Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
DigitalUmmah

Using insurance as an excuse to ban tatbir

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Pearl178 said:

@DigitalUmmah Insurance policies are rampant with exclusion clauses. Why don't they just exclude tatbir or self-harm from the policy coverage? I didn't get time to read the entire thread so apologies if this point was already brought forward. 

the anti tatbir crowd are arguing that they do not exist & I am a liar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some communities are occupied with expanding, understanding how to equip the community in light of a changing world and how to adhere to the Quran and Ahlulbayt [sunnah], while others are engaged in destructive, divisive civil wars all in the name of keeping up cultural self-harm and self-mutilation rituals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, uponthesunnah said:

Some communities are occupied with expanding, understanding how to equip the community in light of a changing world and how to adhere to the Quran and Ahlulbayt [sunnah], while others are engaged in destructive, divisive civil wars all in the name of keeping up cultural self-harm and self-mutilation rituals.

I can pretty much guarantee that I have done more, am currently doing more, and will continue to do more for humans, not just shia, than you. lets not start trying to go down this path, because you will lose every time. marrying a sunni doesnt mean you have done a great service to the ummah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

.

I was not referring to you, or referring to shias who are more inclined to having unity with sunni's i.e marrying them, attending mosques as better.  I am talking about the communities [not you yourself] who seem to have absolute lack of any unity due to tatbir, being more of a harm than good, when their priorities should be on developing their community.

No doubt you have done a lot of good, but i can't support what you are doing here and now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, uponthesunnah said:

I was not referring to you, or referring to shias who are more inclined to having unity with sunni's i.e marrying them, attending mosques as better.  I am talking about the communities [not you yourself] who seem to have absolute lack of any unity due to tatbir, being more of a harm than good, when their priorities should be on developing their community.

No doubt you have done a lot of good, but i can't support what you are doing here and now.

in your imagination, why are the two things mutually exclusive? why do you assume that people doing an act that takes approx 15 minutes a year must be social degenerates who are dragging us all backwards and must be guided back to the light by the likes of you?

there are good people that do tatbir, bad people, most a mix of both, professionals, students....how are you, based on your zero authority, going to judge that people who do tatbir are doing more harm than good? you dont know what they do for the rest of the year, you dont know their lives, you dont know anything about who they are as people. how dare you speak to your fellow shia in such ways!

when it comes to sunni you stop just short of licking their feet, but to other shias, you are so quick to point the finger. mashaAllah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

in your imagination, why are the two things mutually exclusive? why do you assume that people doing an act that takes approx 15 minutes a year must be social degenerates who are dragging us all backwards and must be guided back to the light by the likes of you?

there are good people that do tatbir, bad people, most a mix of both, professionals, students....how are you, based on your zero authority, going to judge that people who do tatbir are doing more harm than good? you dont know what they do for the rest of the year, you dont know their lives, you dont know anything about who they are as people. how dare you speak to your fellow shia in such ways!

when it comes to sunni you stop just short of licking their feet, but to other shias, you are so quick to point the finger. mashaAllah. 

There are good people who do Tatbir ofcourse, you are an example in my eyes of a 'good' person, and i am not even fit to judge who is 'good' or 'bad'. This is precisely why i stated that the entire community, and by this i mean the community in those videos were literally being torn apart due to quarrels over blood-letting rituals.

Clearly there is a group who do not want it practised, and for good reason, and there is another group who want to hang onto cultural practise. This had caused members to call others 'shaytan', to abuse one another, quarrel, backbite, and greatly weaken the community.

Why not just abandon the '15' minutes a year? Remember, you yourself told me your brother almost had his hand impaled, another had his knee cap almost cut-off, and you've seen blood, gore, and severe injuries many times, with some people often 'losing it' emotionally during the blood-letting rituals. No wonder some of the members of the community are worried.

Why not abandon this and focus on the good things you do? They aren't mutually exclusive, you can 'literally' do both, but one is clearly doing more harm than good, so abandon it and focus on the other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

when it comes to sunni you stop just short of licking their feet, but to other shias, you are so quick to point the finger. mashaAllah. 

I have absolutely no say with how sunni's should run their communities, and personally, it is not my problem. The group that represent the ahlulbayt [asws] i.e the shia's, are my own, and are my problem. The same as i would be more harsh as i care more for members of my own household as they represent my family, than say, members of another household.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, uponthesunnah said:

Clearly there is a group who do not want it practised, and for good reason, and there is another group who want to hang onto cultural practise. This had caused members to call others 'shaytan', to abuse one another, quarrel, backbite, and greatly weaken the community.

we are going off topic. 

my problem is not that people are against it - its specifically that they are lying, as elected representatives of the hussainia, as servants of the awaited Imam (atfs), as supposed leaders of the community.

this thread is not about permissibility or impermissibility or benefits or drawbacks or social effects or alternate actions of tatbir. its specifically to explain why using insurance as an excuse to ban it is absolutely, without any doubt, a lie. 

i am hoping that no matter what side of the fence anyone stands on regarding this matter, I have shown that they have indeed lied. 

Imam Ali (as) said "stand with the truth, even if it is against yourself". we would be wise to remember this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

we are going off topic. 

my problem is not that people are against it - its specifically that they are lying, as elected representatives of the hussainia, as servants of the awaited Imam (atfs), as supposed leaders of the community.

this thread is not about permissibility or impermissibility or benefits or drawbacks or social effects or alternate actions of tatbir. its specifically to explain why using insurance as an excuse to ban it is absolutely, without any doubt, a lie. 

i am hoping that no matter what side of the fence anyone stands on regarding this matter, I have shown that they have indeed lied. 

Imam Ali (as) said "stand with the truth, even if it is against yourself". we would be wise to remember this. 

Look, what we can technically do in the law, can be technically done. If you are legally correct, then you are legally correct [i don't know, nor is it my place to judge]  But i don't blame committee members for doing what they are doing. If it is the only way to stop this being practised, then it must be done. It has no place in a mosque and hussayniah. Why not just rent your own hall or do it in your houses? Why not keep the mosque's where they create an environment everyone is comfortable in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, uponthesunnah said:

But i don't blame committee members for doing what they are doing. If it is the only way to stop this being practised, then it must be done.

so you support them in their lies?

mashaAllah at shiachats self appointed moral police resident finger pointer admitting such a thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother DU rather then telling us what the 'committees' are doing present us with a solution that doesn't depend on the 'good will' of people deciding not to sue ( your waivers idea did not cover all eventualities)

also doesn't depend on the 'good will' of the CPS on deciding not to prosecute or having a test case.

CPS were only to happy to prosecute the guy with the sons

Edited by A true Sunni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pearl178 said:

@DigitalUmmah Insurance policies are rampant with exclusion clauses. Why don't they just exclude tatbir or self-harm from the policy coverage? I didn't get time to read the entire thread so apologies if this point was already brought forward. 

Thats the whole point so tatbir and self harm gets excluded from the PLI. Suppose someone decides to sue maliciously or otherwise. Who is liable if that case wins. The liability is the committee and the trustees. So that's houses assets and businesses of the committee and trustees at risk.

So not only will they have to pay court costs but costs if the person suing is successful.

In case of death or serious injury the ploice gets involved and this could be a case for the CPS. So if the CPS decides to prosecute that potentially jail terms

DU believes that waivers are an iron clad way to protect committees and trustees

A lot of people on here disagree

Edited by A true Sunni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

so you support them in their lies?

mashaAllah at shiachats self appointed moral police resident finger pointer admitting such a thing. 

I stated before, you are relying on the fact people will not sue, despite all the injuries. And as i said again, precautions are taken in the rare event the worst happens. Beyond that, i am not a lawyer and i don't want to delve too much into the legalities thereof.

However, from a human point of view, from a social point for view, i can understand why the committee see's this act as destructive, and not an act which allows all members of the community to feel safe within the centre's.

The mosque is the house of Allah, and acts which make other community members feel unsafe, or acts which you have to hide and make secret, or acts which you have to make well sure no revert or anyone interested in Islam comes and observes, including other sunni's, or even shia's who may be sickened by it, is not an act which should have any place at these centre's.

The centre then becomes a cult-house, than a house of God. I don't think these people who want to hold onto culture, verses what is better overall are inherently evil. It's human culture, from before the jahili arabs to after them. If humanity as a whole was able to think, be rational, and exercise this rationality on a wider scale, we would not have needed so many Prophets [asws].

Edited by uponthesunnah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

the anti tatbir crowd are arguing that they do not exist & I am a liar

If anybody is calling you a liar then they should be remonstrated . I don't think anybody is arguing that clauses cant be inserted into documents etc.

The difference in opinion is whether waivers are as water tight and cover all eventualities as you would like us to believe  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could see this as an opportunity for all.

The self cutters can move this to private property, in a basement or garage etc, and keep it strictly invitation only, no videos or pictures.

The mosques and centres can then be free to invite all for dawa, prayer, and Islamic education. 

This way self cutters can continue and the rest of the community can move forward without the PR disaster that they bring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/12/2016 at 11:13 AM, DigitalUmmah said:
Quote

 

I have provided actual evidence that shows that they are enforceable. 

you have provided....what, evidence to back your argument, exactly?

 

This is called a draft and not an actual evidence of enforce ability.

Quote

 

what are you even arguing about?

how does signing a form make it super duper exclusive? explain that logic to me. 

 

you wanted the Imambargah for all and now you want it for people who sign a waiver....

Quote

 

what are you even arguing about?

I did it in the courtyards of both harams, as well as baynul haramein

 

courtyards and between the two harams are not the harams. Just do the same here, why insist like a child to do it inside. Follow the example of Karbala and not some wrong old custom of here.

 

Quote

 

what are you even arguing about?

how is it not relevant, if you were accusing me of wanting others to take responsibility for my actions? 

you yourself accuse me of something, then when I reply, suddenly the question you raised is "not relevant to our discussion and immaterial"? 

this is our conversation:

Perry Mason: You want others to bake your cake so that you eat it without any effort, sorry but no thanks.

Me:  my family is part of the committee,

Perry Mason:  not relevant to our discussion and immaterial. 

 

Mashallah you have picked up this style of script writing lollywood style too....way to go.

Quote

 

I don't think you understand what a waiver is. this is embarrassing. 

here is (yet another) example of where you are wrong (again)

http://slidethecityuk.co.uk/waiver/

sorry what were you saying again?

 

bro, written is one thing and in a court of law is another. In cases like these there is no 100% guarantee and like I have been explaining all along what is not yours cannot be given away. These documents become meaningless when faced with a real situation. 

You presume way too much. Why do you suppose that the committee did not seek council and the probability of risk warranted what they did. 

It can be said that things should have been more in control from a shia perspective but please understand that you can only clap with two hands. One should work like brothers and even if there is a hurdle do not try and road roll it. Work with sabr and tahammul and the path should become clearer. Zidd is an egotistical animal which has no place amongst ourselves. 

A year or two mean nothing in the bigger scheme of things.

 

 

Edited by haideriam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/01/2017 at 10:50 PM, A true Sunni said:

Brother DU rather then telling us what the 'committees' are doing present us with a solution that doesn't depend on the 'good will' of people deciding not to sue ( your waivers idea did not cover all eventualities)

also doesn't depend on the 'good will' of the CPS on deciding not to prosecute or having a test case.

CPS were only to happy to prosecute the guy with the sons

apples and oranges. 

adults voluntarily participating in a religious ritual is a totally different case than minors (supposedly) being forced into an act against their will. there is a huge difference between situation 1 - where adults willingly take part, knowing full well the dangers involved, and knowingly sign waivers of liability, and situation 2 - children being forced to do something they want to. 

you are trying to make out that the CPS will prosecute in situation 1 - when this is not going to happen if waivers & exclusions etc are adhered to. what exact law will be broken, that they will need to prosecute? tell me that please. 

On 01/01/2017 at 10:59 PM, A true Sunni said:

Thats the whole point so tatbir and self harm gets excluded from the PLI. Suppose someone decides to sue maliciously or otherwise. Who is liable if that case wins. The liability is the committee and the trustees. So that's houses assets and businesses of the committee and trustees at risk.

So not only will they have to pay court costs but costs if the person suing is successf

if they tried to sue, and they had signed a waiver, they would not be able to sue. how many times must I repeat myself? 

On 01/01/2017 at 10:59 PM, A true Sunni said:

In case of death or serious injury the ploice gets involved and this could be a case for the CPS. So if the CPS decides to prosecute that potentially jail terms

DU believes that waivers are an iron clad way to protect committees and trustees

A lot of people on here disagree

If you actually bothered to read the multiple examples of waivers I have already provided, you will see that death is indeed included in the waiver, as well as being sued by the deceased relatives or representatives. 

one again, can I repeat myself, waivers are enforceable in court. I have provided evidence of this in this thread. 

again, let me repeat myself. the police only investigate where laws are broken. what law do you envision would be broken that they need to prosecute?

On 01/01/2017 at 11:39 PM, uponthesunnah said:

I stated before, you are relying on the fact people will not sue, despite all the injuries

why have you suddenly and conveniently developed short term memory loss?

do you not fear Allah and the last day?

YOU SAID:

On 01/01/2017 at 11:39 PM, uponthesunnah said:

I stated before, you are relying on the fact people will not sue, despite all the injuries

TO WHICH I REPLIED:

On 01/01/2017 at 2:13 AM, DigitalUmmah said:

Considering zanjeer has been done in the UK every single year since the 1970s and despite all the injuries no one has sued.....I would say my assumptoon was correct

THEN YOU REPLIED

On 01/01/2017 at 2:22 AM, uponthesunnah said:

That's a fair point, but still,it only takes one death, one major injury, one person to get hurt one of these days and their families or they to sue, even if it's someone trying to sabotage the rituals, for everything to end badly. Things are done preemptively in the event the worst case happens

at least get your own god damn argument consistent!

listen. I have always known you were a phony. alhamdulillah look how Allah has made you expose yourself in front of everyone. if you were any sort of shia as you pretend to be, you would have said "I agree with the committee stance on tatbir, but they should not have lied, especially in their position as leaders of the hussainia, in order to ban it". 

the quran does not curse alcoholics even, but it does curse liars:

[3:61] But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our near people and your near people, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars.

What little respect I had for you, I have lost. the whole point of being a shia is that we always adhere to the truth. we never make excuses for liars or side with liars because it suits our agenda. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, A true Sunni said:

The difference in opinion is whether waivers are as water tight and cover all eventualities as you would like us to believe  

then bring some evidence to prove me wrong!!!! 

17 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

The mosques and centres can then be free to invite all for dawa, prayer, and Islamic education. 

This way self cutters can continue and the rest of the community can move forward without the PR disaster that they bring

the mosques are not the personal property of the anti tatbir crowd - they are for all shia equally. those who wish to do tatbir have as much right to use it as those who do not. 

@haideriam I am blown away by all the evidence you just presented to back up your argument. 

12 hours ago, haideriam said:

bro, written is one thing and in a court of law is another. In cases like these there is no 100% guarantee and like I have been explaining all along what is not yours cannot be given away. These documents become meaningless when faced with a real situation. 

You presume way too much. Why do you suppose that the committee did not seek council and the probability of risk warranted what they did. 

It can be said that things should have been more in control from a shia perspective but please understand that you can only clap with two hands. One should work like brothers and even if there is a hurdle do not try and road roll it. Work with sabr and tahammul and the path should become clearer. Zidd is an egotistical animal which has no place amongst ourselves. 

A year or two mean nothing in the bigger scheme of things.

prove the bit in red. 

before you undoubtedly write yet another retarded post, let me first of all show you this

https://www.lawdepot.co.uk/law-library/release-or-waiver-agreement-faq-united-kingdom/#question1_2

Will courts always enforce an activity waiver and release?
Generally courts will respect the waiver agreement reached between the parties however in some circumstances a court may be unwilling to enforce a waiver agreement. This is especially the case in situations where they find:

the agreement conflicts with public policy (i.e. parties performing essential services to the public are expected to fulfill their obligations to the public and cannot waive liability by using a release)
the releasee's conduct amounts to gross negligence (i.e. the releasee cannot waive liability for conduct that rises to the level of gross negligence)
the release contains ambiguous language (i.e. the document does not clearly and explicitly communicate the intention of terminating the releasee’s liability)
the releasor is not aware of the release and cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of it (i.e. the waiver clause in the document appears in such a way that it is unlikely to be read by the releasor)
the releasor lacks the capacity to contract away his or her--or another person's-claims (i.e. if the releasor is a minor or the releasor is lacking the mental capacity needed to sign the document)
In such circumstances, courts may interpret activity waiver and release agreements strictly against the party that benefits from the release. Accordingly, it is essential that the releasing party is fully aware of the rights being waived.

if you read through this thread before you dive in feet first to reply, please note that all 5 conditions where courts MAY be unwilling to enforce waivers have already been answered through the course of this thread. let me summarise before you say "herp derp no they havent because I dont want to read things"

- the agreement conflicts with public policy
not relevant, as this is referring to things like emergency services, hospitals etc. 

- gross negligence
if the committee proves that they took as many safety precautions as they were capable of within the conditions such as safety cordon, first aiders on site etc. this will not be gross negligence

- releasor is not aware
this can be negated by having each person signing the forms listen to a statement by a legal representative in a language of their choice, explaining the dangers, and have it signed once they agree they have understood

- the releasor lacks the capacity
minors are not allowed to participate in any hussainia in the UK, and neither are the mentally ill. 

 

 

Edited by DigitalUmmah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

Generally courts will respect the waiver agreement reached between the parties however in some circumstances a court may be unwilling to enforce a waiver agreement. This is especially the case in situations where they find:

the agreement conflicts with public policy (i.e. parties performing essential services to the public are expected to fulfill their obligations to the public and cannot waive liability by using a release)
the releasee's conduct amounts to gross negligence (i.e. the releasee cannot waive liability for conduct that rises to the level of gross negligence)
the release contains ambiguous language (i.e. the document does not clearly and explicitly communicate the intention of terminating the releasee’s liability)
the releasor is not aware of the release and cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of it (i.e. the waiver clause in the document appears in such a way that it is unlikely to be read by the releasor)
the releasor lacks the capacity to contract away his or her--or another person's-claims (i.e. if the releasor is a minor or the releasor is lacking the mental capacity needed to sign the document)
In such circumstances, courts may interpret activity waiver and release agreements strictly against the party that benefits from the release. Accordingly, it is essential that the releasing party is fully aware of the rights being waived.

if you read through this thread before you dive in feet first to reply, please note that all 5 conditions where courts MAY be unwilling to enforce waivers have already been answered through the course of this thread. let me summarise before you say "herp derp no they havent because I dont want to read things"

- the agreement conflicts with public policy
not relevant, as this is referring to things like emergency services, hospitals etc. 

- gross negligence
if the committee proves that they took as many safety precautions as they were capable of within the conditions such as safety cordon, first aiders on site etc. this will not be gross negligence

- releasor is not aware
this can be negated by having each person signing the forms listen to a statement by a legal representative in a language of their choice, explaining the dangers, and have it signed once they agree they have understood

- the releasor lacks the capacity
minors are not allowed to participate in any hussainia in the UK, and neither are the mentally ill. 

 

Bro, your lacking the capacity or having a fixed agenda does not make a difference to the actual for you do not understand them. In a court there is no 100%, there are no blacks and whites for then soon all solicitors/lawyers/barristers would have run out of business...not taking account of the jury over which even a judge holds no sway. 

Reached between the parties means that I cannot sign away another's persons right.

however means these things are open to further interpretation.

To reiterate, simply arrange a venue yourselves and make all arrangements,  and just like Karbala do not do it inside

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, haideriam said:

 

Bro, your lacking the capacity or having a fixed agenda does not make a difference to the actual for you do not understand them. In a court there is no 100%, there are no blacks and whites for then soon all solicitors/lawyers/barristers would have run out of business...not taking account of the jury over which even a judge holds no sway. 

Reached between the parties means that I cannot sign away another's persons right.

however means these things are open to further interpretation.

To reiterate, simply arrange a venue yourselves and make all arrangements,  and just like Karbala do not do it inside

 

Once again....totally blown away by all the evidence you just presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely a mosque and a community centre should participate in those acts inwhich everyone can feel comfortable, safe, and willing to be part of or in the presence of. Any act which children, reverts, even orthodox shias can not stomach, are repelled by, disgusted by, and which causes great harm to the image of the ahlulbayt asws and not the sort of conduct a muslim ought to have, nor a practise embodying the true hussaini and islamic message, such an act has no place in the mosque or centre.

If people are adamant to do it, rent a hall and go do it there. Imam Hussain a.s's and his image will be affected still, but you'll keep our mosques and hussainiya's open to everyone, and safe for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is essentially evidence as to how culture can override religion , sense, and islah.  Remember, excess love is sometimes as toxic as outright hate. Many went astray either hating or loving the ahlulbayt asws to the extent they would go to either extreme's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, uponthesunnah said:

If people are adamant to do it, rent a hall and go do it there. Imam Hussain a.s's and his image will be affected still, but you'll keep our mosques and hussainiya's open to everyone, and safe for everyone.

they are our hussainias too, and the committee are not our marjas that they can decide that we are not allowed to do tatbir because they personally disagree with it. their role is simply the management of the building. if they want to ban it on the grounds of insurance, there is plenty of evidence - actual, real, truthful, (something you do not care about but I do) evidence - that it is possible to have tatbir/ zanjeer within the premises without the fear of litigation. 

once again - you are unable to grasp that this is not a thread about the permissibly of tatbir/ zanjeer. it is a discussion regarding the use of insurance as an excuse to ban it. learn to read the goddamn thread title and content before you regale us with your much needed and sought after opinions regarding this. 

let me explain this to you slowly and as calmly as I am able to, after dealing with 8 pages of you people. 

this is not a thread about whether or not tatbir/ zanjeer should be allowed within the hussainias. 

this is not a thread where your personal opinion regarding it matters in any way at all

this is a thread specifically, and only, about the use of insurance as an excuse to ban tatbir/ zanjeer and why this is rubbish. 

do you understand? or shall I explain even slower? you are lightening fast in your defence of ammi jaan aisha but apparently 8 bloody pages isn't enough content for you to realise what this thread is about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

then bring some evidence to prove me wrong!!!! 

the mosques are not the personal property of the anti tatbir crowd - they are for all shia equally. those who wish to do tatbir have as much right to use it as those who do not. 

 

Actually its up to you to prove that the committee is wrong. The best way to do this is by setting up a working fully functioning model in 404.

The Committee are elected officials and have various responsibilities including assessing liability.

It seems that many elected committees are not convinced by your protestations. So get elected and assume these responsibilities.

If the majority of the people are happy with the way things are going then I am sorry who is right and who is wrong is a moot point.

You wont set up a functioning model to prove them wrong and they say its not possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:
Quote

they are our hussainias too,

so are the Harams but no one is allowed to do it inside there so why make an exception here.

 

Quote

this is not a thread about whether or not tatbir/ zanjeer should be allowed within the hussainias. 

whatever words you cloud it with, the crux of your emphasis is wanting to do it inside the Imambargahs but no where else is it allowed inside the harams and hence we should abide by that same ethic here...not inside.

I believe the first place to have a zanjir matam was Hussaina Mission in Romford and they hold it outside where they park cars or used to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, A true Sunni said:

Actually its up to you to prove that the committee is wrong. The best way to do this is by setting up a working fully functioning model in 404.

 You'll be waiting a long time for that to happen in 404.

54 minutes ago, A true Sunni said:

The Committee are elected officials and have various responsibilities including assessing liability.

I'm not going to question the sincerity of the the members of the committee but in 404 the best way to ensure your chances of getting on the committee are to stamp your feet really hard and say 'er, excuse me...why am I not on the committee? Don't you know how important my family is? Don't you know how much money we donate to the imambargah?' etc etc blah blah.

But I still love 404 and hope they can sort themselves out inshaAllah. I live in hope.

54 minutes ago, A true Sunni said:

It seems that many elected committees are not convinced by your protestations. So get elected and assume these responsibilities.

If the majority of the people are happy with the way things are going then I am sorry who is right and who is wrong is a moot point.

You wont set up a functioning model to prove them wrong and they say its not possible. 

@A true Sunni How do you know so much about 404? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lalala123 said:

 You'll be waiting a long time for that to happen in 404.

I'm not going to question the sincerity of the the members of the committee but in 404 the best way to ensure your chances of getting on the committee are to stamp your feet really hard and say 'er, excuse me...why am I not on the committee? Don't you know how important my family is? Don't you know how much money we donate to the imambargah?' etc etc blah blah.

But I still love 404 and hope they can sort themselves out inshaAllah. I live in hope.

@A true Sunni How do you know so much about 404? 

I know a lot about a lot of Idare, however the discussion was not about 404 because blood letting is allowed in 404. The discussion is about all the Imambargahs and committees that are seeking to stop blood letting due to this PLI issue.

If you had read the previous posts I was asking Brother DU to stamp his feet really hard in 404 get on the committee, set up a water tight working model of waivers, PLI, endorsement by police and then take it on a road show to all the other centers.

Rather then saying that all these committee members are in some kind of mega lying conspiracy, prove to them you are right and they are wrong

Simple otherwise all it seems is that Brother DU talks about theories but refuses to demonstrate in his own centre.

Is it possible that if Brother DU raises it their the blowback might mean they ban it their as well    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A true Sunni said:

If you had read the previous posts I was asking Brother DU to stamp his feet really hard in 404 get on the committee, set up a water tight working model of waivers, PLI, endorsement by police and then take it on a road show to all the other centers.

as I have already mentioned in this thread if you bothered to read, this is exactly what I am doing right now. I am working with lawyers on the waiver forms and these will be ready by next muharram inshaAllah. 

why do i need to "stamp my feet really hard in 404 and get on the committee" when my own dad is a trustee? explain that logic to me

3 minutes ago, A true Sunni said:

Is it possible that if Brother DU raises it their the blowback might mean they ban it their as well   

Rubbish. this whole thread - and i have provided video evidence - has been that two hussainias - idara e jafferia in tooting and masjid e ali in luton have lied about insurance to ban tatbir. PLI is not mandatory - as I have proven. lack of PLI will not automatically force the hussainia to close - as I have proven. 

so far you and your gang have proven...what, exactly? what evidence have any/all of you actually presented in 8 pages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, for the rest of you, check out this link

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/can-do-guide-for-organisers-of-voluntary-events/the-can-do-guide-to-organising-and-running-voluntary-and-community-events#part-6-do-i-need-insurance

Sometimes another body, perhaps a local council you have contact with or someone that you contract with (such as a landowner if the event is taking place on their land), will require you to have public liability insurance. If this is the case you can ask why they are requiring this because it is not compulsory in law. Sometimes signing a disclaimer will be adequate instead of buying insurance.

I assume an official government document would suffice as evidence for me?

also, this is further explained within the guide linked to that page:

https://www.abi.org.uk/~/media/Files/Documents/Publications/Public/Migrated/Liability/ABI guide to planning an event.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

so far you and your gang have proven...what, exactly? what evidence have any/all of you actually presented in 8 pages?

bro this mindset has to go....why can not be an argument be just that and why does it have to be ganged. 

Learn to understand and appreciate the arguments from an alternate point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, haideriam said:

bro this mindset has to go....why can not be an argument be just that and why does it have to be ganged. 

Learn to understand and appreciate the arguments from an alternate point of view.

I asked you a question? in 8 pages of me tolerating your gibbering, what actual, real, evidence have any of you actually provided? simple question. I'm sure you can accommodate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

also, for the rest of you, check out this link

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/can-do-guide-for-organisers-of-voluntary-events/the-can-do-guide-to-organising-and-running-voluntary-and-community-events#part-6-do-i-need-insurance

Sometimes another body, perhaps a local council you have contact with or someone that you contract with (such as a landowner if the event is taking place on their land), will require you to have public liability insurance. If this is the case you can ask why they are requiring this because it is not compulsory in law. Sometimes signing a disclaimer will be adequate instead of buying insurance.

I assume an official government document would suffice as evidence for me?

also, this is further explained within the guide linked to that page:

https://www.abi.org.uk/~/media/Files/Documents/Publications/Public/Migrated/Liability/ABI guide to planning an event.pdf

 

bro these are advisory/guidance documents and are not rules of law. Don't tell me the Government has never been sued and have not had to cough up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...