I would like insaaf or engineer or reformists and please no wahabbis to answer this ,since this three during their lifetime were enemies of moula ali sa ,
do you believe they were ahead of moula ali sa or did they usurp him
and what do all reformists believe about this three
What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
Neither Insaaf, nor Engineer are Gods or religioius leaders. They are leaders of a movement which is fighting for justice in our community. Have you ever heard them preach hatrate and disharmony in our community, like the so called spiritual leaders of yours, GOD of (orthodox, kothari)bohra Mr. Burhanuddin moula and his thugs.
And which authority are you to say that they are enimies of moula ali? Its a very strong and serious accusation.
And which authority are you to say that they are enimies of moula ali? Its a very strong and serious accusation.
-
Al Zulfiqar
- Posts: 4618
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:01 am
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
aziz,aziz wrote:I would like insaaf or engineer or reformists and please no wahabbis to answer this ,since this three during their lifetime were enemies of moula ali sa ,
do you believe they were ahead of moula ali sa or did they usurp him
and what do all reformists believe about this three
excuse me for answering out of turn, as i am not one of the chosen few to whom you have addressed this question, but before anyone else answers, could you please clarify what is the intent behind this question of yours and what are you trying to prove?
the manner in which your question is worded, seems to imply that reformists have different religious beliefs from dawoodi bohras? do you know that the goals of the reformists are not related to spiritual issues of our deen but purely to do with temporal matters? if you didnt know that, i suggest you first read up and then return to either re-phrase this question or withdraw it, as its totally irrelevant and malicious in intent.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
I tend to agree with Anwar.
WHO says and how it can be PROVED, first three were the enemies of Ali?? Aziz you say this coz you were told that..... mostly by current regime. Majority does not agree. This is an accusation. Not that majority is always right, how can we say with so much surety that they were enemies??!!! Ali had accepted them and had sat and fought wars for them. Hassan and Hussain had made agreement with them, there was political consensus amongst them. The only trigger to all this is Tragedy of Karbala due to the unfaithful and coward people of Iraq who had called on Hussain to come and lead them as Imam.
Prophet had said, if any Nabi had to come after him, that would be Umer. Porphet use to stand up and put his chaddar for Abu Baker. Ali's two duaghter were married to Umer, and Prophet made Ali, a Maula of all at Gadeer-e-Khum........... My point, Prophet elated them all, liked them all.
You have all the rights in the world to disagree and say first three were not right. This is history and you may have your points. But please do not mix your sentiments in that. Leave those whom you have no trust and disbelief. Do not curse and say lanats. Do not try to 'change' the history the way it suits your requirements.
WHO says and how it can be PROVED, first three were the enemies of Ali?? Aziz you say this coz you were told that..... mostly by current regime. Majority does not agree. This is an accusation. Not that majority is always right, how can we say with so much surety that they were enemies??!!! Ali had accepted them and had sat and fought wars for them. Hassan and Hussain had made agreement with them, there was political consensus amongst them. The only trigger to all this is Tragedy of Karbala due to the unfaithful and coward people of Iraq who had called on Hussain to come and lead them as Imam.
Prophet had said, if any Nabi had to come after him, that would be Umer. Porphet use to stand up and put his chaddar for Abu Baker. Ali's two duaghter were married to Umer, and Prophet made Ali, a Maula of all at Gadeer-e-Khum........... My point, Prophet elated them all, liked them all.
You have all the rights in the world to disagree and say first three were not right. This is history and you may have your points. But please do not mix your sentiments in that. Leave those whom you have no trust and disbelief. Do not curse and say lanats. Do not try to 'change' the history the way it suits your requirements.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
aziz,
The biggest usurper is the dawoodi bohra dictator called Syedna Burhanuddin who has usurped the rights of the bohras down to their lands and community properties. So much so that he has usurped the right of a proper burial too. A bohra has to suffer the indignity of getting clearance from this tyrant even to bury his dear ones. Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Uthman were not the enemies of Hazrat Ali. These are lies that have been fed to the bohras to keep them in control.
The biggest usurper is the dawoodi bohra dictator called Syedna Burhanuddin who has usurped the rights of the bohras down to their lands and community properties. So much so that he has usurped the right of a proper burial too. A bohra has to suffer the indignity of getting clearance from this tyrant even to bury his dear ones. Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Uthman were not the enemies of Hazrat Ali. These are lies that have been fed to the bohras to keep them in control.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
JC,
I wish you would not present Sunni take on history, a la Ghulam Mohammad, as the only legitimate one and decry the Shia version. I would prefer that you take an even-handed approach to it. There is absolutely no reason to think that because a certain persons are related by marriage to Ali, they would not be against him in some circumstances. After all, even Quran (66:10) states that the wives of Prophets Noah and Lot betrayed them.
I do not know what a ‘reformist’ position, if any, on the first three kahlifas is. However, this is what it should be for Bohras.
There is a difference of opinion between the Sunnis and the Shia on what Rasulullah meant when he declared Ali as Mawla.
Shias believe that he meant that both the spiritual and temporal authority of Rasullah would pass to Ali after his death.
Sunnis believe that while Ali is a Mawla, Rasulullah was not specific about who would inherit the temporal leadership.
Precisely what happened at Saqifa Banu Saida after the death of the Prophet where Abu Bakr was selected as Khalifa is not certain. The Shia telling of history is clear that the rejection of Ali solidified theological underpinnings of Imamat with reference to Quran and evidence of later historical sources.
I suggest you accept that there are different narratives of history and not just the Shia and Sunni ones. There are many shades in between.
Reformists should accept that Sunnis do not follow the concept of Imamat but have a legitimate regard for the first three Khalifas. In that light, Reformists should go along in respecting the first three Khalifas and must not throw insults against them.
Reformists should accept that Imamat of Ali and his descendants co-existed with the rule of the first 3 Khalifas and beyond. While Ali was the 4th Khalifa, he was, in addition, the father of Imamat.
Thus two parallel streams of Islam developed. Enlightened Muslims respect both views and do not incur wrath of one party because they have been raised up in a different tradition. There is no absolute truth here to defend.
If we do not give platform to extreme Wahhabi/Salafi or their Shia counterparts, we can live peacefully in mutual respect. Your task should be to persuade your relatives to stop being manipulated by partisan histories of those whose agendas are slavery through self-education; not by drumming your version of history picked up from Sunni websites. That way, you alienate them.
I wish you would not present Sunni take on history, a la Ghulam Mohammad, as the only legitimate one and decry the Shia version. I would prefer that you take an even-handed approach to it. There is absolutely no reason to think that because a certain persons are related by marriage to Ali, they would not be against him in some circumstances. After all, even Quran (66:10) states that the wives of Prophets Noah and Lot betrayed them.
I do not know what a ‘reformist’ position, if any, on the first three kahlifas is. However, this is what it should be for Bohras.
There is a difference of opinion between the Sunnis and the Shia on what Rasulullah meant when he declared Ali as Mawla.
Shias believe that he meant that both the spiritual and temporal authority of Rasullah would pass to Ali after his death.
Sunnis believe that while Ali is a Mawla, Rasulullah was not specific about who would inherit the temporal leadership.
Precisely what happened at Saqifa Banu Saida after the death of the Prophet where Abu Bakr was selected as Khalifa is not certain. The Shia telling of history is clear that the rejection of Ali solidified theological underpinnings of Imamat with reference to Quran and evidence of later historical sources.
I suggest you accept that there are different narratives of history and not just the Shia and Sunni ones. There are many shades in between.
Reformists should accept that Sunnis do not follow the concept of Imamat but have a legitimate regard for the first three Khalifas. In that light, Reformists should go along in respecting the first three Khalifas and must not throw insults against them.
Reformists should accept that Imamat of Ali and his descendants co-existed with the rule of the first 3 Khalifas and beyond. While Ali was the 4th Khalifa, he was, in addition, the father of Imamat.
Thus two parallel streams of Islam developed. Enlightened Muslims respect both views and do not incur wrath of one party because they have been raised up in a different tradition. There is no absolute truth here to defend.
If we do not give platform to extreme Wahhabi/Salafi or their Shia counterparts, we can live peacefully in mutual respect. Your task should be to persuade your relatives to stop being manipulated by partisan histories of those whose agendas are slavery through self-education; not by drumming your version of history picked up from Sunni websites. That way, you alienate them.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
The bohras need to study history and not the Sunni take on history. What the bohras are being taught is fiction.
After studying history, they then need to take some time and try to understand it. For eg. Hazrat Abu Bakr was a rich man and a leader in pre-islamic Mecca. He gave everything up and accepted Islam. For what? Did he believe he was going to become khalifa? Or did he believe that Islam was the truth? And did Hazrat Ali accept the position of the fourth khalifa knowing already that he was the "foundation of Imamat"? Why? To unite the Ummah? Has he failed? The ummah was the most divided during the khilafat of hazrat Ali. This is history, and not the fiction that is taught to the bohras.
And is there a difference between "Mawla" and "Imam"?
After studying history, they then need to take some time and try to understand it. For eg. Hazrat Abu Bakr was a rich man and a leader in pre-islamic Mecca. He gave everything up and accepted Islam. For what? Did he believe he was going to become khalifa? Or did he believe that Islam was the truth? And did Hazrat Ali accept the position of the fourth khalifa knowing already that he was the "foundation of Imamat"? Why? To unite the Ummah? Has he failed? The ummah was the most divided during the khilafat of hazrat Ali. This is history, and not the fiction that is taught to the bohras.
And is there a difference between "Mawla" and "Imam"?
This again is fiction. Imamat was born many years after the death of Hazrat Ali. Is there any saying attributed to Hazrat Ali where he claims to be the father of Imamat?While Ali was the 4th Khalifa, he was, in addition, the father of Imamat.
What is the extreme Wahhabi/Salafi position? That they hate Hazrat Ali? This is what creates divisions. The shias curse the khalifas and then they lie about the other sides feelings towards Hazrat Ali.If we do not give platform to extreme Wahhabi/Salafi
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
For reformist Bohras the belief of general Dawoodi Bohras was decided when their Elahul-Ard and Qurane-Natiq, Sayedna Mohammad Burhanuddin Saheb had publicly apologized for his stand of calling the first three caliphs usurpers and tendered a written apology and that too at the risk of his claim of being infallible (kal-masoom). He had categorically stated that:
“I have always tried that in spite of differences in belief and faith the mutual relations and love with each other should prevail. It is because we have faith that the Muslims are united on the basis of the kalma that “There is no god but there is Allah".So please do not commit sin of disobeying your master.
If the Commander of Faithful, Hazrat Ali ibne Abi Talib had considered the first three caliphs his enemy he would not have named his son from his wife Khawla bin Jafar “UMAR” and his two sons from his wife Umme Habib Rabia “USMAN” and “ABU BAKR”.
“I have always tried that in spite of differences in belief and faith the mutual relations and love with each other should prevail. It is because we have faith that the Muslims are united on the basis of the kalma that “There is no god but there is Allah".So please do not commit sin of disobeying your master.
If the Commander of Faithful, Hazrat Ali ibne Abi Talib had considered the first three caliphs his enemy he would not have named his son from his wife Khawla bin Jafar “UMAR” and his two sons from his wife Umme Habib Rabia “USMAN” and “ABU BAKR”.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
Ali's choice of names for his sons have no relevance to whether he considered the first three Khalifas as his enemies. These names had been in currency among the Hejaz Arabs predating the coming of Islam. This is at best a red herring. Shias have shunned the names of the three khalifas only after their theology became well-established.S. Insaf wrote: If the Commander of Faithful, Hazrat Ali ibne Abi Talib had considered the first three caliphs his enemy he would not have named his son from his wife Khawla bin Jafar “UMAR” and his two sons from his wife Umme Habib Rabia “USMAN” and “ABU BAKR”.
Whether Ali considered them enemies is not clear. Even if he did, it would not have been politically prudent for him to declare the fact. After all, all three were companions of Prophet and made significant contributions to Islam.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
In my first post on this thread I proposed an even-handed approach to reading of history and urged respect for both the Sunni and the Shia versions. I also warned that Wahhabis will not agree because they believe that God speaks truth only them.
Any expression of Shia devotion to Ali is like a red rag to a bull. Our resident Wahhabi on this board first tried to derail the subject by shifting attention to the Dai, calling him a usurper. Then, in a direct attack on the Shia, he proceeded to rubbish their historical position on Ali and calling it all a fiction.
I expressly pointed out that Imamat has the basis in the Quran. The Shia interpret Imamat as passing to Ahl-e-bayt. Sunnis do not accept this position and they are welcome to their views as are the Shia to theirs.
I am not representing orthodox Bohra views, just what the reformist position ought to be.
Our Wahhabi does not accept this sensible position and must nit-pick. Does Mawla mean Imam? Yes it does. May be the self-styled Quranic expert will research what Wali and Mawla means to the Shia.
Rest assured extreme Wahhabis hate Ali for no reason other than that the Shia revere him. Remember the red rag.
Any expression of Shia devotion to Ali is like a red rag to a bull. Our resident Wahhabi on this board first tried to derail the subject by shifting attention to the Dai, calling him a usurper. Then, in a direct attack on the Shia, he proceeded to rubbish their historical position on Ali and calling it all a fiction.
I expressly pointed out that Imamat has the basis in the Quran. The Shia interpret Imamat as passing to Ahl-e-bayt. Sunnis do not accept this position and they are welcome to their views as are the Shia to theirs.
I am not representing orthodox Bohra views, just what the reformist position ought to be.
Our Wahhabi does not accept this sensible position and must nit-pick. Does Mawla mean Imam? Yes it does. May be the self-styled Quranic expert will research what Wali and Mawla means to the Shia.
Rest assured extreme Wahhabis hate Ali for no reason other than that the Shia revere him. Remember the red rag.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
Again, a misrepresentation by porus. As per porus himself, Imamat only has basis in an interpretation of the quran. An interpretation as per porus!! And not the quran itself.I expressly pointed out that Imamat has the basis in the Quran.
That was a self fulfilling prophecy by you. You might try to fool the others, but this "wahhabi" is too smart for you.I also warned that Wahhabis will not agree because they believe that God speaks truth only them.
Shia devotion to Ali? You call yourself a shia? You refuse to refer to Hazrat Ali as anything but just "Ali". No titles, no Hazrat. Why? You think you are a re-incarnation of him? Or you actually worship Hazrat Ali?
The shia position is not a sensible position. I pointed out historical facts in my post which porus chooses to respond to via rhetoric. What wali, mawla, Imam mean to the shia is immaterial. What matters is what they actually mean. There is a difference between fact and fiction and shias are still to figure that out.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
One other interesting fact. A bull is color blind. It would react to a blue cloth in pretty much the same way as it does to a red cloth. What angers the bull is the movement rather than the color of the rag. The color is for the people watching the show and not the bull. Something that the shias in general and porus in particular is yet to learn.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
That is a pretty lame one. After all that "respect each other's view" nonsense, porus will still label you as a wahhabi if you disagree with him. It's a good thing that porus hasn't found a real reason for the wahhabi "hatred" of Hazrat Ali. All this is based on fiction and emotion rather than fact.Rest assured extreme Wahhabis hate Ali for no reason other than that the Shia revere him.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
u r again presuming that everything shia believe in is fictitious and whatever the wahabis do is the truth
as u portray urself a wahabi expert on islam and quran can u please give us the wahabi view on one doubt i have had for long
in all the major wars fought by the prophet[pbuh] he was ably assisted by moula ali[sa] i havent heard of or read of any significant military contributions from your first 3-were there any?
as for ilm any layman would tell that amirul mumineen was superior in knowledge to most arabs
amirul mumineens character is so examplary that even the most fanatic wahabi cant deny this
amirul mumineen was militarily knowledgewise characterwise superior to your first 3 plus he was proclaimed moula by Allahs rasool on ghadeer e khum-now its just common sense as to who is the rightful heir to rasoole khuda
as u portray urself a wahabi expert on islam and quran can u please give us the wahabi view on one doubt i have had for long
in all the major wars fought by the prophet[pbuh] he was ably assisted by moula ali[sa] i havent heard of or read of any significant military contributions from your first 3-were there any?
as for ilm any layman would tell that amirul mumineen was superior in knowledge to most arabs
amirul mumineens character is so examplary that even the most fanatic wahabi cant deny this
amirul mumineen was militarily knowledgewise characterwise superior to your first 3 plus he was proclaimed moula by Allahs rasool on ghadeer e khum-now its just common sense as to who is the rightful heir to rasoole khuda
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
The difference between shia and sunni is walayat of moula ali sa ,you cannot have it both ways that you also believe in three and in moula ali sa also,so reformists please state your stand ?are you sunnis or shias?.or is it you are afraid to commit in fear of losing support agaisnt moula tus from wahabbis on this forum
The wahabbi radical view is not needed ,nobody in this world cares what you think ,islam is hated by the world because of you people
The wahabbi radical view is not needed ,nobody in this world cares what you think ,islam is hated by the world because of you people
-
Al Zulfiqar
- Posts: 4618
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:01 am
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
aziz, whether wahabis have hatred or not, u certainly have enough poison in your heart to compensate! you have been fed nothing but snake venom from childhood washed down with gallons of maatam everyday.aziz wrote:The difference between shia and sunni is walayat of moula ali sa ,you cannot have it both ways that you also believe in three and in moula ali sa also,so reformists please state your stand ?are you sunnis or shias?.or is it you are afraid to commit in fear of losing support agaisnt moula tus from wahabbis on this forum
The wahabbi radical view is not needed ,nobody in this world cares what you think ,islam is hated by the world because of you people
did u read what bhai saifuddin insaf has posted about syedna having to apologise in public and on tv for uttering laanats against the first 3 khalifas? if you say he was right in saying laanats, then why did he apologise? is it because he is a coward, or a politician who changes colors according to the situation? syedna makes claims about being divinely appointed by imam and a dai of allah, is this how a dai of allah behaves?? his actions caused the death of atleast 6 bohras and losses of crores of rupees. while bohras suffered, he escaped in a police jeep under heavy security. is this how a divinely appointed dai and 'ilah ul ard' (god on earth) and 'haqiqi kaaba' behaves?
this forum allows even fanatics like you to come and post freely, did the progressives ask for yr support in terms of monetary contributions or from anyone else, that you talk of them taking support from wahabis?? by posting here you are a de facto phukatiya member of the progressive jamaat, try doing that in yr own jamaat. even giving an arzi to yr amil will cost you money!!!
as for being shia or sunni, first ask, what are bohras? they hate the sunnis and mock the other shias, are they even muslims??
-
like_minded
- Posts: 1260
- Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:01 am
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
Why is this "belief" so important? Believe in this, believe in that, believe in ali or believe in somebody else, believe in burhan, believe in his .... why this belief so important???aziz wrote:The difference between shia and sunni is walayat of moula ali sa ,you cannot have it both ways that you also believe in three and in moula ali sa also,so reformists please state your stand ?are you sunnis or shias?.or is it you are afraid to commit in fear of losing support agaisnt moula tus from wahabbis on this forum
The wahabbi radical view is not needed ,nobody in this world cares what you think ,islam is hated by the world because of you people
What if someone does not believe in anything... then will that thing which is supposed to be believed, take revenge?? If yes, then that thing or man or whatever, is not worth believing!
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
mutmaeen
That is because you have been reading shia fiction. Try reading history once in a while. Even porus accepted thisin all the major wars fought by the prophet[pbuh] he was ably assisted by moula ali[sa] i havent heard of or read of any significant military contributions from your first 3-were there any?
After all, all three were companions of Prophet and made significant contributions to Islam.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
Apart from the wahabbis defending the three ,no reformist has answered what their stand is on moula ali sa,
so it should be admited on this prog forum that the reformists have loyaties to the three who usurped moula ali sa,
do all progs agree to this
so it should be admited on this prog forum that the reformists have loyaties to the three who usurped moula ali sa,
do all progs agree to this
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
aziz,
I am not a wahhabi, but a progressive, however, the problem with the followers of the tyrant Syedna is that if the progressives were to tell you that they do not believe that Hazrat Ali's rights were usurped, you will label them as wahhabis. If they tell you that you shouldn't curse them, you will label them as wahhabis. There is no normal discussion with a person like you. I have seen people like you call porus and humsafar as wahhabis who themselves do not miss an opportunity to label others as wahhabis. Now, much of what I have written probably went right over your head, but others will hopefully get the message.
I am not a wahhabi, but a progressive, however, the problem with the followers of the tyrant Syedna is that if the progressives were to tell you that they do not believe that Hazrat Ali's rights were usurped, you will label them as wahhabis. If they tell you that you shouldn't curse them, you will label them as wahhabis. There is no normal discussion with a person like you. I have seen people like you call porus and humsafar as wahhabis who themselves do not miss an opportunity to label others as wahhabis. Now, much of what I have written probably went right over your head, but others will hopefully get the message.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
Aziz, you trying to raise issues where none exist. Please understand very clearly that reformists and the reform movement is not about religion or about the fundamentals of the Bohra doctrine. There's no distinct reformist position on Maula Ali other than that of the rest of the Bohras. What enslaved Bohras believe, free Bohras believe the same. Period. Our fight is NOT about religious beliefs, it's about freedom and dignity.
Having said that, individual reformists in their personal capacities may have their own views on the subject. But an individual's point of view should not be misinterpreted as the "reformist position". Hope this satisfies your "fitnatic" and fanatic curiosity. Now shut up.
Having said that, individual reformists in their personal capacities may have their own views on the subject. But an individual's point of view should not be misinterpreted as the "reformist position". Hope this satisfies your "fitnatic" and fanatic curiosity. Now shut up.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
Everything the Dai and the Kothar does is in the guise of religion. So if you are against what they are doing, then you are against the bohra religion. That is the ortho stand. Now, you might want to cop out, but you are stuck.
-
Frustrated.Mumin
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:15 pm
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
Brothers & sisters,
Aziz is like a snake charmer. He comes onto this Board, asks a completely irrelevant question merely to goad you all out of your holes and immeduately you all start dancing to his tunes. Aziz sees that there are many serious discussions on this Board which may prove to be damaging to the Bohra leadership, so all he is trying to do is to distract attention from those discussions. And so far he seems to be succeeding. 20 responses and counting to a question not even worthy of an acknowledgment.
Aziz is like a snake charmer. He comes onto this Board, asks a completely irrelevant question merely to goad you all out of your holes and immeduately you all start dancing to his tunes. Aziz sees that there are many serious discussions on this Board which may prove to be damaging to the Bohra leadership, so all he is trying to do is to distract attention from those discussions. And so far he seems to be succeeding. 20 responses and counting to a question not even worthy of an acknowledgment.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
Anajmi, we've been down that road before, so let's not beat the same path again. Religion and "guise of religion" are two different things - and if you were not so self-absorbed in your own self-proclaimed smartness you would have noticed that reformists do challenged the "guise of religion" and all the other "religious perversions" that the Kothar has invented. Core religious tenets is one thing and abuse of those tenets is quite another. Reformists accept the former but challenge the latter.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
Humsafar,
We have to keep going down this part again is because you sing different tunes at different times. In a previous post you said
We have to keep going down this part again is because you sing different tunes at different times. In a previous post you said
Then in the next post (after anajmi's interception)What enslaved Bohras believe, free Bohras believe the same.
If free bohras believe what the enslaved bohras believe, then either both are free, or both are enslaved.reformists do challenged the "guise of religion" and all the other "religious perversions" that the Kothar has invented. Core religious tenets is one thing and abuse of those tenets is quite another. Reformists accept the former but challenge the latter.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
Anajmi, are you pretending be dumb or your self-proclaimed smartness is just a thin pretence !!!!! "Believing the same" refers to the core religious tenets, NOT the "guise of religion". God, never thought I would have to spoon-feed you like this!!!! 
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
I agree with FM... Aziz bhai came up with a nice question to create a chaos and divide. It also, explains the fact why Kothar is ruling the roost. It seems these kotharis are way too smart compared to the people fighting against them. And honestly, I don't think anybody can reform bohras as long as kotharis are around... Ghanu jeevo ghanu jeevo.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
Humsafar,
When you are trying to feed crap to people, you have to spoon feed. When dealing with you, I have to be very careful. You have indicated before that you believe different things in different places.
When you are trying to feed crap to people, you have to spoon feed. When dealing with you, I have to be very careful. You have indicated before that you believe different things in different places.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
And to the other progressives, why are you afraid of questions thrown out by the idiot orthos? Are you so unsure of your own beliefs that you feel they will be shattered by these orthos with one basic question? Kotharis are ruling because of the cowardice of the introvert progressives.
Re: What is the reformists position on the three usurpers
What made you think that we are unsure of our own beliefs? And by "we" I mean progressives in general not "me" - just to be clear.anajmi wrote:.... Are you so unsure of your own beliefs that you feel they will be shattered by these orthos with one basic question?
