Kansas
I don’t know how kothar and bohra life workds in USA/Candada. But In India, many bohras freely practice their bohra way of life without any issues and therefore do not really revolt majorly with Kothari oppressive tactics. Majority of bohras are happy paying whatever they can afford and in return enjoy the socio cultural connection they get. In some ways it is practically convenient but morally it is wrong. Kothar is also shrewd and handle abdes and bohras after judging their Intelligence. Kothar focus on those who they can further brainwash and maintain the cash flow to sustain their ayyashi. Apart from regular brainwash they have taken control over bohra properties to sufficient extent to finance the administration and their ayyashi, but the greed has no limits and more lazy and kaamchor these Kothari royals are getting, they crave for more abdes and ziyafats and najwas.
Another smart move is they keep collecting huge funds by small token donations in form of qardan hassana, siltul imam, najwa salaam and some other fancy schemes here and there. The sources of income for kothar is amazingly diverse.
The best way to weaken the kothar is to cut the money supply, at every step and scheme.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your debate is confusing connected with religion, faith, spirituality, leadership, lineage and practical accountability and transparency and civic administration of jamaats. The latter is a practical requirement of running the administration and it has no influence on faith or religious beleifs. But kothar has associated accountability with doubting the leadership and created a twisted theory of walayat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion, there is no need for a physical revolt, as it may lead to extremism and further deepen the chaos and destabilize. Majority of people need guidance and leadership. Under such chaos people can be misguided by vested leadership and can result in unfortunate bloodshed and damage of livelihoods. Kothar can have plenty of aggressive abdes fuelled with brainwashed hatred ready to kill and slaughter. Kothar being powerful, corrupt and desperate can stoop to any level to finish their opponent.
The reform movement is successful by all means at mirco level. Every person who realized the deception and rescues him/herself has achieved freedom. First save yourself and then save others. Why worry about 40 or 100 years. Everyday we reform ourselves to something better, we are winning. Be it as bohra or citizen of the world. Reform is not a destination, it is a journey !
Is reform truly possible? Part II
-
fustrate_Bohra
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 6:46 am
Re: Is reform truly possible? Part II
Very true hb, i think many(including me) r doing this CUT MONEY SUPPLY.
Thats why this time he got frustrated and in frustration he told "Hamare tamara paisa ni zaroorat nathi"
Thats why this time he got frustrated and in frustration he told "Hamare tamara paisa ni zaroorat nathi"
Re: Is reform truly possible? Part II
Al Zulfiqar:
Thank you for the long and excellent post. I can relate to how writing posts can take up a lot of time, my wife is even more annoyed with me than usual! I agree with 90% of your post, but disagree on some points, which I bring up in the spirit of friendly and respectful debate.
i realised that i had only 2 choices with this 'cult', either remain within and engage in 'feeble' rebellion...or leave the jamaat (not community) and become a non-jamaati bohra.
I agree 99%. But the phrase 'feeble' rebellion is being far too generous. Again, I understand the psychological need people have to feel they are "rebelling from within", but the painful truth is this is a self-serving fantasy. Genuflecting to the amils and paying the taxes is not rebellion (feeble or otherwise), it is submission. Whether one hates to do this and tries to do as little of this as possible is ultimately irrelevant. People who submit to the rule of a tyrant almost always hate to do so and curse their oppressors in private; this does not change the fact that they have submitted. Besides, the majority of Bohras have been doing this for decades, has this led to any positive effect? Every Bohra that stays within the fold and pays the taxes enriches and empowers the Kothar, and is therefore culpable in the outrages of the Kothar. The fact that a truth may hurt some people does not mean that it stops being true.
i chose the latter. (i.e. became a non-jamati Bohra)
i give 2 hoots for their diktats and will remain a bohra and have an inalienable right to do as i want within my home and with my bohra friends. there are many like me, who in their own psyche', have successfully separated the religious aspect from the socio-cultural. this also allows me and many others like me to come here and go out openly in society and do our mite for reform.
You call yourself a reformist, but I must say this is incorrect on your part. You are not a reformist. You are a secessionist. At first it may seem I am just playing a semantic game, but the differences between the two concepts are profound. You have explicitly rejected the religious authority of the Kothar, and refuse to give them your allegiance or your money. Your ties to the Bohra community are now limited to the cultural/ethnic sphere. What you call "advocating for reform" is really calling people to join you in rejecting the Kothar. Also, I recently read one of your posts saying you are an Abd Allah, not an Abd e Syedna, so you clearly have retained your overall Islamic identity.
In my last post, I wrote:
Ideally, it would be nice if Bohras who reject the Kothar could create a new Bohra identity based on a belief in Islam and a shared ethnic and cultural background. And this is indeed what I believe reformists should try to do.
Isn't this EXACTLY what you are doing? I have read hundreds of your posts. None of them suggest you believe the Kothar can be reformed, the disgust you harbor for them almost leaps off the screen.
the dai was and still is a mere functionary, traditionally the lowest in the hierarchy of the dawat administration. his job was clearly defined and limited to activities of 'dawah' and nothing more. this they have comveniently thrown aside
The dai is certainly not a mere functionary anymore. This is like calling an emperor a mere peasant.
As far as what the Dai Mutlaq was in the traditional dawat administration, that is another matter. However, I think reformists are unwittingly engaging in some intellectual trickery when they use source books such as "The Pillars of Islam" by Qadi Noman to advance the claim that the Dai Mutlaq is supposed to be a relatively minor and powerless post. Qadi Noman was not a Bohra. Bohras would not begin to exist until centuries after Qadi Noman died. Qadi Noman was an Ismaili jurist living in the time of the Fatimid caliphs/ Imams. At this time, Ismaili doctrine held that the infallible Imam was living amongst them and leading them! So why would there be any need for the Dai Mutlaq to be anything but a middling agent of the Imam? The situation obviously changes when the Imam goes into "occultation". Now who is supposed to provide divinely inspired leadership, something that Ismailism requires?
There is another, more fundamental problem with this line of reasoning, which includes anything even a post-occultation Dai such as Syedna Hatim may have written. Other Muslims such as Sunnis and even Ithna Asharis always look back at the fatwas and writings of their long-dead jurists and Imams. They do this because they believe that the precedents set by these luminaries is a precious source of guidance and helps them to understand what needs to be done today. Ismailism rejects this line of reasoning almost entirely. For Ismailis, the constant evolution of human societies over the ages requires continuous reinterpretation of Islamic doctrines in order that they remain suitable for the current age, and this crucial job of reinterpretation can only be performed by the infallible Imam (or in the Bohra case, his representative the Dai Mutlaq).
Let's turn our attention to the Aga Khanis for a minute. Does their present Imam dress, pray, live anything like the Prophet used to? Of course not! But this does not bother them in the slightest. For them, the Prophet was an ideal guide for how Islam should be practiced in the 7th century, while the current Aga Khan is the ideal guide for how it should be practiced in the 21st. In Ismailism, Islam is what the leader says it is. Period.
And it is the same for Dawoodi Bohrism. As an Ismaili sect, Bohras also believe that the only thing keeping the community from falling into error is the divine inspiration of the Dai Mutlaq, who is the only person on Earth qualified to interpret the way Islam should be practiced in the current age. This is the way it is. If you feel this gives the Ismaili leader nearly unlimited power to twist Islam into whatever his whims may dictate, then a) you are correct and b) you should reject being an Ismaili! And let's not even get into the whole zahir/batin thing!
This is why the writings of Syedna Hatim or anyone like him are ultimately irrelevant. Whatever he wrote was right for whatever age he lived in. The current Dai Mutlaq can credibly (at least credibly within the framework of Ismailism) claim that things have changed. Besides, if people could figure out what Islam truly is by reading the books of dead people, what purpose remains for a living Imam?
It gets even worse. You are basically arguing that the Dai Mutlaq was not as powerful in the past as he is now, as if this sets some sort of binding precedent. But the entire history of Ismailism is one ad hoc change in fundamental doctrine after another. The only constant in Ismailism is a complete lack of constancy! First the Imams were visible but oppressed. Then the 6th Imam gave his nass to the 7th, but the 7th died before the 6th (one would think a "knower of the unseen" Imam would have realized this was going to happen and appointed someone else!) , and they decided that once a nass is given, it can not be retracted so they continued their Imams through this appointed 7th Imam, even though he was never actually the Imam! Then the Imams went from visible to hidden. Then they came out of hiding and became worldly emperors. Then the empire collapsed. Then they went into occultation. Then the Dai Mutlaq took over. Then the administration went from speaking Arabic to speaking Gujarati. Then they incorporated all sorts of Hindu customs into their rituals. And on and on and on. Saying in 2014 that we need to go back to the way things were before Tahir Saifuddin, in say the year 1914, is completely arbitrary. Why 1914? Why not 1649 instead? Or 1345? Or 1122?
you have very easily accepted that democractic functioning of jamaats and transparency of their accounts is impossible, when only some 7 decades ago that was the norm.
I don't know how things were 7 decades ago; I wasn't there. But for argument's sake I will take your word for it. But even then, so what? The Kothar can say "Well, 7 decades ago, instantaneous communication between far-flung places was impossible, making the giving of autonomy to local amils a practical necessity for the smooth functioning of community affairs. But all praise to God, the advent of phones and the internet now allow the highest members of our illustrious hierarchy to manage the community affairs of any place on Earth directly from Saifee Mahal, and this is much more conducive to justice and prosperity for the flock. Really, they can say any damn thing they please.
you also accuse the reformists of not having been able to diagnose the 'disease'. they have diagnosed the ills which plague our leadership long ago, it is the community which refuses to acknowledge it.
I would argue they have diagnosed most of the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself. So to take the analogy further, they have diagnosed the patient has a fever and vomiting and headaches and blurry vision, but they have not figured out what the true underlying cause for all these symptoms are. If they had, they would not say they accept the religious authority of the Syedna on the mission statement of this website!
it is also completely erroneous on your part to assume in such a sweeping manner that criticising the syedna and his adminstration is akin to losing their dawoodi bohra status in the religious sense.
I hope the above paragraphs have cleared why it is not erroneous at all. We are living in 2014. In 2014, the Dai Mutlaq is Mufaddal Saifuddin (let's leave the whole succession issue aside for now). So let's say it is 2012. In 2012, the Dai Mutlaq is Mohammed Burhanuddin. Not Syedna Hatim, not anyone else. Him and him only. Saying you reject the Syedna of your age but accept the Syednas of the past makes no sense from an Ismaili point of view. If you do not submit to the hidden Imam's representative of your age, you have placed yourself outside the fold of the Dawoodi Bohra religion. It really is that simple.
these statements betray your lack of knowledge of our history. if the dai was supposed to be 'masum' and above reproach, then syedna hatim would not have clearly defined the stringent parameters for someone to be qualified as a dai.
I have been accused of being a historical illiterate a lot on this forum, as if my disagreement on certain matters must ultimately be the result of ignorance. Hopefully it is clear by now that this is not the case. Anyway, maybe this Syedna Hatim did not teach that the Dai Mutlaq was masum. But now the Syedna does. Again, at one time the Imams were living amongst us, and it was claimed a visible Imam was absolutely pivotal to guide the flock. Now they are in occulation, and apparently their direct participation is no longer needed. Ismailism always just makes stuff up as it goes along, how is this particular issue any different?
the reformists have never declared that they are out to forge 'what sort of alternative Bohra identity they want to create'. you are now putting words into their mouth.
You are actually putting words in my mouth! I said that this is what they should be doing, not wasting their time trying to reform the unreformable.
you cannot have an 'alternative bohra' identity or sect. you are then no longer a bohra.
Of course you can have an alternative Bohra identity, history is filled with Bohra schisms leading to the formation of new communities. Why not one more?
in the same way that obama can be criticised without ceasing to be an american, it is possible to be a 'religious' bohra and criticise the syedna, his nefarious family and his corrupt administration.
I am glad you brought this up. This sort of argument keeps on popping up on this thread, where people compare the criticism of a political leader with that of a religious leader. In February, you yourself wrote...
in the u.s. presidents can be impeached and censured, a mere threat of which was enough for richard nixon to resign in total ignominy. but the office of the president remains, it is not abolished just because one president proved unfit. its the same with a dai.
The American political system was shaped by the political philosophy of the American founding fathers. Having lived under British tyranny, they were well aware that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is why they set up a tripartite government with numerous checks and balances, in an attempt to ensure tyranny would never reestablish itself. This is why they placed the ability to impeach the President into their constitutional framework. They knew that there was a good chance that a power-hungry degenerate could obtain the Presidency. So Nixon being a crook does not call into question the soundness of the overall system, if anything it validates it.
Ismailism also realized that power corrupts. But their solution to the problem was entirely different. They basically said that "Since power corrupts, only someone specifically kept sinless by God can be entrusted to wield it." In this manner, they guarantee righteous leadership for the flock. And this is why even one corrupt Dai invalidates the whole enterprise. "I thought I was guaranteed righteous leadership! What happened? Where was the hidden Imam?" And before you know it, the whole thing has come crashing down.
Besides, everyone knows that political leaders are generally slimy individuals, no one has "faith" in Obama the way they do in their Syedna. And if I feel bad about American foreign policy in Iraq, what am I supposed to do, move back to India? Then I will feel bad giving taxes to a country that oppresses Kashmiris! One can not opt out of living in a country, but one can opt out of a religious group. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.
no one, not even the syedna can claim that you become a non-bohra or mushriq and munafekeen for exposing his misdeeds and tyranny. he does not have that right, neither by religious sanction nor as a leader of the community.
Of course he has that right. He can claim whatever he wants! That is what freedom of speech and religion is all about! He might be selling his soul to the devil when he says these things, but that is his problem. My problem is figuring out whether he is telling the truth, and acting accordingly.
This post has become long enough, I will try to finish my response to a few more issues in the next couple of days.
Thank you for the long and excellent post. I can relate to how writing posts can take up a lot of time, my wife is even more annoyed with me than usual! I agree with 90% of your post, but disagree on some points, which I bring up in the spirit of friendly and respectful debate.
i realised that i had only 2 choices with this 'cult', either remain within and engage in 'feeble' rebellion...or leave the jamaat (not community) and become a non-jamaati bohra.
I agree 99%. But the phrase 'feeble' rebellion is being far too generous. Again, I understand the psychological need people have to feel they are "rebelling from within", but the painful truth is this is a self-serving fantasy. Genuflecting to the amils and paying the taxes is not rebellion (feeble or otherwise), it is submission. Whether one hates to do this and tries to do as little of this as possible is ultimately irrelevant. People who submit to the rule of a tyrant almost always hate to do so and curse their oppressors in private; this does not change the fact that they have submitted. Besides, the majority of Bohras have been doing this for decades, has this led to any positive effect? Every Bohra that stays within the fold and pays the taxes enriches and empowers the Kothar, and is therefore culpable in the outrages of the Kothar. The fact that a truth may hurt some people does not mean that it stops being true.
i chose the latter. (i.e. became a non-jamati Bohra)
i give 2 hoots for their diktats and will remain a bohra and have an inalienable right to do as i want within my home and with my bohra friends. there are many like me, who in their own psyche', have successfully separated the religious aspect from the socio-cultural. this also allows me and many others like me to come here and go out openly in society and do our mite for reform.
You call yourself a reformist, but I must say this is incorrect on your part. You are not a reformist. You are a secessionist. At first it may seem I am just playing a semantic game, but the differences between the two concepts are profound. You have explicitly rejected the religious authority of the Kothar, and refuse to give them your allegiance or your money. Your ties to the Bohra community are now limited to the cultural/ethnic sphere. What you call "advocating for reform" is really calling people to join you in rejecting the Kothar. Also, I recently read one of your posts saying you are an Abd Allah, not an Abd e Syedna, so you clearly have retained your overall Islamic identity.
In my last post, I wrote:
Ideally, it would be nice if Bohras who reject the Kothar could create a new Bohra identity based on a belief in Islam and a shared ethnic and cultural background. And this is indeed what I believe reformists should try to do.
Isn't this EXACTLY what you are doing? I have read hundreds of your posts. None of them suggest you believe the Kothar can be reformed, the disgust you harbor for them almost leaps off the screen.
the dai was and still is a mere functionary, traditionally the lowest in the hierarchy of the dawat administration. his job was clearly defined and limited to activities of 'dawah' and nothing more. this they have comveniently thrown aside
The dai is certainly not a mere functionary anymore. This is like calling an emperor a mere peasant.
As far as what the Dai Mutlaq was in the traditional dawat administration, that is another matter. However, I think reformists are unwittingly engaging in some intellectual trickery when they use source books such as "The Pillars of Islam" by Qadi Noman to advance the claim that the Dai Mutlaq is supposed to be a relatively minor and powerless post. Qadi Noman was not a Bohra. Bohras would not begin to exist until centuries after Qadi Noman died. Qadi Noman was an Ismaili jurist living in the time of the Fatimid caliphs/ Imams. At this time, Ismaili doctrine held that the infallible Imam was living amongst them and leading them! So why would there be any need for the Dai Mutlaq to be anything but a middling agent of the Imam? The situation obviously changes when the Imam goes into "occultation". Now who is supposed to provide divinely inspired leadership, something that Ismailism requires?
There is another, more fundamental problem with this line of reasoning, which includes anything even a post-occultation Dai such as Syedna Hatim may have written. Other Muslims such as Sunnis and even Ithna Asharis always look back at the fatwas and writings of their long-dead jurists and Imams. They do this because they believe that the precedents set by these luminaries is a precious source of guidance and helps them to understand what needs to be done today. Ismailism rejects this line of reasoning almost entirely. For Ismailis, the constant evolution of human societies over the ages requires continuous reinterpretation of Islamic doctrines in order that they remain suitable for the current age, and this crucial job of reinterpretation can only be performed by the infallible Imam (or in the Bohra case, his representative the Dai Mutlaq).
Let's turn our attention to the Aga Khanis for a minute. Does their present Imam dress, pray, live anything like the Prophet used to? Of course not! But this does not bother them in the slightest. For them, the Prophet was an ideal guide for how Islam should be practiced in the 7th century, while the current Aga Khan is the ideal guide for how it should be practiced in the 21st. In Ismailism, Islam is what the leader says it is. Period.
And it is the same for Dawoodi Bohrism. As an Ismaili sect, Bohras also believe that the only thing keeping the community from falling into error is the divine inspiration of the Dai Mutlaq, who is the only person on Earth qualified to interpret the way Islam should be practiced in the current age. This is the way it is. If you feel this gives the Ismaili leader nearly unlimited power to twist Islam into whatever his whims may dictate, then a) you are correct and b) you should reject being an Ismaili! And let's not even get into the whole zahir/batin thing!
This is why the writings of Syedna Hatim or anyone like him are ultimately irrelevant. Whatever he wrote was right for whatever age he lived in. The current Dai Mutlaq can credibly (at least credibly within the framework of Ismailism) claim that things have changed. Besides, if people could figure out what Islam truly is by reading the books of dead people, what purpose remains for a living Imam?
It gets even worse. You are basically arguing that the Dai Mutlaq was not as powerful in the past as he is now, as if this sets some sort of binding precedent. But the entire history of Ismailism is one ad hoc change in fundamental doctrine after another. The only constant in Ismailism is a complete lack of constancy! First the Imams were visible but oppressed. Then the 6th Imam gave his nass to the 7th, but the 7th died before the 6th (one would think a "knower of the unseen" Imam would have realized this was going to happen and appointed someone else!) , and they decided that once a nass is given, it can not be retracted so they continued their Imams through this appointed 7th Imam, even though he was never actually the Imam! Then the Imams went from visible to hidden. Then they came out of hiding and became worldly emperors. Then the empire collapsed. Then they went into occultation. Then the Dai Mutlaq took over. Then the administration went from speaking Arabic to speaking Gujarati. Then they incorporated all sorts of Hindu customs into their rituals. And on and on and on. Saying in 2014 that we need to go back to the way things were before Tahir Saifuddin, in say the year 1914, is completely arbitrary. Why 1914? Why not 1649 instead? Or 1345? Or 1122?
you have very easily accepted that democractic functioning of jamaats and transparency of their accounts is impossible, when only some 7 decades ago that was the norm.
I don't know how things were 7 decades ago; I wasn't there. But for argument's sake I will take your word for it. But even then, so what? The Kothar can say "Well, 7 decades ago, instantaneous communication between far-flung places was impossible, making the giving of autonomy to local amils a practical necessity for the smooth functioning of community affairs. But all praise to God, the advent of phones and the internet now allow the highest members of our illustrious hierarchy to manage the community affairs of any place on Earth directly from Saifee Mahal, and this is much more conducive to justice and prosperity for the flock. Really, they can say any damn thing they please.
you also accuse the reformists of not having been able to diagnose the 'disease'. they have diagnosed the ills which plague our leadership long ago, it is the community which refuses to acknowledge it.
I would argue they have diagnosed most of the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself. So to take the analogy further, they have diagnosed the patient has a fever and vomiting and headaches and blurry vision, but they have not figured out what the true underlying cause for all these symptoms are. If they had, they would not say they accept the religious authority of the Syedna on the mission statement of this website!
it is also completely erroneous on your part to assume in such a sweeping manner that criticising the syedna and his adminstration is akin to losing their dawoodi bohra status in the religious sense.
I hope the above paragraphs have cleared why it is not erroneous at all. We are living in 2014. In 2014, the Dai Mutlaq is Mufaddal Saifuddin (let's leave the whole succession issue aside for now). So let's say it is 2012. In 2012, the Dai Mutlaq is Mohammed Burhanuddin. Not Syedna Hatim, not anyone else. Him and him only. Saying you reject the Syedna of your age but accept the Syednas of the past makes no sense from an Ismaili point of view. If you do not submit to the hidden Imam's representative of your age, you have placed yourself outside the fold of the Dawoodi Bohra religion. It really is that simple.
these statements betray your lack of knowledge of our history. if the dai was supposed to be 'masum' and above reproach, then syedna hatim would not have clearly defined the stringent parameters for someone to be qualified as a dai.
I have been accused of being a historical illiterate a lot on this forum, as if my disagreement on certain matters must ultimately be the result of ignorance. Hopefully it is clear by now that this is not the case. Anyway, maybe this Syedna Hatim did not teach that the Dai Mutlaq was masum. But now the Syedna does. Again, at one time the Imams were living amongst us, and it was claimed a visible Imam was absolutely pivotal to guide the flock. Now they are in occulation, and apparently their direct participation is no longer needed. Ismailism always just makes stuff up as it goes along, how is this particular issue any different?
the reformists have never declared that they are out to forge 'what sort of alternative Bohra identity they want to create'. you are now putting words into their mouth.
You are actually putting words in my mouth! I said that this is what they should be doing, not wasting their time trying to reform the unreformable.
you cannot have an 'alternative bohra' identity or sect. you are then no longer a bohra.
Of course you can have an alternative Bohra identity, history is filled with Bohra schisms leading to the formation of new communities. Why not one more?
in the same way that obama can be criticised without ceasing to be an american, it is possible to be a 'religious' bohra and criticise the syedna, his nefarious family and his corrupt administration.
I am glad you brought this up. This sort of argument keeps on popping up on this thread, where people compare the criticism of a political leader with that of a religious leader. In February, you yourself wrote...
in the u.s. presidents can be impeached and censured, a mere threat of which was enough for richard nixon to resign in total ignominy. but the office of the president remains, it is not abolished just because one president proved unfit. its the same with a dai.
The American political system was shaped by the political philosophy of the American founding fathers. Having lived under British tyranny, they were well aware that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is why they set up a tripartite government with numerous checks and balances, in an attempt to ensure tyranny would never reestablish itself. This is why they placed the ability to impeach the President into their constitutional framework. They knew that there was a good chance that a power-hungry degenerate could obtain the Presidency. So Nixon being a crook does not call into question the soundness of the overall system, if anything it validates it.
Ismailism also realized that power corrupts. But their solution to the problem was entirely different. They basically said that "Since power corrupts, only someone specifically kept sinless by God can be entrusted to wield it." In this manner, they guarantee righteous leadership for the flock. And this is why even one corrupt Dai invalidates the whole enterprise. "I thought I was guaranteed righteous leadership! What happened? Where was the hidden Imam?" And before you know it, the whole thing has come crashing down.
Besides, everyone knows that political leaders are generally slimy individuals, no one has "faith" in Obama the way they do in their Syedna. And if I feel bad about American foreign policy in Iraq, what am I supposed to do, move back to India? Then I will feel bad giving taxes to a country that oppresses Kashmiris! One can not opt out of living in a country, but one can opt out of a religious group. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.
no one, not even the syedna can claim that you become a non-bohra or mushriq and munafekeen for exposing his misdeeds and tyranny. he does not have that right, neither by religious sanction nor as a leader of the community.
Of course he has that right. He can claim whatever he wants! That is what freedom of speech and religion is all about! He might be selling his soul to the devil when he says these things, but that is his problem. My problem is figuring out whether he is telling the truth, and acting accordingly.
This post has become long enough, I will try to finish my response to a few more issues in the next couple of days.
Re: Is reform truly possible? Part II
The bottom line though is that the Dai wasn't made infallible by God. He was made infallible by the people. So when you say that "this guarantees righteous leadership", it is not true. It simply guarantees idol worship. It guarantees the behavior of the followers and not the behavior of the leader.
-
Al Zulfiqar
- Posts: 4618
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:01 am
Re: Is reform truly possible? Part II
kansas,
its obvious you have given a lot of thought to your arguments. i will not deny that you do make some excellent points.
before i go any further, let me inform you that i am not an official reformist. perhaps i may have given you the impression that i am officially speaking on their behalf. i know dozens of reformists as close friends and am very familiar with their thinking and their struggle. all i am is an independent bohra with moral courage to enjoy his life on his own, free and unfettered.
yes, it is an uphill task trying to bring reform into the bohra clergy. they have very cleverly linked all the points you have made about the dai in the present time and age being the sole rep of the imam and through him of the nabi and allah and how it is his prerogative to change and alter the traditions and practices as he pleases.
yet, i believe that if sufficient ground level support against the excesses and tyranny of the clergy is built up and people show increasing defiance and eventually rebel as they did in udaipur, then the rascals will be forced to change. even if another 3-4 pockets of mass resistance spring up, it will shake the despots to their core. do you think that the dastardly kothar is not aware of all the arguments you just made, about how you cannot question them and still call yourself a dawoodi bohra? of course they are and are enjoying thrusting the dagger deep upto the hilt to extract every last drop of blood from their abde's.
imagine, if a confirmed thug like dawood ibrahim were to claim religious sanction akin to the dai, then no govt in the world would be able to punish him. (although in my books he is far more honest and transparent about his dealings than the dai. he also is well-known to go out of his way to help and protect his community and his supporters, unlike the dai who only takes and gives you only sweet words and nothing else in return) i have been told by many staunch believers that my extreme dislike for the dai and his family's and administration's actions amount to declaring myself a non-bohra simply because i do not recognise his divine right to act as he pleases, using the same circular arguments that you have detailed. well, if in their books i am a non-bohra so be it. i would rather be rid of that label if it pleases them. my conscience and my principles are paramount and above any damn nomenclature.
if your conclusion is that the reformists are non-bohras and there can be no revolution from within, then where does that leave you? what do you suggest? remain within and continue being ground under the monstrous and cruel wheels of the kothar so that you can be properly termed a devout dawoodi bohra? or leave and become a non-bohra, because the reformists are nothing but treacherous and sedetious secessionists?
or continue doing what all reform minded bohras are attempting so valiantly to do? create a ground-swell of rebellion and hope that it leads to populist awareness and eventually an unstoppable movement wherein the clergy is forced to accede to the community's demands?
it's all very well to criticise and seek to find faults and its quite another to propose constructive solutions.
its obvious you have given a lot of thought to your arguments. i will not deny that you do make some excellent points.
before i go any further, let me inform you that i am not an official reformist. perhaps i may have given you the impression that i am officially speaking on their behalf. i know dozens of reformists as close friends and am very familiar with their thinking and their struggle. all i am is an independent bohra with moral courage to enjoy his life on his own, free and unfettered.
yes, it is an uphill task trying to bring reform into the bohra clergy. they have very cleverly linked all the points you have made about the dai in the present time and age being the sole rep of the imam and through him of the nabi and allah and how it is his prerogative to change and alter the traditions and practices as he pleases.
yet, i believe that if sufficient ground level support against the excesses and tyranny of the clergy is built up and people show increasing defiance and eventually rebel as they did in udaipur, then the rascals will be forced to change. even if another 3-4 pockets of mass resistance spring up, it will shake the despots to their core. do you think that the dastardly kothar is not aware of all the arguments you just made, about how you cannot question them and still call yourself a dawoodi bohra? of course they are and are enjoying thrusting the dagger deep upto the hilt to extract every last drop of blood from their abde's.
imagine, if a confirmed thug like dawood ibrahim were to claim religious sanction akin to the dai, then no govt in the world would be able to punish him. (although in my books he is far more honest and transparent about his dealings than the dai. he also is well-known to go out of his way to help and protect his community and his supporters, unlike the dai who only takes and gives you only sweet words and nothing else in return) i have been told by many staunch believers that my extreme dislike for the dai and his family's and administration's actions amount to declaring myself a non-bohra simply because i do not recognise his divine right to act as he pleases, using the same circular arguments that you have detailed. well, if in their books i am a non-bohra so be it. i would rather be rid of that label if it pleases them. my conscience and my principles are paramount and above any damn nomenclature.
if your conclusion is that the reformists are non-bohras and there can be no revolution from within, then where does that leave you? what do you suggest? remain within and continue being ground under the monstrous and cruel wheels of the kothar so that you can be properly termed a devout dawoodi bohra? or leave and become a non-bohra, because the reformists are nothing but treacherous and sedetious secessionists?
or continue doing what all reform minded bohras are attempting so valiantly to do? create a ground-swell of rebellion and hope that it leads to populist awareness and eventually an unstoppable movement wherein the clergy is forced to accede to the community's demands?
it's all very well to criticise and seek to find faults and its quite another to propose constructive solutions.
Re: Is reform truly possible? Part II
Al Zulfiqar, I will now resume my previous post.
You wrote:
when will reform come? will it ever come? yes, it will happen. that is a resounding affirmation from my side. revolutions usually gather steam at a snail's pace. sometimes the flame flickers and almost goes out, but every setback strengthens the movement, every sacrifice, both spiritual and physical, adds to the momentum. finally at some point it bursts into a populist rebellion. once the masses wake up from their slumber, no force of money, power or influence will stop it. india got independence after 300 years of struggle
This sort of sentiment also comes up on this thread repeatedly. The absolute inevitability of the ultimate success of the reform movement has become this unquestioned mantra, a quasi-religious belief as unshakable as the abdes' belief in the infallibility of the Syedna! But where does this staunch certitude come from? Does it come from the many successes the reform movement has achieved in reforming the Kothar's behavior over the past 40 years?
No, what people do is cite the successes of various political reform movements as proof that they too will eventually prevail, with the victory of India over the British colonialists being the favored example. But again, this is like comparing apples and oranges. Political reform movements have succeded in the past. But we are talking about a religious reform movement. The fact that reformists confuse the two does not mean they are are not separate entities. Besides the whole secular/religious divide that many reformists cling to (i.e. "We are not challenging the religious authority of the Syedna, we seek secular/ political reforms in the administration") really has no basis in reality in an Ismaili framework. After all, the whole point of Ismailism is to wed the political to the religious in the office of the Imam or his Dai Mutlaq. One need only look to the history of the Fatimid Caliphs/ Imams to see that this is true. Pretending that a clear divide between mosque and state exists under an Ismaili framework is disingenuous at best.
So what does history teach us about the success of religious reform movements? I would argue that history offers a bleak picture in this regard. The most pertinent historical example seems to be the Catholic Church. And of course, we know the attempts of medieval Christians to reform the Church's excesses failed miserably, with the result being the birth of Protestantism.
And besides, using the Indian struggle for independence is even more problematic. Just because there was a struggle and then colonialism ended doesn't necessarily mean that one caused the other. The real reason colonialism ended was that the colonial powers irrevocably weakened themselves with two catastrophic world wars. In 1900, almost all of Africa and Asia was under colonial domination. By the 1960s, colonialism had basically ceased to exist, even in the weakest of African countries that had not even had long freedom struggles. To suggest that were it not for Gandhi, India would still be under the British (as some on this thread have done) is absurd. Anyway, I have gone off topic a little here but my overall point is neither history in general nor the history of the reform movement in particular offers evidence that victory is even likely, let alone inevitable. Thinking otherwise just gives people a justification to keep doing what they have been doing, even when it is obviously not working.
it's all very well to criticise and seek to find faults and its quite another to propose constructive solutions.
This line of reasoning is also very popular among reformists. I think it devalues the importance of constructive criticism though. For example suppose someone has appendicitis, and then you see the doctor is attempting to cure the patient by applying leeches. Informing the doctor that that won't work is useful information! It stops him from wasting precious time on something that accomplishes nothing, and it should lead him to think about different treatments that might actually work. The doctor can't just say "Well do you have any better ideas? And who are you to criticize? At least I am doing something!"
As I said previously, I am sure that the reformist enterprise can not succeed. I am not sure my proposed solutions would work. But I think they are worth trying. I wrote this back in February...
1. Progressive Dawoodi Bohras should admit that by criticizing the Syedna and Kothar, they no longer believe in the Syedna in the manner that he requires and have left the faith.
2. Having done so, the Progressives should formalize the obvious and officially create a new sect. My suggested name for the sect is Udaipuri Bohras. The definition of an Udaipuri Bohra would be a Muslim originally from the Dawoodi Bohra community that no longer accepts the authority of the Syedna. Initially the sect would have to be ecumenical, including ex Dawoodi Bohras now following various Shia, Sunni, Sufi, and non-denominational forms of Islam. However, with time perhaps scholars would come forth that could shape a distinctive theology that draws on positive aspects of Bohra practice (love for the Prophet's family, tolerance, cleanliness, etc.) while discarding the negative aspects (powerful clergy, iddat, excommunication, etc.).
3. Redoubled efforts should be made to fill the gaps in people's lives that arise when leaving the Dawoodi Bohra community (helping rebuild social circles, facilitating the search for marriage partners, buying burial plots, etc.)
I think the benefits of this approach are as follows:
1. It is intellectually honest.
2. It leads to a totally different dynamic that what exists presently. At the present time, reformists run after the Bohras from behind, whining, nagging, and often belittling Bohras in an attempt to win them over. Creating a new sect allows you to try to lead from the front, saying, "The ills of the Dawoodi Bohra religious structure are so severe that we can no longer remain members. There is no use trying to reform what is hopelessly corrupt. But we still want the best for our former community. We have therefore committed ourselves to creating a new structure where Bohras can live in dignity, free from religious oppression and falsehood. We hope the community will join us in this important endeavor and we will welcome anyone who wishes to join at any time with open arms."
3. It would allow a new community to chart it's own destiny without any interference from the Kothar and fanatic followers who would constantly fight any attempts at change tooth and nail. Even if the demands for reform one day grow much more powerful and force the Kothar to negotiate, the end result will have to be some sort of compromise that ultimately noone would be happy with. So for example, the Kothar might one day diminish the amount of taxes levied, treat people less rudely, and not interfere as much in secular affairs, but still would demand obedience in religious affairs such as sajda to the Syedna, collection of wajebat, and excommunication of heretics. Who would be truly happy in such a situation? Sometimes an amicable divorce is better than a lifetime of endless bickering and strife. Besides, a Bohra community that is able to rid itself of the most corrupt and the most simple-minded of it's members in one fell swoop would be immeasurably better off. Let the Kothar and their fanatic supporters enjoy each other's company. You can't save everyone.
There are some serious obstacles to forming a new Bohra community though. The first and most thorny issue is how to fill the void left by rejecting the religious dimension of the Dawoodi Bohra identity. The simplest way to tackle the problem is to "outsource" religious guidance to another existing sect.
This would free the new community to focus strictly on being an ethnic/cultural organization, which could then focus on the more mundane aspects of community life (arranging conferences, get-togethers, iftars etc., helping new members find friends and marriage partners, buying burial plots, providing business networking opportunites, and financial/housing/employment assistance to those who have been excommunicated and therefore abandoned by their families or those who are poor).
Getting back to the religious issue, joining a Shia sect would in some ways be ideal. After all Dawoodi Bohras are Muslims first, then Shias, then a particular sect of Shia. So joining a different Shia sect would allow Bohras to retain as much of their previous identity as possible, making for a smoother transition. Perhaps the closest sect to ours (other than the Sulaymani, Alawi, or Atba-e-Malak Bohras, which I admit I know nearly nothing about and whose members I have never even met) are the Aga Khanis, another Ismaili sect. I don't know though, the thought of going from one authoritarian Ismaili sect which has a billionaire leader who claims infallibilty and heavily taxes his followers to another one doesn't seem like much of an improvement to me. At least our leader (with his beard and his turban) superficially looks the part!
Becoming Ithna Ashari is another option worth considering. They might not be Ismailis, but they are Shias, and place the same emphasis on the ahl-e-Bayt and Muharram that Bohras do. Perhaps this option would appeal to a lot of Bohras for whom their identity as Shias is very important. As for me, I initially strongly considered this option before ultimately rejecting it. The concept of Imamate has no Quranic sanction, and belies the Quranic claim that it is a clear book that tells people all the basic information they need to know to earn the pleasure of their Creator. After all, if the concept of Imamate and knowing the Imam of one's era is an absolute prerequisite for having one's faith accepted, why is there not even one unequivocal ayah in the Quran that states as such? And the Shia first claimed that God could not just let the Prophet pass away and leave the umma leaderless; an Imam who interprets the Quran and leads the umma is absolutely required to ensure the umma does not go astray. Then after centuries passed, they began to claim the Imam went into occultation! But what happened to the need for a masum leader directly guiding the umma at all times? And how can I judge if this man is who he says he is if I can't even see or hear him? And now I am obligated not only to believe in the Imamate, I also have to believe in this concept of occultation?? Despite the fact that neither concept has any mention in the Quran?? People are free to make decisions on such matters on their own, but this sort of thing is not for me.
Reflecting on matters such as these is what ultimately led me to become a Sunni, and any new Bohra group that is formed should at least consider doing likewise. Joining the largest sect of Muslims would have several important advantages. Speaking from personal experience, it is nice to be part of a large, multinational group of people. One truly feels part of an umma, not just a small, provincial community that thinks they alone are truly guided by God. Also, joining such a large and visible group would offer protection from any Kothar interference and intimidation that might take place.
However, creating a Bohra group that adopts Sunnism would also pose several serious challenges. First of all, I do not think most Bohras actually want to become Sunnis. An anti-Sunni bias is drilled into Bohras from a very early age. And some of this ill-will towards Sunnis is quite justified considering Sunni oppression of Bohras over the centuries, including the execution of several Dai Mutlaqs. Furthermore, Sunnis generally place supreme importance on the Hadith literature, which are sayings attributed to the Prophet, a lot of which are of dubious authenticity and moral content. And the fatwas of Sunni jurists are often tainted with imperialism, misogyny, and intolerance, which is one of the main reasons the Muslim world is in the state it is today.
Nonetheless, there is no one authoritative voice in Sunnism the way there is in Dawoodi Bohrism, and a new Bohra group could pick and choose to a large extent the sort of scholars they want to listen to in accordance with what meshes with their overall worldview.
Or the new Bohra group could just leave this whole sectarian issue to the discretion of the individual, and define itself strictly as an ethnic/cultural organization. The benefit of this approach is that it would provide a "big tent", encompassing Bohras regardless of what religious sect they adopt. It would also avoid sectarian bickering that could threaten group solidarity. The drawback would be that a group composed of members of the various Islamic sects may be prone to further fragmentation.
The other main option available to a new Bohra group is to forge a new religious identity that separates it from all others. Perhaps a new Bohra group could create some sort of Sunni/Shia hybrid that rejects the concept of Imamate but retains the devotion to the Panjatan-e-Pak. Or rejects veneration of the Syedna but otherwise maintains the Bohra way of prayer and the Misri calendar. This obviously is a much more complicated undertaking, and would require the training of scholars, establishment of religious schools, etc. And to be quite honest, judging from the refomists' website, their featured articles, and the posts on this forum, I think that such an undertaking is not something the reformists would be able to pull off. Ultimately, reformists are mainly concerned with secular matters and probably should not deal with issues with which they generally are uninterested and uninformed.
As I have said previously, I have a large family, with members who are highly educated and others who are shopkeepers who have not completed high school. Nearly all of them clearly see the Kothar for what they are. I actually do not know any of these "brain-dead abdes" that I hear about constantly on this website. My father is an excellent example of this phenomenon. He has known for 50 years that the Kothar are a bunch of corrupt charlatans. When he came to America, he purposefully distanced himself from the community, limiting his trips to the markaz to Ashura. But as he has gotten older, he has started to go more often. When I was younger, I would try to convince him to stop, and go on Humsafar-like tirades about the evils of the Kothar. I even would bring him to the Sunni masjid where I would go for juma, iftars, and Eid namaz. In some ways, he was quite impressed with the Sunni masjid; he is always amazed that you can go there and pray and eat and no one harasses you for money. But ultimately he doesn't feel at home there. He doesn't like being the only one in the prayer congregation wearing a topi and keeping his hands to his sides. He socializes with the Pakistanis and Arabs and whoever else is there, but he doesn't feel the same sense of community and brotherhood that he does speaking Gujarati and eating in thaals with Bohras at the markaz. That is why he goes and pays his taxes even though he feels morally uneasy about it. "I have been a Bohra my whole life. It is who I am", he tells me.
I once sent him the link to this website and made him read a couple of articles. Then I asked him what he thought. He said, "Do these people really think they can change the priesthood???" Then he dismissively rolled his eyes and changed the subject.
My point is this. My father remains a member of the community solely for ethnic/cultural reasons. If he ever had the opportunity to abandon the Kothar and join a Kothar-free Bohra organization that fulfilled his social needs, he would have jumped ship decades ago. I believe this is true for a large portion of my family. And there are probably thousands upon thousands of people just like them who would be willing to offer moral and financial support to any group who embarks on this undertaking. This is why I encourage reformists to stop offering Bohras advice and instead focus on offering them a viable alternative.
You wrote:
when will reform come? will it ever come? yes, it will happen. that is a resounding affirmation from my side. revolutions usually gather steam at a snail's pace. sometimes the flame flickers and almost goes out, but every setback strengthens the movement, every sacrifice, both spiritual and physical, adds to the momentum. finally at some point it bursts into a populist rebellion. once the masses wake up from their slumber, no force of money, power or influence will stop it. india got independence after 300 years of struggle
This sort of sentiment also comes up on this thread repeatedly. The absolute inevitability of the ultimate success of the reform movement has become this unquestioned mantra, a quasi-religious belief as unshakable as the abdes' belief in the infallibility of the Syedna! But where does this staunch certitude come from? Does it come from the many successes the reform movement has achieved in reforming the Kothar's behavior over the past 40 years?
No, what people do is cite the successes of various political reform movements as proof that they too will eventually prevail, with the victory of India over the British colonialists being the favored example. But again, this is like comparing apples and oranges. Political reform movements have succeded in the past. But we are talking about a religious reform movement. The fact that reformists confuse the two does not mean they are are not separate entities. Besides the whole secular/religious divide that many reformists cling to (i.e. "We are not challenging the religious authority of the Syedna, we seek secular/ political reforms in the administration") really has no basis in reality in an Ismaili framework. After all, the whole point of Ismailism is to wed the political to the religious in the office of the Imam or his Dai Mutlaq. One need only look to the history of the Fatimid Caliphs/ Imams to see that this is true. Pretending that a clear divide between mosque and state exists under an Ismaili framework is disingenuous at best.
So what does history teach us about the success of religious reform movements? I would argue that history offers a bleak picture in this regard. The most pertinent historical example seems to be the Catholic Church. And of course, we know the attempts of medieval Christians to reform the Church's excesses failed miserably, with the result being the birth of Protestantism.
And besides, using the Indian struggle for independence is even more problematic. Just because there was a struggle and then colonialism ended doesn't necessarily mean that one caused the other. The real reason colonialism ended was that the colonial powers irrevocably weakened themselves with two catastrophic world wars. In 1900, almost all of Africa and Asia was under colonial domination. By the 1960s, colonialism had basically ceased to exist, even in the weakest of African countries that had not even had long freedom struggles. To suggest that were it not for Gandhi, India would still be under the British (as some on this thread have done) is absurd. Anyway, I have gone off topic a little here but my overall point is neither history in general nor the history of the reform movement in particular offers evidence that victory is even likely, let alone inevitable. Thinking otherwise just gives people a justification to keep doing what they have been doing, even when it is obviously not working.
it's all very well to criticise and seek to find faults and its quite another to propose constructive solutions.
This line of reasoning is also very popular among reformists. I think it devalues the importance of constructive criticism though. For example suppose someone has appendicitis, and then you see the doctor is attempting to cure the patient by applying leeches. Informing the doctor that that won't work is useful information! It stops him from wasting precious time on something that accomplishes nothing, and it should lead him to think about different treatments that might actually work. The doctor can't just say "Well do you have any better ideas? And who are you to criticize? At least I am doing something!"
As I said previously, I am sure that the reformist enterprise can not succeed. I am not sure my proposed solutions would work. But I think they are worth trying. I wrote this back in February...
1. Progressive Dawoodi Bohras should admit that by criticizing the Syedna and Kothar, they no longer believe in the Syedna in the manner that he requires and have left the faith.
2. Having done so, the Progressives should formalize the obvious and officially create a new sect. My suggested name for the sect is Udaipuri Bohras. The definition of an Udaipuri Bohra would be a Muslim originally from the Dawoodi Bohra community that no longer accepts the authority of the Syedna. Initially the sect would have to be ecumenical, including ex Dawoodi Bohras now following various Shia, Sunni, Sufi, and non-denominational forms of Islam. However, with time perhaps scholars would come forth that could shape a distinctive theology that draws on positive aspects of Bohra practice (love for the Prophet's family, tolerance, cleanliness, etc.) while discarding the negative aspects (powerful clergy, iddat, excommunication, etc.).
3. Redoubled efforts should be made to fill the gaps in people's lives that arise when leaving the Dawoodi Bohra community (helping rebuild social circles, facilitating the search for marriage partners, buying burial plots, etc.)
I think the benefits of this approach are as follows:
1. It is intellectually honest.
2. It leads to a totally different dynamic that what exists presently. At the present time, reformists run after the Bohras from behind, whining, nagging, and often belittling Bohras in an attempt to win them over. Creating a new sect allows you to try to lead from the front, saying, "The ills of the Dawoodi Bohra religious structure are so severe that we can no longer remain members. There is no use trying to reform what is hopelessly corrupt. But we still want the best for our former community. We have therefore committed ourselves to creating a new structure where Bohras can live in dignity, free from religious oppression and falsehood. We hope the community will join us in this important endeavor and we will welcome anyone who wishes to join at any time with open arms."
3. It would allow a new community to chart it's own destiny without any interference from the Kothar and fanatic followers who would constantly fight any attempts at change tooth and nail. Even if the demands for reform one day grow much more powerful and force the Kothar to negotiate, the end result will have to be some sort of compromise that ultimately noone would be happy with. So for example, the Kothar might one day diminish the amount of taxes levied, treat people less rudely, and not interfere as much in secular affairs, but still would demand obedience in religious affairs such as sajda to the Syedna, collection of wajebat, and excommunication of heretics. Who would be truly happy in such a situation? Sometimes an amicable divorce is better than a lifetime of endless bickering and strife. Besides, a Bohra community that is able to rid itself of the most corrupt and the most simple-minded of it's members in one fell swoop would be immeasurably better off. Let the Kothar and their fanatic supporters enjoy each other's company. You can't save everyone.
There are some serious obstacles to forming a new Bohra community though. The first and most thorny issue is how to fill the void left by rejecting the religious dimension of the Dawoodi Bohra identity. The simplest way to tackle the problem is to "outsource" religious guidance to another existing sect.
This would free the new community to focus strictly on being an ethnic/cultural organization, which could then focus on the more mundane aspects of community life (arranging conferences, get-togethers, iftars etc., helping new members find friends and marriage partners, buying burial plots, providing business networking opportunites, and financial/housing/employment assistance to those who have been excommunicated and therefore abandoned by their families or those who are poor).
Getting back to the religious issue, joining a Shia sect would in some ways be ideal. After all Dawoodi Bohras are Muslims first, then Shias, then a particular sect of Shia. So joining a different Shia sect would allow Bohras to retain as much of their previous identity as possible, making for a smoother transition. Perhaps the closest sect to ours (other than the Sulaymani, Alawi, or Atba-e-Malak Bohras, which I admit I know nearly nothing about and whose members I have never even met) are the Aga Khanis, another Ismaili sect. I don't know though, the thought of going from one authoritarian Ismaili sect which has a billionaire leader who claims infallibilty and heavily taxes his followers to another one doesn't seem like much of an improvement to me. At least our leader (with his beard and his turban) superficially looks the part!
Becoming Ithna Ashari is another option worth considering. They might not be Ismailis, but they are Shias, and place the same emphasis on the ahl-e-Bayt and Muharram that Bohras do. Perhaps this option would appeal to a lot of Bohras for whom their identity as Shias is very important. As for me, I initially strongly considered this option before ultimately rejecting it. The concept of Imamate has no Quranic sanction, and belies the Quranic claim that it is a clear book that tells people all the basic information they need to know to earn the pleasure of their Creator. After all, if the concept of Imamate and knowing the Imam of one's era is an absolute prerequisite for having one's faith accepted, why is there not even one unequivocal ayah in the Quran that states as such? And the Shia first claimed that God could not just let the Prophet pass away and leave the umma leaderless; an Imam who interprets the Quran and leads the umma is absolutely required to ensure the umma does not go astray. Then after centuries passed, they began to claim the Imam went into occultation! But what happened to the need for a masum leader directly guiding the umma at all times? And how can I judge if this man is who he says he is if I can't even see or hear him? And now I am obligated not only to believe in the Imamate, I also have to believe in this concept of occultation?? Despite the fact that neither concept has any mention in the Quran?? People are free to make decisions on such matters on their own, but this sort of thing is not for me.
Reflecting on matters such as these is what ultimately led me to become a Sunni, and any new Bohra group that is formed should at least consider doing likewise. Joining the largest sect of Muslims would have several important advantages. Speaking from personal experience, it is nice to be part of a large, multinational group of people. One truly feels part of an umma, not just a small, provincial community that thinks they alone are truly guided by God. Also, joining such a large and visible group would offer protection from any Kothar interference and intimidation that might take place.
However, creating a Bohra group that adopts Sunnism would also pose several serious challenges. First of all, I do not think most Bohras actually want to become Sunnis. An anti-Sunni bias is drilled into Bohras from a very early age. And some of this ill-will towards Sunnis is quite justified considering Sunni oppression of Bohras over the centuries, including the execution of several Dai Mutlaqs. Furthermore, Sunnis generally place supreme importance on the Hadith literature, which are sayings attributed to the Prophet, a lot of which are of dubious authenticity and moral content. And the fatwas of Sunni jurists are often tainted with imperialism, misogyny, and intolerance, which is one of the main reasons the Muslim world is in the state it is today.
Nonetheless, there is no one authoritative voice in Sunnism the way there is in Dawoodi Bohrism, and a new Bohra group could pick and choose to a large extent the sort of scholars they want to listen to in accordance with what meshes with their overall worldview.
Or the new Bohra group could just leave this whole sectarian issue to the discretion of the individual, and define itself strictly as an ethnic/cultural organization. The benefit of this approach is that it would provide a "big tent", encompassing Bohras regardless of what religious sect they adopt. It would also avoid sectarian bickering that could threaten group solidarity. The drawback would be that a group composed of members of the various Islamic sects may be prone to further fragmentation.
The other main option available to a new Bohra group is to forge a new religious identity that separates it from all others. Perhaps a new Bohra group could create some sort of Sunni/Shia hybrid that rejects the concept of Imamate but retains the devotion to the Panjatan-e-Pak. Or rejects veneration of the Syedna but otherwise maintains the Bohra way of prayer and the Misri calendar. This obviously is a much more complicated undertaking, and would require the training of scholars, establishment of religious schools, etc. And to be quite honest, judging from the refomists' website, their featured articles, and the posts on this forum, I think that such an undertaking is not something the reformists would be able to pull off. Ultimately, reformists are mainly concerned with secular matters and probably should not deal with issues with which they generally are uninterested and uninformed.
As I have said previously, I have a large family, with members who are highly educated and others who are shopkeepers who have not completed high school. Nearly all of them clearly see the Kothar for what they are. I actually do not know any of these "brain-dead abdes" that I hear about constantly on this website. My father is an excellent example of this phenomenon. He has known for 50 years that the Kothar are a bunch of corrupt charlatans. When he came to America, he purposefully distanced himself from the community, limiting his trips to the markaz to Ashura. But as he has gotten older, he has started to go more often. When I was younger, I would try to convince him to stop, and go on Humsafar-like tirades about the evils of the Kothar. I even would bring him to the Sunni masjid where I would go for juma, iftars, and Eid namaz. In some ways, he was quite impressed with the Sunni masjid; he is always amazed that you can go there and pray and eat and no one harasses you for money. But ultimately he doesn't feel at home there. He doesn't like being the only one in the prayer congregation wearing a topi and keeping his hands to his sides. He socializes with the Pakistanis and Arabs and whoever else is there, but he doesn't feel the same sense of community and brotherhood that he does speaking Gujarati and eating in thaals with Bohras at the markaz. That is why he goes and pays his taxes even though he feels morally uneasy about it. "I have been a Bohra my whole life. It is who I am", he tells me.
I once sent him the link to this website and made him read a couple of articles. Then I asked him what he thought. He said, "Do these people really think they can change the priesthood???" Then he dismissively rolled his eyes and changed the subject.
My point is this. My father remains a member of the community solely for ethnic/cultural reasons. If he ever had the opportunity to abandon the Kothar and join a Kothar-free Bohra organization that fulfilled his social needs, he would have jumped ship decades ago. I believe this is true for a large portion of my family. And there are probably thousands upon thousands of people just like them who would be willing to offer moral and financial support to any group who embarks on this undertaking. This is why I encourage reformists to stop offering Bohras advice and instead focus on offering them a viable alternative.
Re: Is reform truly possible? Part II
And the alternative is fatemidawat.com.
-
shirin52kapasi
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:31 pm
Re: Is reform truly possible? Part II
Bahaism is NOT a Religion. It is a CULT. And if we are comparing religions, then we need to discuss divine religions and not a cult which was primarily formed by imperialists to destroy Islam.ponga bhori wrote:ghulam muhammed wrote:
-
ponga bhori
- Posts: 410
- Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 4:01 am
Re: Is reform truly possible? Part II
shirin52kapasi wrote: Bahaism is NOT a Religion. It is a CULT. And if we are comparing religions, then we need to discuss divine religions and not a cult which was primarily formed by imperialists to destroy Islam.
This was quoted from Wikipedia. You may want to correct it there.
Besides I never compared it with any religion.
Re: Is reform truly possible? Part II
shirin52kapasi and Ponga Bhori:
Please stick to the topic under discussion. If you must, then start a new topic and debate your differences there. Honestly I do not even think the topic you want to discuss falls under this Forum.
Please stick to the topic under discussion. If you must, then start a new topic and debate your differences there. Honestly I do not even think the topic you want to discuss falls under this Forum.
-
Critical_Thinker
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:22 pm
Re: Is reform truly possible? Part II
Superb and insightful thread kansas bhai. We need more intelligent minds like you.
Re: Is reform truly possible? Part II
Mr. Insaf recently wrote a post for this forum titled "In defence of the silent majority". I posted a response at one point but soon realized my post was almost immediately buried under dozens of subsequent posts, most of which resolved around personal squabbles between other members of this forum. I just wanted to repost the portion of my post that directly dealt with the issue of this particular thread (whether reform is actually possible). Calls for reform sound good when they are kept vague, but the devil is in the details as they say. Mr. Insaf's post was noteworthy as he is a leading reformist supporting a concrete recommendation on how to reform the community. However, the recommendation is in complete contradiction of the essence of the Dawoodi Bohra religion, and would effectively signal the end of the sect if it was ever adopted.
Mr. Insaf wrote:
Still this generation (it may be the last generation) of Dawoodi Bohras that is lucky that it still have few scholars of Islam and Fatimid literature and history, like Prof. Ismail Poonawala and Prof. Abbas Hamdani.
Prof. Ismail Poonawala has already conveyed to the Bombay High Court, by a separate submission through Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community, and rightly so, that:-
“As a result of present dispute, only the Dawoodi Bohra community is affected and non else, it is only just and proper that it must have a say in the appointment / selection of a right person as its leader and spiritual guide. It should not be left to the arbitrary whims of an individual as it’s the current practice. For the last 175 years the succession has been monopolized within one family. The predecessor appoints either his brother or son as successor irrespective of his merits or qualifications to lead the community. By a right person I mean the most pious, most learned and the best qualified as per the qualifications criteria elaborated above.
How should it be determined that a person is the right person to lead the community and be its spiritual guide? I suggest that it should be left to the good sense of the community. Either through a direct referendum or an indirect process. The referendum can be supervised by an election commission similar to the Election Commission of India.
This Professor Poonawalla is the perfect example of an "intellectual" who apparently spends so much time in academia that he forgets what the real world is actually like. The Syedna should be chosen by a referendum? Performed by the flock? Which is overseen by a secular court likely composed of Hindus? Is this a joke???
If this "solution" does not directly and completely contradict everything Shiism/Ismailism/Dawoodi Bohrism is about, then what does? This is not an attempt to reform the Dawoodi Bohra faith, it is an attempt to destroy it.
Mr. Insaf wrote:
Still this generation (it may be the last generation) of Dawoodi Bohras that is lucky that it still have few scholars of Islam and Fatimid literature and history, like Prof. Ismail Poonawala and Prof. Abbas Hamdani.
Prof. Ismail Poonawala has already conveyed to the Bombay High Court, by a separate submission through Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community, and rightly so, that:-
“As a result of present dispute, only the Dawoodi Bohra community is affected and non else, it is only just and proper that it must have a say in the appointment / selection of a right person as its leader and spiritual guide. It should not be left to the arbitrary whims of an individual as it’s the current practice. For the last 175 years the succession has been monopolized within one family. The predecessor appoints either his brother or son as successor irrespective of his merits or qualifications to lead the community. By a right person I mean the most pious, most learned and the best qualified as per the qualifications criteria elaborated above.
How should it be determined that a person is the right person to lead the community and be its spiritual guide? I suggest that it should be left to the good sense of the community. Either through a direct referendum or an indirect process. The referendum can be supervised by an election commission similar to the Election Commission of India.
This Professor Poonawalla is the perfect example of an "intellectual" who apparently spends so much time in academia that he forgets what the real world is actually like. The Syedna should be chosen by a referendum? Performed by the flock? Which is overseen by a secular court likely composed of Hindus? Is this a joke???
If this "solution" does not directly and completely contradict everything Shiism/Ismailism/Dawoodi Bohrism is about, then what does? This is not an attempt to reform the Dawoodi Bohra faith, it is an attempt to destroy it.
Re: Is reform truly possible? Part II
The irony is that a hindu was brought forward to validate the nuss of one of the dawedaars and both the dawedaars are fighting in a hindu judge's court to prove their validity. Apparently the progressives couldnt destroy the dawoodi bohra faith, but it took two Dais to accomplish the task.