachedina, the plaintiff relies upon the affidavit of Aziz Bahloo who among other things was Vice-President of the Ismaili Council for Canada from 1987 and 1993 and President of the Council from 1993 to 1999. He was present at a meeting between Messrs Sachedina and Tadjin in 1998 in which it was said that the Aga Khan did not approve or authorize the publication or dissemination of Farman books by Mr. Tadjin. No new book was published until the Golden Edition.

[45] As mentioned earlier we are in the realm of civil law, not religion. No expert evidence has been filed as to the significance of ceremonial gestures. Given the ordinary meaning of the words used in the exchange between His Highness the Aga Khan and Mr. Alibhay, I simply cannot find that the Aga Khan gave his consent to Mr. Tadjin’s endeavours.

[46] Furthermore, if I am wrong on that point and if consent were given at all, it could only be for that particular volume of Farmans, and not for future Farmans. In Slumber-Magic Adjustable Bed Co. v. Sleep-King Adjustable Bed Co. (1984), 3 C.P.R. (3d) 81, [1985] 1 W.W.R. 112, which also stands for the proposition that the burden is upon the defendants to establish consent, McLachlin J., as she then was, dealt with the defendants’ claim they had the right to use promotional material, based upon consent given during a dinner conversation. She said at paragraph 18 that “[t]hus if the defendants are to succeed on this defence, they must establish not only that Mr. Barker gave his consent to the use of materials then in existence, but to the use of all materials which the plaintiff might in the future develop.” She found they had not. In this case, I am unable to accept the defendants’ tortuous, convoluted reasoning.

The end of the battle on copyright will now likely move to an internal hearing according to the Ismaili constitution on various claims of forgery that the defendants levelled against the trusted aides of the Aga Khan and for bringing disrepute and chaos to the community.

Read the whole judgment below:

Federal Court

Cour fédérale

Date: 20110107

Docket: T-514-10

Citation: 2011 FC 14

Ottawa, Ontario, January 7, 2011

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Harrington

BETWEEN:

HIS HIGHNESS PRINCE KARIM AGA KHAN

Plaintiff

and

NAGIB TAJDIN, ALNAZ JIWA,

JOHN DOE AND DOE CO. AND ALL OTHER PERSONS OR ENTITIES UNKNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF WHO ARE REPRODUCING, PUBLISHING, PROMOTING AND/OR AUTHORIZING THE REPRODUCTION

AND PROMOTION OF THE

INFRINGING MATERIALS

Defendants

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HARRINGTON J.

[1] The only issue in these cross-motions for summary judgment is whether the Aga Khan gave the defendants his consent to publish his literary works known as Farmans and Talikas. I find that consent was never given to publish any Farman or Talika, much less those in respect of which he now seeks injunctive relief; judgment in favour of plaintiff.

[2] His Highness Prince Karim Aga Khan is the spiritual leader, or Imam, of the Shia Imani Ismaili Muslims. There are approximately 15 million Ismailis worldwide, living in more than 25 countries, including Canada. They began to immigrate here in 1972 after those of Asian origin were expelled from Uganda during the reign of terror of Idi Amin.

[3] The Aga Khan succeeded his grandfather, Sir Sultan Mahomed Shah Aga Khan, to become the 49th hereditary Imam in 1957. He is well-known and respected worldwide, in Muslim and non-Muslim circles alike, for his philanthropic, diplomatic and religious works. He is a citizen of the United Kingdom and a resident of France, which has bestowed upon him a diplomatic passport.

[4] As Imam of the Shia Imani Ismaili Muslims, the Aga Khan gives advice and guidance to his flock (“Jamat”) on both religious and temporal matters. Two means of address frequently used are “Farmans” and “Talikas”. A Farman is an address given before an audience. It is recorded and preserved in audio and often in video form. A Talika is a brief written religious message.

[5] These Farmans and Talikas (hereinafter “Farmans”) are literary works within the meaning of the Copyright Act. The Aga Khan has taken action to assert his right of ownership and for a permanent injunction and other relief to stop the defendants from infringing his rights by printing and disseminating a book of Farmans entitled Farmans 1957-2009 – Golden Edition Kalam-E-Iman-E-Zaman (which means “Words of the Imam of the Time”). This book is accompanied by an MP3 audio bookmark, preloaded with 14 audio extracts of readings of Farmans by the Aga Khan himself.

[6] The Aga Khan is a qualified author within the meaning of the Copyright Act. The defendants Najid Tadjin and Alnaz Jiwa admit his ownership and admit that if it were not for his consent they would be infringing his copyright.

[7] Consent is the only issue in the cross-motions for summary judgment before me. In their statements of defence the defendants also allege that the Aga Khan did not instruct counsel to institute this action. However they have wisely abandoned that point, at least for the purposes of summary judgment.

PRINCIPLES OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[8] Summary judgment is but one of several means at the Court’s disposal to control its own process and to carefully husband a non-renewable resource: courtroom time. The principles are set out at Rules 213 and following of the Federal Courts Rules. Given the cross-motions, both parties are obliged to set out specific facts showing that there is no genuine issue for trial. In addition, if the only genuine issue is the amount of damages to which the moving party is entitled, the Court may order a trial of that issue, or grant summary judgment with a reference.

[9] There are great many cases on point. One, which is nearly always cited, is the decision of Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer in Granville Shipping Co. v. Pegasus Lines Ltd. S.A., [1996] 2 F.C. 853, [1996] F.C.J. No. 481 (QL). The test set out there is whether the case is so doubtful it deserves no further consideration. If there are relevant disputed questions of fact where credibility is in issue, the matter should be allowed to continue. Although there are credibility issues in the motions as pleaded before me, they are not, in my opinion, germane.

[10] In Premakumarum v. Canada, 2006 FCA 213, [2007] 2 F.C.R. 191, the Federal Court of Appeal asked whether the case is so doubtful that it “does not deserve consideration by the trier of fact at a future trial.” The issue is not whether the plaintiff, or defendants, as the case may be, cannot possibly succeed, but rather whether the case of one party or the other is clearly without foundation.

[11] I am satisfied that the tests have been met and that it is in the interest of justice and judicial economy to dispose of this action by way of summary judgment. I declare that the Aga Khan has never given the defendants permission to publish any Farman, much less the Golden Edition collection.

THE FACTS

[12] The named defendants are Ismailis who claim to profess absolute loyalty to the Aga Khan. Notwithstanding that they say they have his consent three times over to publish the Golden Edition, in their devotion to him all he has to do is say the word and they will cease and desist. However they have placed so many conditions on this word that this lawsuit was taken in frustration. Thus we are now in the realm of civil law, not religion. They simply cannot, or will not, accept that their Imam does not want them to publish his Farmans. That task has been left to others.

[13] Mr. Tadjin is a businessman formerly of Montreal who now lives in Kenya. Mr. Jiwa practices law in the Greater Toronto Area. In, or before, 1992, Mr. Tadjin began collecting, publishing and disseminating His Highness’ Farmans to Ismaili communities. More recently he has been assisted by Mr. Jiwa.

[14] In December 2009, Mr. Tadjin published the Golden Edition. Within weeks, Shafik Sachedina, of London, Head of the Department of Jamati (Ismaili Institutions) since 1996, Head of the Department of Public Affairs, a member of the Aga Khan Development Network and Governor of the Institute of Ismaili Studies, came to learn of the publication. As he was aware that the Aga Khan had never consented to the publication of Farmans, except through authorized Ismaili institutions, he instructed Mr. Tadjin to cease publication. Mr. Tadjin responded by stating that he would only do so on His Highness’ personal word.

[15] A number of events took place over the next few months, leading to the filing of the Aga Khan’s statement of claim in early April 2010.

[16] There was an institutional decrying of Mr. Tadjin’s publication. This only proves, according to Messrs Tadjin and Jiwa, that usurpers are against them. They have the Aga Khan’s consent and only he can take that consent away.

[17] Mr. Tadjin wrote to the Aga Khan, and received a reply. The Aga Khan’s counsel claims that Mr. Tadjin’s letter is proof positive he was aware that he did not have the Aga Khan’s consent to publish the Golden Edition. Mr. Tadjin’s position is that he was not seeking consent to publish but rather a blessing and consent to deliver free of charge the Golden Edition to Ismaili communities worldwide. It is not necessary to rule on this point.

[18] Be that as it may, the reply bore the signature of the Aga Khan. In it he states he has viewed with concern the unauthorized private initiative of some who print, publish or circulate the text of Farmans attributed to him. He said: “This is a serious and absolutely unacceptable breach of the Imam’s right and responsibility, established over many centuries, to safeguard the integrity of his communications to the Jamat.” He established a process for the publication and circulation of Farmans and stated that he expected Mr. Tadjin “and the other murids who are working with you, immediately to take all the necessary measures to recall and to withdraw from circulation your recent publication and the accompanying MP3 device and cease their printing and distribution.”

[19] According to Messrs Tadjin and Jiwa this letter is a forgery. There is conflicting expert evidence on file.

[20] On 18 February 2010, another letter purportedly signed by the Aga Khan was sent to Mr. Tadjin. His Highness took umbrage with Mr. Tadjin’s assertion that his earlier letter had been forged by his secretary and stated he would write no further. He added that “I want you to know that this is the last one I will send you on this matter. If it cannot solved in the relationship of a Murid to his Imam I will have no other choice than to use all the measures available to me to enforce my rights, and to exercise effective control of my communication with my Jamat.” This letter too, according to Messrs Tadjin and Jiwa, is a forgery.

THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

[21] Following the issuance of the statement of claim in April 2010, separate statements of defence were filed by Messrs Tadjin and Jiwa, each of whom are self-represented. They say the Aga Khan personally gave his consent and blessings to the publication of present and future Farmans in Montreal in August 1992, and that his consent has never been revoked. Quite apart from this express consent, he gave his implied consent to the defendants, and to others, twice over. One implied consent is based on a reading of changes to the Ismaili Constitution. While it once was that publication of Farmans was controlled, that is no longer the case, and so it is open to the defendants to do what they are doing. The other implied consent is through speeches and interviews the Aga Khan has given over the years in which he has bemoaned the fact that circulation of his Farmans has been spotty.

[22] They say that if the Aga Khan is not pleased with what they are doing, all he has to do is amend the Constitution, or simply issue a Farman, as a new Farman has the effect of overriding the Constitution. However, it is not up to the defendants to dictate to the Aga Khan. He tried the religious route, without success.

[23] In addition to the two letters purportedly signed by the Aga Khan in the months leading up to the institution of this action, in response to the defence that the action was instituted by usurpers without his knowledge and consent, while in Boston the Aga Khan signed an affirmation in which it is specifically stated that he personally reviewed and approved the contents of the statement of claim, had retained the firm of Ogilvy Renault LLP to act as solicitors in the action for copyright infringement, has never consented to the publication and copying of the works in dispute and had personally signed the two letters to Mr. Tadjin instructing him to stop the unauthorized publication and to deliver up the undistributed books. He also authorized the Ismaili Leaders International Forum to inform his community about the matter.

[24] The jurat is signed by a notary public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who stated that the person before her identified himself by means of a French passport. Both the notary public and a lawyer who was present signed affidavits. However Messrs Tadjin and Jiwa have declined to cross-examine them on the basis that they were hoodwinked by a usurper. This affirmation was in response to the allegation that Messrs Ogilvy Renault had not been authorized by the Aga Khan to institute the action. There is no specific Federal Court rule on point. Since the action was filed in Toronto, plaintiff’s solicitors relied upon the gap rule and Rule 15.02 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure which provide that a defendant may request that the lawyer named in the originating process deliver a notice declaring whether he or she is authorized. Until challenged, our court takes a solicitor at his or her word as section 11(3) of the Federal Courts Act specifically provides that a person authorized to practice as a barrister or solicitor is an officer of the Federal Court.

[25] The action is under case management, with Prothonotary Tabib assigned to act as Case Manager. Among other things, she scheduled an examination for discovery of the Aga Khan at his convenience when next in Canada. She limited the examination to fifteen minutes, more than enough time to deal with the points in issue. It must have come as quite a surprise to the defendants when the real Aga Khan presented himself for an examination for discovery in Toronto on 15 October 2010! More to be said on that examination. However, his appearance should have put the forgery issue to rest.

THE COPYRIGHT ACT

[26] The Aga Khan’s copyright is not in issue. Canada, the United Kingdom and France are all parties to the Berne Convention. As a citizen of the United Kingdom and a resident of France, the Aga Khan is an author qualified to seek the protection of Canada’s Copyright Act. It is admitted that the Golden Edition was published here. Although copyright was only registered in June 2010, the date of registration is not relevant in the present case.

[27] The reproduction by the defendants of the Farmans is prima face an infringement as per section 3 of the Act. Section 27 provides that it is an infringement of copyright for any person to do, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, anything that by this Act only the owner has the right to do.

[28] As aforesaid, thus the only issue is whether or not the Aga Khan has consented. Although section 13(4) of the Act provides that an assignment or grant must be in writing, mere permission may be given orally, or even implied by the conduct of the author.

BURDEN OF PROOF

[29] The burden of proof is important in motions for summary judgment in that the parties are required to put their best foot forward. They cannot save the best for trial. If there are no relevant issues of credibility, and if no novel issues of law are being raised (Law Society of Upper Canada v. Ernst & Young (2003), 65 O.R. (3d) 577, 227 D.L.R. (4d) 577)), it is in the interest of justice that the matter be dealt with summarily.

[30] The defendants take the position that the burden of proof is on the Aga Khan to establish that he did not give consent. In my opinion, they are very much mistaken. It is not up to the author to prove a negative, i.e. that he did not give consent. Consent is a matter of defence and so the burden must lie upon the defendants. This point is also important because the defendants say most of the plaintiff’s evidence is hearsay.

[31] In Bishop v. Stevens, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 467, at paragraph 35, Madam Justice McLachlin, as she then was, cited with approval the following passage from H.G. Fox, The Canadian Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs, 2d ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1967), at page 339:

In order to constitute an infringement the acts complained of must be done “without the consent of the owner of the copyright”. Such a consent may be presumed from the circumstances. The inference of consent must be clear before it will operate as a defence and most come from the person holding the particular right alleged to be infringed.

[32] The defendants rely on the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Positive Attitude Safety Systems Inc. v. Albian Sands Energy Inc., 2005 FCA 332, [2006] 2 F.C.R. 50, where Mr. Justice Pelletier stated at paragraphs 38 and 39:

It is to be noted once again that the motion judge was dealing with a motion for partial summary judgment with respect to very precise questions. The question of copyright infringement “at large” was not before him. Consequently, in embarking upon this enquiry, the motion judge was already outside the scope of the motion before him.

However, even if one assumes that the motion judge was right to consider the question, the difficulty is that copyright is defined in terms of the absence of the consent of the owner of the copyright:

27. (1) It is an infringement of copyright for any person to do, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, anything that by this Act only the owner of the copyright has the right to do.

[Emphasis added.]

27. (1) Constitue une violation du droit d’auteur l’accomplissement, sans le consentement du titulaire de ce droit, d’un acte qu’en vertu de la présente loi seul ce titulaire a la faculté d’accomplir.

[Non souligné dans l’original.]

Consequently, proof of copyright infringement requires proof of lack of consent. It is therefore illogical to conclude that there has been infringement, subject to the effect of a purported license. It may be that a party has done something which, by the terms of the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, only the owner of the copyright may do. But, before that conduct can be defined as infringement, the judge must find that the owner of the copyright did not consent to that conduct.

[33] The defendants’ reliance on that case is misplaced. On a motion for summary judgment, the judge in first instance found that there was an infringement, subject to whether or not a licence had been granted. As Mr. Justice Pelletier added at paragraph 40:

As a result, the motion judge was not in a position to conclude, as he did, that the appellants infringed the respondents’ copyright subject to the effect of a purported license. Until the issue of consent was dealt with, there could be no finding of infringement.

[34] The case stands for the proposition that one cannot bifurcate infringement from consent. Bishop v. Stevens, above, was not cited and it cannot be thought for a moment that the Federal Court of Appeal was purporting to depart from the teachings of the Supreme Court on the overall burden of proof.

A MATTER OF CONSENT

A. The Express Consent

[35] According to Mr. Tadjin, and all those who would assist him, past, present and future, the Aga Khan expressly gave them consent to publish past and future Farmans at a ceremony in Montreal in 1992.

[36] In July 1992, Mr. Tadjin learned that the Aga Khan would be coming to Montreal the following month. He had just caused to be printed a book entitled Kalam-E Imam-E-Zaman-Farmans to the Western World, Volume I. He sought guidance from the Imam before distributing it. Only about 20 percent of those in attendance were given the opportunity to attend personally before the Aga Khan. Mr. Tadjin was not selected, but his friend Karim Alibhai was. Thus he gave a copy of the book to Mr. Alibhai and asked him to present it to the Aga Khan and to seek guidance.

[37] The presentation of a member of the faithful to the Aga Khan is part of a Mehmani Ceremony. Normally a plate of fruit and nuts is presented to the Imam as a token of one’s offerings. According to Mr. Alibhai, who was not cross-examined on his affidavit, he, his wife and their young son presented a plate of fruits and nuts, with the book on top, to the Aga Khan who blessed them by placing his right hand on his shoulder, his wife’s shoulder and then his son’s.

[38] After accepting the offerings, the Aga Khan looked at the book and placed his hand on it.

[39] The following exchange took place in French:

M. Alibhay:

« Mowlana Hazar Imam, que pouvons nous faire pour l’Imamat? »

Aga Khan:

« Continuez ce que vous faites, réussissez ce que vous faites et ensuite nous allons voir ce qu’on peut faire ensemble. »

Mr. Alibhay:

“Mowlana Hazar (our Lord the present) Imam, what else can we do to serve the Imamat?”

Aga Khan:

“Continue what you are doing, succeed in what you are doing and then we will see what we can do together.”

[40] The Aga Khan did not open the book which has been kept ever since by Mr. Alibhai as a souvenir of that occasion.

[41] I am simply unable to construe this exchange as constituting consent on the Aga Khan’s part that Mr. Tadjin, and those who may work with him from time to time, publish any Farman. The most favourable reading I can give to the defendants is that the Aga Khan may possibly have suggested future discussions, but on the balance of probabilities I find that not to be so. Messrs Tadjin and Jiwa are reading into the exchange things that simply are not there.

[42] Since the book placed before the Aga Khan was identified as volume 1, during the hearing I asked Mr. Tadjin how the Aga Khan would know that the book contained all his Western Farmans from 1957 to 1981. The reply was by the thickness of the book. However, we know nothing of the quality or thickness of the paper, or the size of the print. The parties did not exhibit the book as it is not intended for the uninitiated. Thus it is arguable, but not probable, that the Aga Khan was only interested in the completion of Farmans up to 1991. Reverting back to Fox there is nothing “clear” about this.

[43] Since Mr. Alibhay did not identify Mr. Tadjin’s role, and said nothing about the fact that many copies were in stock, it could also be easily construed that this was Mr. Alibhay’s personal collection, not for distribution.

[44] The defendants argue that it is difficult for a non-Ismaili to fully appreciate the relationship between the Imam and a murid. While I have no doubt that Messrs Tadjin and Jiwa are very knowledgeable in their faith, leaving aside the Aga Khan himself (on which more will be said) there are other Ismailis lined up against them, Ismailis who have held prominent positions. Apart from Mr. Sachedina, the plaintiff relies upon the affidavit of Aziz Bahloo who among other things was Vice-President of the Ismaili Council for Canada from 1987 and 1993 and President of the Council from 1993 to 1999. He was present at a meeting between Messrs Sachedina and Tadjin in 1998 in which it was said that the Aga Khan did not approve or authorize the publication or dissemination of Farman books by Mr. Tadjin. No new book was published until the Golden Edition.

[45] As mentioned earlier we are in the realm of civil law, not religion. No expert evidence has been filed as to the significance of ceremonial gestures. Given the ordinary meaning of the words used in the exchange between His Highness the Aga Khan and Mr. Alibhay, I simply cannot find that the Aga Khan gave his consent to Mr. Tadjin’s endeavours.

[46] Furthermore, if I am wrong on that point and if consent were given at all, it could only be for that particular volume of Farmans, and not for future Farmans. In Slumber-Magic Adjustable Bed Co. v. Sleep-King Adjustable Bed Co. (1984), 3 C.P.R. (3d) 81, [1985] 1 W.W.R. 112, which also stands for the proposition that the burden is upon the defendants to establish consent, McLachlin J., as she then was, dealt with the defendants’ claim they had the right to use promotional material, based upon consent given during a dinner conversation. She said at paragraph 18 that “[t]hus if the defendants are to succeed on this defence, they must establish not only that Mr. Barker gave his consent to the use of materials then in existence, but to the use of all materials which the plaintiff might in the future develop.” She found they had not. In this case, I am unable to accept the defendants’ tortuous, convoluted reasoning.

B. First Implied Consent

[47] Prior to 1986 when the Aga Khan ordained one Worldwide Constitution of the Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims, there were various regional constitutions. For instance, the 1948 Constitution of the Ismailia Association for the Continent of Africa specifically stated:

It shall be the duty of the Association to record, collect and collate Firmans of Mowlana Hazar Imam throughout the Continent of Africa and to be incharge of all religious literature, books, publications and school-books.

According to Messrs Tadjin and Jiwa, were this Constitution still in place and applicable to Canada, they would be prohibited from doing what they are doing.

[48] In the 1986 Worldwide Constitution, with 1998 amendments of no import, a number of central and national institutions were created, which enjoy considerable autonomy.

[49] Articles 8.1 and 8.4 (d) provide:

8.1 There shall be a Tariqah and Religious Education Board for each of the territories specified in Part I of the Fourth Schedule to be known as “The Shia Imami Ismaili Tariqah and Religious Education Board” for the territory for which it is formed for the provision of religious education at all levels of the Jamat, for the training of religion teachers and waezeen, for research and publication, and for the performance of such functions in relation to the Ismaili Tariqah as Mawlana Hazar Imam may deem necessary.

8.4 Each Tariqah and Religious Education Board shall under the direction and guidance of Mawlana Hazar Imam:

[…]

(d) undertake the publication of books and materials on relevant aspects of Islam and the Ismaili Tariqah;

[…]

(h) work in close collaboration with the Institute of Ismaili Studies to facilitate empathy and convergence or other harmonious relationships in their respective programmes, the development of human resources and education material and encourage constructive interaction between the religious and secular dimensions of education.

[My Emphasis.]

[50] According the glossary appended to the Constitution, “Tariqah” is a transliterated Arabic word meaning “[p]ersuasion, path, way in Faith.” If I have fully grasped the nuances of the defendants’ submissions, since Farmans are not necessarily religious, but may be temporal in nature, it follows that the institutions which complain about the publication by them of the Farmans were never authorized to publish Farmans in the first place.

[51] On the face of it, there is nothing in the Constitution which deprives these boards from publishing Farmans. They were specifically directed to encourage constructive interaction between the religious and secular dimensions of education.

[52] Furthermore, in the letter dated 24 January 2010, bearing the signature of the Aga Khan, it is specifically stated that responsibility for publication of Farmans has been entrusted to the Jamati Institutions that he appoints under the Ismaili Constitution “which I have ordained for my Jamat’s social governance globally.” (My emphasis.)

[53] The preamble of the 1998 amendment notes the Imam’s full authority of governance of and in respect of all religious and Jamati matters of the Ismaili Muslims. The 1986 Constitution specifically provides:

Historically and in accordance with Ismaili tradition, the Imam of the time is concerned with spiritual advancement as well as improvement of the quality of life of his murids. The Imam’s Ta’lim lights the murids’ path to spiritual enlightenment and vision. In temporal matters, the Imam guides the murids, and motivates them to develop their potential.

[54] Even if there were room for interpretation of the Constitution, assuming the letter dated 24 January 2010 was authored by or authorized by the Aga Khan, any and all doubt has been dispelled.

C. Second Implied Consent

[55] The second implied consent, not only given to Messrs Tadjin and Jiwa, but to all Ismailis, is based on various public statements apparently made by His Highness from time to time. According to Mr. Jiwa, the Aga Khan has said:

a. “I have given you Farmans which I urge you to follow, because these Farmans I make are made for My Jamats” (Karachi, November 1964);

b. “You have looked to the Imam-of -The-Age for advice and help in all matters and through your Imam’s immense love and affection for His spiritual children, His Noor has indicated to you where and in which direction you must turn, so as to obtain spiritual and worldly satisfaction.” (Karachi, December 1964)

c. “The Imam’s word on matters of faith is taken as an absolute rule. … The Community always follows very closely the personal way of thinking of the Imam. … An Ismaili who did not obey My word in matters of faith, would not be excommunicated, he would still be a Muslim. He simply would no longer be a member of the Jamath [His followers].” (Sunday Times, London, December 1965)

d. “I have a feeling I may have been speaking at a level which is difficult for some of you to comprehend. If this is the case, I simply ask you to listen to this Farman at your own time more peacefully, and try to understand what I have been saying to you.” (Nairobi, 1981);

e. “This is a complex Farman…think about it, discuss it with your children, discuss it with your grandchildren, if they are old enough to think in these terms, and prepare them to see the way ahead, wisely and properly…” (Bombay, 1992)

f. “My Jamat would know that during the past decades much time and effort has been taken to reconcile our knowledge of our own history. Knowledge which had been buried by time, which has sometime been buried on purpose by others, but which it is essential that we should reconstitute and use in order to inform ourselves as to the practices and beliefs and the ethics of the past within the Jamat, the guidance that was given by the Imams of the Time, and to inform ourselves so as better to project into the future a number of important decisions.” (Dubai, 2003)

[56] I cannot for a moment accept that His Highness contemplated in these speeches or interviews that authority was given to one and all Ismailis to publish his Farmans. If, as the defendants suggest, the Shia Imami Ismaili Tariqah and Religious Education Boards (ITREBs) have fallen down on the job, that is a matter for the Aga Khan. He has not authorized Messrs Tadjin and Jiwa to step in their shoes.

LACHES

[57] Although the defendants are careful not to say that the Aga Khan has been inattentive to matters of concern to the Jamat, in a roundabout way they allege the same thing. They presuppose that the Aga Khan personally knew of their activities and by doing nothing about it, acquiesced. The evidence falls far short of laches. There is unbridled arrogance in this assertion. Why would one suppose the Aga Khan had personal knowledge of what a handful of his followers were doing? Furthermore, Mr. Tadjin only wrote to the Aga Khan in January 2010 to tell him exactly what he was doing. That letter elicited a very strong reaction, followed by this lawsuit. Again the burden is on the defendants, and they have failed to discharge it.

THE EXAMINATION FOR DISCOVERY

[58] If there were any doubt left, surely it would have been put to rest by the examination for discovery of the Aga Khan in Toronto, on 15 October 2010. Prothonotary Tabib had directed that the discovery be limited to 15 minutes, which was more than enough time to dispel any doubt as to the matters in controversy.

[59] First of all, the defendants admit that the real Aga Khan showed up. That is proof positive that he authorized the current lawsuit and that if he had ever given his consent, which he had not, by instituting the lawsuit he withdrew it.

[60] A few simple questions would have put the consent issue to rest:

a. What, if anything, does the Aga Khan remember of the presentation to him of the book of Farmans in Montreal in 1992?

b. Did he receive and read Mr. Tadjin’s letter to him dated 4 January 2010?

c. Did he author, or approve, the letter dated 24 January 2010, bearing his signature in response thereto?

d. Likewise, did he author, or approve, the subsequent letter addressed to Mr. Tadjin dated 18 February 2010?

e. Did he appear before a notary public in Boston and sign a solemn affirmation denying that he had ever given the defendants consent, and affirming that he had authorized his lawyers to institute the current action?

[61] The defendants had previously complained that they were unable to cross-examine the Aga Khan on his solemn affirmation because it was not directly in the record. Rather, it was an exhibit to the affidavits of the Boston lawyer and notary public. However, when he attended the examination for discovery they were facing a motion for summary judgment, and were obliged to put their best foot forward. They were then entitled to cross-examine.

[62] During argument before me, Mr. Jiwa stated that although he was present at the discovery, it was not his discovery. In other words, he has waived discovery. Although Mr. Tadjin apparently did pose some questions, there were many off the record discussions, allegedly at the instance of the Aga Khan’s lawyer, and so the transcript is said to be useless.

[63] I consider the position of the defendants to be completely unacceptable. They cannot force a trial, and thus take up finite judicial resources, by refusing to conduct a meaningful examination for discovery. I also take note of the fact that under Rules 288 and following the Aga Khan is normally not permitted to make use of his own discovery.

[64] The transcript was not put before me. I can only infer that the proper questions were not asked because the defendants would not have liked the answers. In any event, the burden to establish consent was upon them, and they have failed to discharge it.

[65] A negative inference may be raised if a witness who logically should have been called was not. The inference is that the evidence would be harmful to that party’s case. A recent example is the decision of Madam Justice Heneghan in South Yukon Forest Corp. v. Canada, 2010 FC 495, 365 F.T.R. 13, at paragraphs 812 and following. As she stated at paragraph 814 “[t]he law is well-settled that the failure of a party to call a witness with personal knowledge of facts that she alleges, will give rise to a negative inference on the part of the trier of fact, that the “absent evidence” would be harmful to the party that failed to call the witness.” Cases frequently cited are Lévesque v. Comeau, [1970] S.C.R. 1010, and Abbott Estate v. Toronto Transportation Commission, [1935] S.C.R. 671.

[66] At paragraph 816 of South Yukon, Madam Justice Heneghan quoted from the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Milliken & Co. v. Interface Flooring Systems (Canada) Inc. (2000), 251 N.R. 358, where Mr. Justice Rothstein, as he then was, said:

[…] However, even if the presumption was applicable, the failure to call Ms. Iles to testify as to the creation date indicates as the most natural inference, that the appellants were afraid to call her and this fear is some evidence that if she were called, she would have exposed facts unfavourable to the appellants. In drawing an adverse inference, the learned trial judge relied on the following passage from Wigmore on Evidence which is relevant to the issue.

The failure to bring before the tribunal some circumstance, document or witness, when either the party himself or his opponent claims that the facts would thereby be elucidated, serves to indicate, as the most natural inference, that the party fears to do so, and this fear is some evidence that the circumstances or document or witness, if brought, would have exposed facts unfavourable to the party. These inferences, to be sure, cannot fairly be made except upon certain conditions: and they are also open always to explanation by circumstances which make some other hypothesis a more natural one than the parties fear of exposure. But the propriety of such an inference in general is not doubted.

I think this is sufficient to displace any presumption. It was not necessary for the respondent to call evidence on the point.

In addition to the reasons of the trial judge for drawing an adverse inference, which I think are sufficient on their own, it is noteworthy that the appellants refused to disclose their witnesses in advance of trial. As the creation date of September 1988 was pleaded by the appellants, and the respondent in its statement of defence put the appellants to the strict proof thereof, it was reasonable for the respondent to expect that the appellants would lead evidence on the point. In these circumstances, it is no answer for the appellants to say that the witness was equally available to the respondent. Nor is it an adequate excuse that the witness was outside the jurisdiction. See Lévesque v. Comeau et al.

I can find no fault in the approach and the finding of the learned Trial Judge. She was entitled to draw an adverse inference in these circumstances and to conclude that the Harmonie work was created prior to June 8, 1988.

[67] The only inference to draw is that neither Mr. Tadjin nor Mr. Jiwa wanted to pose the obvious questions to the Aga Khan because they would not have liked the answers. Had they asked the questions they should have asked, and received the answers they would have liked to have received, they would have been entitled to put the transcript before the Court on the cross-motions for summary judgment. The action would have been dismissed.

REMEDIES

[68] The motions for summary judgment of Messrs Tadjin and Jiwa are to be dismissed.

[69] In his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff, His Highness Prince Karim Aga Khan, did not pursue some of the remedies sought in his Statement of Claim with respect to infringement of copyright relating to the unauthorized reproduction of the original Literary Works and Readings authored by him as found in the book entitled Farmans 1957-2009 – Golden Edition Kalam-E-Iman-E-Zaman. As aforesaid, this book is accompanied by an MP3 audio bookmark, preloaded with 14 audio extracts of recordings of Farmans personally read by the plaintiff which reproduce in substantial part a series of 189 Farmans and 77 Taliqahs and Messages authorized by him and delivered in various countries from 1957 to 2009.

[70] I declare copyright subsists in all plaintiff’s Farmans and Talikas, whether or not contained in the Golden Edition; that he is the owner thereof and that the defendants have infringed copyright. For the purposes of the summary judgment motion, the plaintiff has chosen not to assert his moral rights.

[71] Likewise, I have no difficulty issuing a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, whether acting alone or in consort, from infringing copyright by publishing and distributing the Golden Edition.

[72] With respect to delivery up of all copies of the infringing material in the defendants’ possession, care or control, the motion sought that they deliver the material to the Institute of Ismaili Studies in London, U.K. However given that the location of the infringing material is not known to the plaintiff, or to the Court, a more appropriate order is that while copies of the infringing material located in the United Kingdom be delivered up to the Institute in London, copies found elsewhere should be delivered to the appropriate ITREBs as identified in the Constitution.

[73] The plaintiff also sought an order for a reference for the determination of damages, with pre- and post-judgment interest, such damages to be payable to the Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) Foundation or such other charitable organization as may be designated by him. In a motion for summary judgment one is entitled to ask for a reference on damages and I shall so order.

[74] Pre- and post-judgment interest are claimed in both the statement of claim and in the conclusions on the motion for summary judgment. However, the parties did not specifically address this issue in their written or oral submissions. As this cause of action did not arise in a single province, and as the claim is not for liquidated damages, sections 36 and 37 of the Federal Courts Act, which deal with pre-judgment and judgment interest are applicable. In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate that interest also be subject of the reference.

[75] The plaintiff asks for lump sum costs to be fixed to the amount of $30,000 also payable to the AKDN Foundation or such other charitable organization he may designate. The defendants, who did not seek costs in their own motions, asked for an opportunity to make representations on costs if, as and when they were found liable. I agreed.

[76] The requested orders that payment be made to charity, either directly or indirectly, shall be dealt with as part of the submissions with respect to costs and the reference.

[77] In accordance with Rule 394 of the Federal Courts Rules, I direct the plaintiff to prepare for endorsement a draft judgment to implement these conclusions, approved as to form and content by Messrs Tadjin and Jiwa, or if the parties cannot agree, to bring on a motion for judgment in accordance with Rule 369. In the meantime, an interlocutory injunction shall issue restraining the defendants, whether acting alone or by their directors, officers, servants, agents, workers or representatives, from infringing the plaintiff’s copyright in the literary works. More particularly, the defendants shall be restrained from ordering further copies of, publishing, reproducing, selling, giving or promoting in any way the book entitled Farmans 1957-2009 – Golden Edition Kalam-E Iman-E-Zaman and accompanying pre-loaded MP3 audio bookmark.

“Sean Harrington”

Judge

Ottawa, Ontario

January 7, 2011

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: T-514-10

STYLE OF CAUSE: HIS HIGHNESS PRINCE KARIM AGA KHAN v. NAGIB TAJDIN, ALNAZ JIWA, JOHN DOE AND DOE CO. AND ALL OTHER PERSONS OR ENTITIES UNKNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF WHO ARE REPRODUCING, PUBLISHING, PROMOTING AND/OR AUTHORIZING THE REPRODUCTION AND PROMOTION OF THE

PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING: DECEMBER 7, 2010

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: HARRINGTON J.

DATED: JANUARY 7, 2011

APPEARANCES:

Brian Gray

Allyson Whyte-Nowak

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Alnaz Jiwa

FOR THE DEFENDANT ALNAZ JIWA

(ON HIS OWN BEHALF)

Nagid Tadjin

FOR THE DEFENDANT NAGID TADJIN

(ON HIS OWN BEHALF)

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Ogilvy Renault LLP

Barristers and Solicitors

Toronto, Ontario

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Alnaz Jiwa

Stoufville, Ontario

FOR THE DEFENDANT ALNAZ JIWA

(ON HIS OWN BEHALF)

NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY ALNAZ JIWA 2011-02-07-Notice of Appeal – Alnaz Jiwa-online

NOTICE OF APPEAL NAGIB TAJDIN 2011-02-07-Notice of Appeal – Nagib Tajdin-online


Copyright 2009-2014, Vancouverite News Service.
http://vancouverite.icopyright.com

News Editor Posted by on Jan 10 2011. Filed under Canada, Featured, Top Stories, World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

783 Comments for “Justice Harrington gives Aga Khan resolute win in copyright case”

  1. Heritage website is saying plaintiff is seeking huge award against them. It is about time, I see both Heritage website and Ilm-net is heading for death in near future!!!!!!!!!! and this is going extend to all their future web/publication.

    Its seems when Alnaz/Nagib summarized the meeting of 10/15/2010, they misplaced “to” – Imam asked them to consent to judgment rather than to consent judgment.

    • Money out of the pocket hurts more than religion being snatched from your heart – the pain is not over yet and the costs will keep mounting with a response to the appeal to be filed by the plaintiff and the internal hearings that will follow. It isn’t over until the fat man sings!

  2. APPEAL:
    ======

    FOR INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION ON ISMAILI FORUMS,
    PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK .

    Dignified Consent Judgment refused to Defendants – Appeal filed! –
    Aga Khan Copyright Lawsuit -2011-02-08
    Posted February 8th, 2011 by heritage

    http://www.vancouverite.com/forums-2/religion-group1/ismaili-forum1/appeal-of-judgement-in-copyright-lawsuit-case-thread20.0#postid-145

    THANK YOU.

  3. RECORDED ENTRY(IES) FOR A-59-11 (Close)

    Court Number : A-59-11
    Style of Cause : NAGIB TAJDIN v. HIS HIGHNESS PRINCE KARIM AGA KHAN
    Proceeding Category : Appeals Nature : Appeal (S.27 – Interloc.) – Trade-marks Act
    Type of Action : Non-Action

    ( 1 record found )
    Doc Date Filed Office Recorded Entry Summary
    1 2011-02-07 Toronto Notice of Appeal filed on 07-FEB-2011 against a decision INTERLOCUTORY MOTION OF JUSTICE HARRINGTON DATED jANUARY 7, 2011 -T-514-10 AMENDED JAN.13, 2011 BYWHICH THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUM. JUDGMENT ALLOWE Tariff fee of $50.00 received: yes
    The last database update occurred on 2011-02-09 09:10

  4. I can offer “garam , garam ,masala chai ” if you join us in the Ismaili Forums on Vancouverite while we discuss these issues and share opinion

    http://www.vancouverite.com/forums-2/

    Thank you

    • Info Center
      111 Posts in 12 Topics Made by 37 Members. Latest Member: moonlight
      Latest Post by admin on February 8, 2011, 20:22

  5. from heritage website:
    +++++++++++++
    Vinasha Kale Viparita Budhi
    On February 8th, 2011 Sadrudin (not verified) says:
    Vinasha Kale Viparita Budhi – Literally means during the time of our destruction, we go against our intelligence.

    Indeed you are right. And
    On February 8th, 2011 librarian-umed says:
    Indeed you are right. And the sure sign of this is when you see people contradicting the Imam in loud voice without respect for his Status. And when you see people forging his signature without shame. Surely this are signs of the end of times.
    +++++++++
    Imam said to put this matter to rest and consent to judgment and later said that it would be nice if allegations of forgery against his staff were withdrawn.
    —————–

    I asked Ummed back, are you reinstating charges of fraud against his staff? Isn’t it is the against the wish of Imam? That message was not posted.

    Ummed, Alnaz, Nagib and their supporter are claiming they have submerged in the ocean of Noor.

  6. Don’t see the Appeal filing on the docket as yet, but do see the following:

    Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff in writing to be placed before the Court in Ottawa for an Order Judgment pursuant to the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Harrington dated 7-JAN-2011 filed on 08-FEB-2011 Draft Order\\Judgment received.

    Don’t see the appeal filing posted on heritage either – could it be more game playing or just a slow mule from Stouffville and Parklands.

    Editor: I hope our TO friends are able to obtain/share Gray’s motion.

    • Check Federal Appeal court docket.

      • >>> quote

        On February 8th, 2011 Nagib (not verified) says:

        I can disclose this: The Appeal was made because of something specific Imam told on 15 October. In doing the Appeal we have been guided at each step by Imam’s wish and instructions <<< end quote

        Let me get this straight now :
        Unsurpers forgered letters to defendants and filled lawsuit. Even forged Affirmation.. Defendants got a court ordered Discovery of Plaintiff. Imam-e-Zaman presented Himself. Defendants apologised and withdrew claims of forgery and both agreed to a judgement based on Statement of Claim.,on record in from of Imam-e-Zaman , the plaintiff.

        Now an appeal will happen cuz of what Imem-e-Zaman may have instructed "of-record" which Nagib , who ran around the world to record , collect and distribute Farmans , did not think/manage to record on 15th October 20210 either for himself or to share with Jamats ?

        Does even Bhagwan understand all this …I dont !!!

        Allahu Alim

        • You’re kidding. Bhagvan can’t even talk to you at this moment. He is so busy instructing these two people about how to lead their appeal that there is absolutely no time. May Lord Krishna bring wisdom to these two fellows.

          • News Editor: According to AJ’s understanding of Ramanand Sagar’s production, Shree Krishna supported people who were on the wrong path. In such a case, the “Bhagwan” who is busy instructing them on how to lead their appeal, must also be supporting the two of them who are on the wrong path. Am I right?

            • You know this mix of myth and religion and mix of Islam and Hinduism certainly creates an entirely new religion that is both alien to Ismailism and Islam. And I say that with the deepest respect to Hinduism. It is a religion of millions upon millions of a pluralistic and admirable people who live in India and beyond. But Ismailism has to be Islamic – and it is very unfortunate that these people have created a departure from the focus of the Ismaili faith and I say it is time to turf them out so they can create their own religion if they wish and I’d respect that totally and show them friendship as I would with any person who believes in any religion or someone who has no religion. I am against the idea that they are injecting into Ismailism elements that are alien to Islam. It is time to say goodbye to these folks and the sooner those in charge act to curb them, the less the damage because when they fight us from outside we can handle them, but when the warfare is from within it feels like we’re sleeping with the enemy – and that is said metaphorically.

              • Nizar Ali K. Shivji

                YAM, MR. NEWS EDITOR! My ancestry belongs to hard core priestly class in the Indian sub continental – BRAHMIN, which belongs to the upper caste society in Hinduism! My complete name is Nizar Ali Kassam Shivji Ramji Poonja Dodhia. My whole name was shorten to SHIVJI. The name Shree Shivji is my pride and joy because my paternal grand father inherited at birth this beautiful name which is recognised around the world!

                During my visit to many Sunni Muslims countries, I proudly introduced myself as Mr. Shivji. Many comments have been made unenthusiastically and pessimistically in these countries.

                Optimistically, I am not offended and slighted because these pessimists were ignorant about my heritage! Along with my ancestors whose names I have mentioned were born as Ismaili Muslim. I am proud to be known as NIZAR ALI. I have given my allegiance to my Murshid Mawlana Hazar Imam officially when Hazar Imam visited Africa during His coronation as Imam of the Time! It was spiritual and physical Bayah because Mawlana Hazar Imam placed His both hands on my shoulders with His loving blessings.

                The reason I have started with my ancestry is simply to enlighten anyone who is not familiar with the Ismaili Muslims history from the Indian sub continent. Our poets, academics, and intellectuals from the time our Pirs were very devout and very religious and have made many, many references to Bhagavad-Gita in our Ginan. The reason is very simple – they were in BHARAT (India). These references were made to show the power of good deeds which would take away evil deeds.

                Consequently, we prostate to Allah to strength us with His protection! We seek his guidance for the right path, the path of those upon whom Allah has bestowed favours, and not of those cursed ones and nor of those who have gone astray (Sura Al Hamd – Sura 1). I am Shia Ismaili Muslims. My spiritual father is His Royal Highness Shah Karim Al-Huessein Aga Khan.

                Subsequently, Mr. News Editor, I accept your version entirely! Please interject when you are not comfortable! Allah Hafez, Nizar Ali K. Shivji!

                • It is not that we are not aware of how our ancestors were converted by missionaries with a great deal of knowledge of the religion of our ancestors. However, those who converted then became full-fledged Muslims. Some traditions might have remained in place, but then if you go far enough in pre-Islamic days, I am sure you can find a pagan name somewhere along the chain of names used by our ancestors :)

                • Nizar Ali K. Shivji

                  YAM, MR. NEWS EDITOR! I am in total agreement with your saying. The Indians in Sub Continent, the Arabs, the Iranian, and those Shia Ismaili Muslims who are practicing Ismailism may also not have 1400 years of Islamic history behind them.

                  You know very well that the Middle Eastern countries, as well as the Indian Sub Continent were conquered many times by those who were not practicing Ismailism/Islam. Since these conquerors were not born Islamic, they introduced/imposed their religion, traditions and languages to these conquered people. These traditions and cultures did leave upon them the traces of their doctrine and dogma.

                  Ismailism is practiced by 15-Million people around the world. We have many diverse cultures, traditions, and languages which will never fade away but will become a unique aspect of Ismailism.

                  The Shia Imami Ismaili Tariquah Religious Education Boards (ITREBs) have been very easy-going to bring in the changes relating to the Islamic history, including the Holy Quran. This behaviour doctrine could be the starting point of faction which is not able to unite Ismaili Muslims Tariquah into oneness! I was very much impressed with this statement from Mr. Justice Harrington of the Federal Court of Canada: “If, as the defendants suggest, the Shia Imami Ismaili Tariquah and Religious Education Boards (ITREBs) have fallen down on the job that is a matter for the Aga Khan. He has not authorized Messrs Tajdin and Jiwa to step in their shoes.”

                  I do not hold responsible the ITREBs because like you have said: “some of our bretheren were born Islamic and yet have a culture very akin to the culture of their Hindu ancestors.

                  This mix of culture produced many of the issues that they face – reverting to the faith of their ancestors to find comfort as well as reverting to traditional hymns that are no longer part of the new Islamic-Ismaili religious practices. So this form of duality – of two belief systems – is the central doctrinal issue they face.

                  Neither belief on its own is wrong – yet, combining them is an impossible task although we can find commonalities and the common good in all religions. They do face a choice though. They can follow one or the other and would be no better or worse for making that decision, in my eyes. Yet, I see very little Islam in them, and I see more and more that they are relying on the mythology and religion of their ancestors.

                  Allah Hafez, Nizar Ali K. Shivji!

                • Yes Nizar. We’ve been there before, check out the issues that arose during the time of Imam Hakim bi Amr Allah. We had other brothers who broke away because of doctrinal issues. Details are for you to dig up and understand. Culture injects itself into belief. Converts who previously had another faith, will bring their culture into their religion. No one is wrong in how they see faith or practise it in a personal way. The law of the land accepts that. However, when you fail to understand that cultural differences will affect how you believe, you must submit to the general will and refrain from imposing your views on others or insisting that there is only one way to believe or that all others are wrong or create the impression that the way you believe is the universal, standard code of belief of Ismailis. (And here take note of the rejection by the Aga Khan of the personal beliefs of Nagib Tajdin and Alnaz Jiwa about what Ismailis believe. It is important for people to understand that the Aga Khan says that the beliefs outlined by Nagib and Alnaz are their personal beliefs and not the beliefs of Ismailis – and here perhaps someone will be kind enough to look that up in the Aga Khan’s response to NT and AJ) Every individual has his or her own way of having a discourse with the creator – if you believe that a superior force exists. If you don’t believe, then it doesn’t matter either. But you’ll notice that every religion likes to think of itself as being right and the rest being wrong – this is a further problem that has caused conflict. People and religions need not have friction among them or between them – they just need to refrain from imposing their beliefs on others.

                • Nizar Ali K. Shivji

                  YAM, MR. NEWS EDITOR! Many thanks for your explanation! It is, indeed, satisfying to discuss issues with an open mind. I am least bothered about this new development in chronicle of NT/AJ – THE APPEAL! This was anticipated and it has happened. This new scenario is only premeditated to prolong the court proceeding. Obviously, Messer Nagib Tajdin and Alnaz Jiwa have neglected the wishes of Hazar Imam. Thus bringing them into disrepute. Now it appears that the defendants cannot contend for a negotiated settlement within and outside the Ismaili Muslims Community. It is a messy situation for the defendants! Hazar Imam’s wishes and articulation are always received by Ismaili Muslims Community in a respected and dignified manner; therefore, the burden of responsibility is in hands of the defendants. The defendants so far have failed to comprehend the importance of religious formal procedure. This court case is not a mythology or the religious folklore in which the God would send his emissary or make himself available in earthly physical form to right the wrong! This litigation is argued in Canadian Federal Court with the law enforcement of the land. Allah Hafez, Nizar Ali K. Shivji!

      • Doc Date Filed Office Recorded Entry Summary
        124 2011-02-08 Toronto Solicitor’s certificate of service on behalf of Allyson Whyte Nowak confirming service of Doc. 123 upon Defendant, Nagib Tajdin by email on 08-FEB-2011 confirming service Doc. 123 upon Defendant, Alnaz Jiwa by email on 08-FEB-2011 filed on 08-FEB-2011

        123 2011-02-08 Toronto Motion Record containing the following original document(s): 120 121 122 Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Plaintiff filed on 08-FEB-2011

        122 2011-02-08 Toronto Written Representations contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff concerning Motion in writing Doc. No. 120 filed on 08-FEB-2011

        121 2011-02-08 Toronto Affidavit of Bola Sholubi sworn on 08-FEB-2011 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff in support of Motion Doc. No. 120 with Exhibits A-C filed on 08-FEB-2011

      • Newbie is learning and I didn’t even have to go to China.
        See it filed on Feb 7th. and awaiting action.

        http://www.fca-caf.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_moreInfo_e.php?A-59-11

    • For all latest details / discussions on the Notice of Appeal filed by defendants
      click below to get to Ismaili Forum on Vancouverite

      http://www.vancouverite.com/forums-2/religion-group1/ismaili-forum1/appeal-of-judgement-in-copyright-lawsuit-case-thread20.0#postid-145

      COME SHARE YOUR OPINIONS WITH US . Thank You .

  7. Now, it is time for Alnaz/Nagib and their supporter to raise funds for the cost of trial and appeal – Alnaz/Nagib will be requiring to pay at least a million dollars. Currently, Imam is paying these costs.

    I think Bloglaw should take the initiative to open a link on Heritage website!

  8. Efditor – You say lot of re- thinking may have gone into why Allamasahebs books have not been published? Re thinking by Hazar Imam ? Re thinking by Dr Sachedina? why then not inform Allamasahebs. ? Why not meet him and discuss the re thinking? When and why did the re thinking start and by whom? many questions and of course I assume you have some specific information which you do not want to share why not share knowledge and keep people waiting PR in the dark for 10 years?

    • My friend the shifting sands of time have an answer for you. Think hard. But then you’re not a thinker, are you? Now tell me something: since you conceded these were Talikas that were read out and Imam asked not to prolong the matter, is Alnaz being defiant? I know you have the courage to look inside you to find an answer. This question is posed solely on the basis of your proclamation that farmans should be available or do we now put every Farman through a forensic test?

    • Allamasaheb’s books HAVE been published. What are you guys talking about?

      • He is an author. Books have been published. This fellow is asking if they have been published by Ismaili institutions. Formerly local associations used to publish books.

        • Allamahsaheb’s works have been referenced by authors working at Ismaili institutions and his poems have been published in IIS books. There are several other candidates who have not been published by the Ismaili institutions, that doesn’t mean anything. Hope you guys are not suggesting that an author has to be published by Ismaili institutions in order to be credible.

          • Did you read the posting made by Bloglaw? Is there any suggestion about credibility? He is saying that some books submitted to the organizations have not been published. If they have not been published, there may a reason for that.

          • Imam directed that IIS to publish them AND to make his books knowledge and learnings exposed and available widely in the Jamat. This is confirmed by Dr Sachedina himself 7 years ago ? This scholar continues to publish other books, and some 18 of his books you are right in the IIS reference library.

    • B L O G L A W: THIRD AND FINAL REMINDER. Are you going to answer the 2 questions that I asked you? Just a suggestion – Since Allamasaheb’s books have not been published for so many years, rather than wait another 10 years to seek answers, why don’t you ask your friend Nagib to publish them???

  9. Bloglaw. A lot of rethinking may have gone into why Allamasahib’s books were not published.

  10. APPEALS FILED IN COURT

    On February 8th, 2011 Alnaz (not verified) says:

    “We filed our appeals with the Court of Appeal today. I trust that Heritage will post the appeals for all to read and digest….In today’s episode, Shree Krishna said to Arjun (reminded me of MSMS) to give his best in his deeds without paying attention to the results of the deed, without seeking specific results, saying dharam is to simply work hard with intelligence and might, leaving the results of the deeds to Bhagwaan..I have been watching the serials on Shree Krishna (Ramanand Sagar’s production) and I am amazed at how often Shree Krishna supported people who were on the wrong only..”

    It seems that Alnaz and Nagib will presenting their appeal to the appellate court on the basis of Ramanand Sagar’s production of “Mahabharat.” They will argue that just like Shree Krishna, HH has been supporting people who are wrong. :(

    • Well, the man certainly belongs to some other religion. He hardly has an Islamic thing to say, hardly is able to explain his own ramblings, hardly stands a chance that his appeal will be accepted, hardly stands a chance of getting anything overturned even if it is heard and it is hardly surprising that he has filed an appeal. I think he actually belongs under some tree in the Himalayas – are you sure he is not claiming to be Lord Krishna or an incarnation of Lord Krishna? Actually, I wound’t even be surprised if he did since he seems to have direct communications with Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu. Hinduism is a great faith and it is a shame that one would compare one’s own paltry battles with the triumph over evil that some of these ancient religious stories are about. However, it is, as it was expected. Desperate people, desperate means. Inevitable delayed, but not derailed.

      • Bhagwaan serve nu bhaloo kare !!

        Allahu Alim

      • For AJ to propose that Shree Krishna supported people who were on the wrong (falsehood) is an affront and a mark of disrespect to people practicing “Hinduism.” who consider Krishna to be divine.

        • Lord Krishna was God – he was the 8th Avatar of Vishnu. Hinduism remains one of the largest religions of mankind. There are many movements within Hinduism similar to the Hare Krishna movement. But even if you look at his proposition – that Lord Krishna often supported the wrong people for an ulterior motive – you do get the drift of what he’s thinking – that the Imam’s fight against him is essentially so he can destroy those who wish to harm Alnaz. That makes sense no? At least that acknowledge that the Imam is involved in this actively? And it also implies that Alnaz is an ally of the Imam and the two of them are secretly working on destroying the enemies who have penetrated the Castle of Aiglemont! And as noted by our poster Sadrudin – according to Umed, the end of the earth is near.

          • Confirms what we’ve suspected; they’re getting what they perceive as divine communication – now Alnaz tells us the source – its Sagar’s dramatic production.
            They’ve bet all their marbles on their understanding of Sagar’s epic instead of clear communication by way of established recognized traditional channel from the Imam, that is historically accepted by all His followers.

      • Nizar Ali K. Shivji

        YAM, MR. NEWS EDITOR! You are absolutely right! “Desperate people, desperate means.” Very well said, indeed! Allah Hafez, Nizar Ali K. Shivji!

    • Now, even IP Osgoode says, there are no issue on the matter:
      http://www.iposgoode.ca/2011/01/who-must-show-consent-in-an-intellectual-property-infringement-case/

      General Global Week in Review 7 February 2011 from IP Think Tank, on February 7, 2011 at 6:01 am Said:
      […] Who must show consent in an intellectual property infringement case? Khan v. Tajdin, 2011 FC 14 (IP Osgoode) […]

      Sadrudin, on February 7, 2011 at 4:56 pm Said:
      Plaintiff has burden to show material in contention is in fact an intellect property [by meeting requirements – is unique, it has economic value and was protected] (this was waived by defendants), material was in fact was used [published] (undisputed facts), plaintiff never authorized to publish [by defendants] (this is done with declaration under penalty of perjury which is sufficient at this stage).

      Once above is established, burden shifts on defendants to show that they had consent from the Plaintiff to publish the material.

      D Vaver, on February 8, 2011 at 2:45 am Said:
      More precisely, a plaintiff has the legal burden to show he is a qualified person who owns copyright in Canada for a literary work; that the defendant has done an act reserved to the plaintiff (reproduction); and that the plaintiff did not consent to it. If consent is in issue (as it was), the defendants have the onus of leading evidence that in fact shows consent. The legal burden of proving lack of consent on a balance of probabilities always remains on the plaintiff; but the burden is satisfied once the plaintiff produces adequate evidence (as he did) until & unless the evidence led by the defendant adequately contradicts it (which in this case, it did not, according to the judge). The case law cited in my blog note and elaborated for other IP in the forthcoming Note in the IPJ establishes all this. For me, this topic is now exhausted.

      D Vaver, on February 8, 2011 at 2:47 am Said:
      The literary work in question must of course also be original – as it was conceded to be by all.

      Appeal is bound to dismiss…..

      • Prof is absolutely right. The initial burden was satisfied when copyright was not challenged. The onus shifted to defendants. The prof’s citation is incorrect since it is assumed the last name is Khan. The Aga Khan is a title not a name :)

    • This person Alnaz (not verified) who is trying to indicate that the defendants are using the “Shree Krishna’s Mahabharat” saga; AJ/NT can not understand simple instruction given to them by H.H. the Aga Khan (who they pro-claim to adhere to) on Oct. 15, 2010, how can these two individuals iinterpret the complicated and thorough understanding of Lord Krishna’s Mahabharat, they are under-mining GOD’s (Lord Krishna) true intentions of the “Mahabharat War” which is between the TRUTH AND EVIL. I am sure all ismailies know who is on the “TRUTH” side and who is on the “EVIL” side.

    • Latest morsel from Oct 15th:
      On February 8th, 2011 Nagib (not verified) says:
      I can disclose this: The Appeal was made because of something specific Imam told on 15 October. In doing the Appeal we have been guided at each step by Imam’s wish and instructions. End Quote

      Brothers are getting guidance from somewhere that they believe originates from the Imam. The forgery stance continues despite “I withdraw allegations and am sorry” in the presence of the Imam – the boys have “all forgotten” their admission. They have repelled any doubts of their true intention, and one can only surmise that the crossed wires are of a permanent nature, especially in view of Imam’s clear Talika guidance (sent after Oct 15th). Let’s hope those still on their boat will now jump ship to save themselves….. Bloglaw: take heed.

  11. Hello Editor.
    Bloglaw, decided to posed his question on heritage website and I have noticed they posts only selected response. Please post my response for Bloglaw.

    I am not questionings and reasoning of 1992 mehmani inference Nagib took it and went on publishing the firman book. I would have done the same.

    When Imam asked Nagib to stop selling the book in the meeting of 10/15/2010 and Imam asked for consent judgment which gives the totally new inference to the event took place in 1992.

    Regarding mehmani in general, what I mentioned was not about the Darbar – I have personally attended the mehmani in LA as well as in India in 1962 and we were graced by the imam for discussing matter for about 2 to 3 minutes on both the occasion. So this is my personal experience.

    The entire lawsuit is about infringe of IP. The IP usually defined as follows:
    Plaintiff has burden to show material in contention is in fact an intellect property [by meeting requirements – is unique, it has economic value and was protected] (this was waived by defendants), material was in fact was used [published] (undisputed facts), plaintiff never authorized to publish [by defendants] (this is done with declaration under penalty of perjury which is sufficient at this stage).

    Once above is established, burden shifts on defendants to show that they had consent from the Plaintiff to publish the material. This consent defendants needed to establish showing tangible evidence in the matter of law which means explicit or implicit. The implicit inference of 1992 was voided when Imam did not ask his attorney to dismiss the case. In Civil lawsuit there are two outcomes, 1 – guilty and 2 – dismiss. There is nothing there in the middle. In criminal context there are three outcomes – 1- guilty 2 – not guilty and 2 – no contest (still turns to guilty).

    So choose your outcome.

    • With respect my friend. You’re way off on a couple of things. Firstly, I do not see how you could go to your Imam with a concealed agenda and then do exactly what Nagib did. Nagib was not at the Mehmani. No words were exchanged. So what inference do you want to draw? Do you want to draw the inference that if you had a book the Imam knew nothing about, did not open, did not read, did not discuss – was authorization? Then you are in direct conflict with what Imam said in in his statement of claim – you need to read it. If you read it, it should change your mind about what inferences you can draw. .

      Secondly if the Imam were to send you an emissary in the form of his closest aides and told you that you were mistaken, would you continue to argue?

      Thirdly, you’ve entirely forgotten about the letters the Imam wrote once the book was presented to his family member. Would you have drawn the inference that the Imam’s letter was forged, not once but twice?

      Would you then go on to accuse the Imam’s secretary of participating in a criminal conspiracy?

      And then when the statement of claim was filed in court in which he said he did not authorize any publication during any point in time, would you have called that a forgery by a usurper as though your Imam is incapacitated and can’t speak out when someone forges documents on his behalf?

      And when the Imam signed an affidavit in front of a top American lawyer and a notary public in Boston, would you have claimed that someone could have forged his passport?

      And then would you have gone and got a court order to cross examine your Imam? Would you have put your Imam under oath? You know they did not take a box of chocolates to give to Dr. Sachedina don’t you?

      And then when you get a Talika would you have called it a forgery?

      Think about what I have just said to you. If you’d have done the same as Nagib, then why blame the fellow at all. Then Nagib was right and the Imam is wrong. Right?

    • @ sadrudin

      >> “….So choose your outcome.”…..

      They have chosen to continue defiance of Imam-e-Zaman .

      Allahu Alim

  12. Bloglaw – I asked heritage for number of counts they responded with the link. So here is things when they say lot of matters:

    Here is the the cut and paste of the claim or count:
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    The PlaintiffHis Highness PrinceKarim Aga Khan claims:
    (a) a declaration that; <=== merely a statement
    (i) copyright subsists in the LiteraryWorks and Readings (as defined herein);
    and
    (ii) the Plaintiffis the owner thereof)
    ***************************** Following is the count – in US laws ********************************
    (b) a declaration that the Defendants have infringed copyright in the Plaintiff's LiteraryWorks and Readings; <=== count 1
    (c) a declaration that the Defendants have infringed the Plaintiff's moral rights in the LiteraryWorks and Readings; <=== count 1(in rewording)
    ******************************************************************************************************
    (d) an interim, interlocutory and pennanent injunction to restrain the Defendants) whether acting by their directors, officers, servants, agents, workers or representatives, from infringing the Plaintitrs copyright and/or moral rights in the
    LiteraryWorks and Readings; <=== remedy
    (e) an interim, interlocutory and pennanent order requmng the Defendants to maintain proper books and records of all revenue of any kind received from the exploitation of, or otherwise in respect of, any copy of the Infringing Material (as
    defined herein) in Canada; and all records in respect of the printing, publication and distribution of the Infringing Material;
    <======== remedy
    (f) an Order requiring the Defendants to deliver up to the Plaintiff or his nominee all copies of the Infringing Material in the Defendants' possession, care or control and all other wares~ labels, packages, signage, advertising materials, plates or
    moulds or other materials or things in the Defendants' power, custody or possession, which refer to all or any part of the LiteraryWorks and Readings; <==== remedy

    ************** Penalty *************************
    (g) damages for infringement of the Plaintiff's copyright and moral rights;
    (h) an accounting of all revenues received and profits made by the Defendants from the sale of any and all copies of the Infringing Materials;
    (i) in the alternative, an award of statutory damages in respect of the infringement of the LiteraryWorks and Readings;
    *************** Making sure it does not happen in future **********************
    G) punitive and exemplary damages;
    ***************** following recover of cost to plaintiff
    (Ie) costs of this action on a solicitor and client basis; (1) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and
    (m) such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court seems just

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    So when Imam ask them for consent judgment – Imam means items (b) and (c) had occurred and defendants need to workout for remedy and penalty matters and bring the matter to closure.

    The above text I did posted on Heritage site but I think they will choose not to post.

  13. Biglaw, This quote I am taking from heritage website: “Imam said to put this matter to rest and consent to judgment “. Since this case is about IP infringe, Imam is asking for consent to judgment means Imam is saying plea guilty. Isn’t that was the single count in the case?

    There is no statement I found on the website, which clearly states that Imam asked them not to sale the firman book, but defendants did stated, “Imam said that copies already bought by murids can be kept by them and do not have to be returned.”

    Defendants said, when Imam left the room he placed his hands on his heart and said “Khuda Haffiz”. Imam did not place the hand on shoulder of defendants and blessed them. That’s the fact.

    Alnaz wrote on 11/1/2010: “I raised the box to give to him and Hazar Imam leaned toward the box and said, it’s not appropriate for me to take it from you in the law office”. Imam could have asked defendants to come out of the office or invited to his residence.

    So Imam differentiated for you that this meeting took place in the law office, is not the environment for Mulakat and Mehmani that when he bestow to Jamat.

    So just read between lines and you will see the answers.

    • There you go Sadrudin – Now you got to the core of the matter. The Imam did not consider this to be a Mulaqat nor did he consider this an occasion when he could accept an offering. It was pointed out to the chap that this is not an audience but an official setting required by law and not by consent of the Imam. I have said before the Imam did not want to meet with these two chaps. So revisit your thoughts on Mehmani on the same notion – time and place for everything. A personal, spiritual occasion for an Ismaili is not to be used to do business with Imam – which requires decisions and planning at the corporate level. There is protocol for that – write to him if you have serious matters that require time and study before being approved. Don’t tell me again that a concealed intent is approved when you put something on a plate and an agent takes it for you. Your Imam denies that is what happened – but you said you’d do the same as Nagib.

  14. B L O G L A W: THIS IS A SECOND REMINDER!
    Please answer the following two questions, with clarity and truthfully, without introducing more red herrings.

    First question: Is it disrespectful, deceitful, hypocritical or wrong for Nagib Tajdin who calls himself Ismaili to make a statement in the presence of the Imam that he is sorry, that he does not maintain any allegations of fraud and that he withdraws all allegations of fraud; and then to continue maintaining those allegations? Yes?

    Second question: Is it disrespectful or loathsome for any person who calls himself Ismaili to get a court order, like NT did, to force the Imam, against his wishes, to appear for cross examinations? Yes?

    If you do not clearly answer those questions in the affirmative or fail to answer them altogether, then we’ll know for sure that you, yourself, if you claim to be an Ismaili, are a disrespectful, loathsome, hypocritical and a deceitful person.

  15. @bloglaw, Quit harping about “IF the version of Nagib/Alnaz is correct”

    There is only ONE version and that is the lawsuit /court documents and the final Judgment.

    In one of your older post , you had posted the you were going to expose the person who has forged the letter. What happened to this ?

  16. So in reality, in Mulakat, Imam bless that murid by placing his hand over the shoulder, if food offering is done then Imam may decide to keep it with him or return to the Murid with the blessings.

    I suggest again you discuss this with a scholar and an Al Waez,s and also read or listen to Abu Ali,s write up and Waeez.

    • Bloglaw, bloglaw. You don’t have a leg to stand on. Seriously now. Was a hand ever placed on the shoulder of the Imam’s adversary – Alnaz Jiwa – in this legal contest, at any point? And then the food offering – lovely. When are we doing a book offering?

    • Bloglaw: Still playing word games,eh! All Ismailis got blessings in the Talika that you are still having problems accepting. You know that “K..” word. Blessing is not restricted to hand on the shoulder. Take that to your scholars/waezeens and ask them to validate. What a pity you missed out on the blessings in the Talika.

  17. Sadrudin- you asked for an analysis re Mehmani and mulakak ? See your post. seems you may be in a form of denial. now you are giving one version of what may have happened on 15 th Oct. What if the version of Alnaz and Nagib is correct? Also Am wished to attend and attended?

    Panjebhai – I was dealing with Mehmani and mulakat and so posted that section. I have asked scholars and Al Waezeens? They agree with me. Hence I ask you to clarify Or of you can accept what I said I’m those matters.

    Editor – Yes I will join and there is a need after we know this case has finally concluded as I agreed some time ago and we can all also maybe discuss personally on conference free calls and or webinars- However you should get leaders to say ok or face criticism or that this is not authoried and you are forming a separatist group etc etc :)

    • Bloglaw: You’re doing the spin dance again and confusing yourself by not following the netiquette of keeping the thread intact; unless it is your strategy to not respond to issues raised.
      In any case, since you state that scholars and Waezeens agree with your viewpoint, are you willing to provide their contact info (either via Editor or you can communicate to me via the forum)? Also provide your viewpoint with regard to specific points raised previously:

      I also note that, like Alnaz and Nagib, you have not stopped beating the Oct 15th Mulaqaat drum. So, this is to all three of you to respond about what constitutes a Mulaqaat:
      1. Customary for blessings given during Mulaqaat, Agree?
      2. Customary for mehmani acceptance if part of a Mulaqaat, Agree?
      While you’re at it… 3. are you also now of the opinion that the recent Talika is not from MHI? 4. Did your scholars/Waezens agrre with you.
      Use the numbering system – 1 through 4 – when you respond…ok!

  18. Info Center of Ismaili Forums on Vancouverite . com .

    RELIGION >> Ismaili
    This is a discussion about recent events surrounding the issue of copyrighted communications of the Aga Khan being used in a book and the resultant judgment by Justice Harrington of the Federal Court of Canada.
    Moderators: admin, zak, Nizar Ali K. Shivji, fatima_canada, mike, Soulmate Topics: 10 Posts: 96

    98 Posts in 11 Topics Made by 34 Members. Latest Member: poweradd
    Latest Post by zak on February 6, 2011, 08:53

    Please join us to discuss and debate

    http://www.vancouverite.com/forums-2/

    Thank you.

    • You can also discuss

      POLITICS >> Egypt in turmoil
      This forum will discuss the current turmoil in Egypt and its ramifications for dictatorial regimes in the Middle East. You may post news links here if you want. You may also wish to enlighten us with your thoughts on what could happen next.

      http://www.vancouverite.com/forums-2/

      Thank You

  19. Editor – you are suggesting Alnaz should stop distributing the book. His role was limited and now we have judgment in any event. you have kindly offered to give him ideas about how he can serve in other ways and you can give him some ideas. I am also interested in your ideas about how you think he and others can serve. ?

    • We need to take the first step. First let’s accept the verdict and then let’s accept the talika. Once Alnaz acknowledges the larger interest of the community is in his heart, I will show you many ways in which Ismaili people are serving their people and the rest of humanity. Sometimes silence brings peace. Let’s not have provocative, divisive statements on Heritage. I noticed that when comments were not made on Heritage people did not seem to have much to counter here and comments declined. We can move forward together. Peace is the key. Once there is peace I’m out of here and you will not hear from me again except through friendly communications through other means.

    • Bloglaw: Your first line could be construed as you not agreeing that Alnaz should stop distributing the book. Is that what you really mean to say?
      As far as serving, a start would be to cease and desist public accusations and slander against Imam and His appointees… Make sense?

      • Bloglaw is our brother and he’ll join us soon.

        • Editor: We do keep hoping for that day, don’t we !!
          Perhaps, Sudrudin’s post will help Bloglaw analyse with his eyes wide open and not through AJ/NT inner eyes. Time is definitely running out for those on Nagib’s bandwagon.

          • You know how I feel about disputes. I want to bring these two brothers Nagib and Alnaz together and give them a big hug and say you know what? Nothing happened, now let’s just move on. But then I am just a different sort of fellow.

  20. Sadrudin- you say I am giving my definition and understanding of mulakat and Mehmani? What is yours and how is it different? You ask if I know the protocol before mehmanis and Mulakats. I do. What is the point you want to make or are you merely generalising again?

    • Bloglaw: I think you meant to address this to me not Sadrudin. Re-read my post (as well as Soulmate’s) and look at the questions posed and answer them. Respectfully, it is you who is generalizing and veering away from the point, or shall I say the path. Folks here have and are trying to correct your misconceptions, but unless you clearly explain you position – not the wishy washy noncommittal stuff – we are handicapped from showing you the truth and light.
      And definitely un-cool of you to exclude the two questions and just post your definitions response on heritage. If you are having difficulty, take your advice and ask scholars/waezeens and then respond.. Fair?

    • Bloglaw – I have never raised the question on mulakat and Mehmani. However, the mulakat of 10/15/2010 was took place due to court order. Usually, Imam decides to give mulakat to Jamat, to institution, to some as per his wishes. I can say for sure that Imam was so careful not to classify that mulakat as a cordial and that you can conclude from the followings:

      Imam did not ask his attorney to dismiss the case in defendants’ favor.
      Imam did not accepted sweet offering.
      Imam did not gave blessings to defendants.
      Imam did ask defendants to stop distributing his firman book.

      Talika clearly clarified:
      His firman cannot be modified. Distribution and publication are the responsibility of His institution.

      This case was about IP infringe. Imam did not seek dismissal which means Imam wanted defendants to take responsibility of their action.

      When defendants offered sweet to Imam, Imam declined – which means defendants cannot claim OR gave perception to other members of Jamat that their approach was acceptable.

      Defendants need to comply with the Imam wishes.

      This is kind a Mahbhart war – which was fought between two groups and both were worshiping and believing Krishna – in this war Krishna was on Pandev’s side, here in modern days the war was fought between Ismaili institutions and defendants and Imam was on our institution sides. Our institution won! Let’s celebrate! After the 10/15/2010 until the HI’s talika, I was thinking defendant’s were fighting for good cause, but no more. Now, I see defendants arrogance and ignorance.

      • So in reality, in Mulakat, Imam bless that murid by placing his hand over the shoulder, if food offering is done then Imam may decide to keep it with him or return to the Murid with the blessings.

      • Sadrudin: Mubaraki and I commend you for being candid brother. As our good friend zak would say: Shukar and Al-hamdulilah.
        Lets us hope our heritage friends are able to recognise the same, before the olive branch dies and it is too late. I see you still have access to post on heritage – may be worthwhile to post your story there and even if the defendants and Umed (who continues his arrogance and defiance) do not turn, it may be inspirational for others to re-think their position. After all the good book states to save a life is as if one has saved mankind; so even if you turn one soul, it would be worth the effort. Our prayers are with you for success.
        It does appear from recent heritage posts that they have resigned to the fact that there is no victory for the defendants in the courts and have therefore switched to misguided spiritual emphasis to pursue their agenda of continued defiance and slander against the Imam and His appointees. If spiritual would have been their basis, they would have practiced prayer and humility, not pride, arrogance and open defiance/slander, with a view to gather support for their cause.

Leave a Reply