Urs Syedna Qutubkhan Qutbuddin Shaheed

[SBM]

Aliabbas and MF
this thread is to talk about Syedna Qutubkhan Qutbuddin Shaheed whom Bohras respect for his virtues. This thread is not to talk about Aurangzeb
You are barking on the wrong platform.
Br. MF has lately become less tolerant and seems like has joined some kind of Tablligh to propagate his vision and mission without any tolerance to others
I would request you guys to start another thread about Aurganzeb Under Islam Today or Here and There and Admin please remove all these post and take it that thread
Br.MF AND ALIABBAS
YOU ARE IN OUR HOUSE AND WE EXPECT YOU TO RESPECT OUR CUSTOMS AND THE COURTESY WE HAVE EXTENDED WE EXPECT THE SAME WHILE VISITING OUR HOUSE

[bohraji]

Dear Admin.
I second the sugesstion of SBM.
These are intollerant of others and anything that is not endorsed by their sheiks is considered blasphemy.These people advocate death to shias.You can see the results in Bahrain and Pakistan.Please remove their posts and let this post remain for Qutbuddin Shaheed.The place near the Karanj police station in Ahmedabad is still revered as the park nearby is the place where the shahadat took place.If you go to the Kabrastan near the Roza ,,yu will see graves,some of entire families ,including women who were beheaded on the Mughal rulers orders.The names on the graves can still be seen with the dates.Let this thread be for Qutbuddin Shaheed.

[Aarif]

I only found good about Aurangzeb rah from these sources you mentioned regarding killing of his brother , please delve into history and you will find his brother had turned into an apostate and preached Hindu doctrines. Here is what Britannica says:
"He grew up as a serious-minded and devout youth, wedded to the Muslim orthodoxy of the day and free from the royal Mughal traits of sensuality and drunkenness "
So dont be proud of the ancient Mughal traits which were undoubtedly evil.Such traits appease the disbelievers and despise the believers.

Oh really. It seems you are one of those fanatics who believe that following Islam gives you the permission to ill-treat, harass and kill people who do not buy your ideology. From the same link that I have posted you forgot to read the following:

“After about 1680, Aurangzeb’s reign underwent a change of both attitude and policy. The pious ruler of an Islamic state replaced the seasoned statesman of a mixed kingdom; Hindus became subordinates, not colleagues, and the Marathas, like the southern Muslim kingdoms, were marked for annexation rather than containment. The first overt sign of change was the reimposition of the jizya, or poll tax, on non-Muslims in 1679 (a tax that had been abolished by Akbar). This in turn was followed by a Rajput revolt in 1680–81, supported by Aurangzeb’s third son, Akbar. Hindus still served the empire, but no longer with enthusiasm. The Deccan kingdoms of Bijapur and Golconda were conquered in 1686–87, but the insecurity that followed precipitated a long-incipient economic crisis, which in turn was deepened by warfare with the Marathas. Shivaji’s son Sambhaji was captured and executed in 1689 and his kingdom broken up. The Marathas, however, then adopted guerrilla tactics, spreading all over southern India amid a sympathetic population. The rest of Aurangzeb’s life was spent in laborious and fruitless sieges of forts in the Maratha hill country.
Aurangzeb’s absence in the south prevented him from maintaining his former firm hold on the north. The administration weakened, and the process was hastened by pressure on the land by Mughal grantees who were paid by assignments on the land revenue. Agrarian discontent often took the form of religious movements, as in the case of the Satnamis and the Sikhs in the Punjab. In 1675 Aurangzeb arrested and executed the Sikh Guru (spiritual leader) Tegh Bahadur, who had refused to embrace Islam; the succeeding Guru was in open rebellion for the rest of Aurangzeb’s reign. Other agrarian revolts, such as those of the Jats, were largely secular.

In general, Aurangzeb ruled as a militant orthodox Sunni Muslim; he put through increasingly puritanical ordinances that were vigorously enforced by muḥtasibs, or censors of morals. The Muslim confession of faith, for instance, was removed from all coins lest it be defiled by unbelievers, and courtiers were forbidden to salute in the Hindu fashion. In addition, Hindu idols, temples, and shrines were often destroyed.”

Why should one destroy shrines and kill religious leaders of communities that do not buy your philosophy? Why should you ill-treat Hindus and offer them inferior positions just based on religion? Why should you force Hindus to salute in Muslim fashion? Why should you impose tax on non-muslims?
Also, even though the other Mughal emperors were drunkards they did not discriminate between Hindus and Muslims. Emperor Akbar was one such example. The country prospered much more in his reign than in Aurangazeb’s reign. The simple reason was Akbar was loved by the masses and Aurangazeb was hated by them.

Although the will of Aurangzeb rah sounds flimsy and unauthentic even to me, my main aim of posting his unverified will was to set an example that we cant curse non mushrik muslims like Aurangzeb rah who may be far pious and better in sight of ALLAH than your fatemi daees:

A person killing others who choose to follow their own religions can never be pious. As a good Muslim you are suppose to follow Islam as described in Quran. Quran does not sanction killing of people in the name of religion and any person doing that will definitely go to hell. If you still wish to consider him a pious saint then you are free to do so. But please do not try to sell your fanatic ideology on this forum

[ghulam muhammed]

Syedna Qutbuddin Shaheed (R.A) got the honour of martyrdom at Ahmedabad, which is also known as small Karbala(the place of martyrdom of Imam Husain(AS)).

.

There is no doubt that the 52nd dai will be buried in Raudat Tahera after this death, hence it wont be surprising if raudat tahera is then refered to as "Small Jannatul-Baqi".

[anajmi]

And why will it be "Small Jannatul-Baqi"?? It will be the Haqiqi Jannatul Baqi!!

[Muslim First]

Respect for dead- Islamic perspective .
http://dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewtop ... f=3&t=7275

[aliabbas_aa]

Dear Admin.
I second the sugesstion of SBM.
These are intollerant of others and anything that is not endorsed by their sheiks is considered blasphemy.These people advocate death to shias.You can see the results in Bahrain and Pakistan.Please remove their posts and let this post remain for Qutbuddin Shaheed.The place near the Karanj police station in Ahmedabad is still revered as the park nearby is the place where the shahadat took place.If you go to the Kabrastan near the Roza ,,yu will see graves,some of entire families ,including women who were beheaded on the Mughal rulers orders.The names on the graves can still be seen with the dates.Let this thread be for Qutbuddin Shaheed.

After much searching i could not find any evidence that hazrat Aurangzeb rah UNJUSTLY killed the victim, even the wiki article on the victim is without references. Are unknown graves references?

My point here is only that we should refrain from cursing non mushrik muslims. I guess many here have understood this well.

[bohraji]

"After much searching i could not find any evidence that hazrat Aurangzeb rah UNJUSTLY killed the victim, even the wiki article on the victim is without references. Are unknown graves references?"

Please name the evidences that you searched.

[aliabbas_aa]

"After much searching i could not find any evidence that hazrat Aurangzeb rah UNJUSTLY killed the victim, even the wiki article on the victim is without references. Are unknown graves references?"

Please name the evidences that you searched.

I found no evidences all together!! nothing is known about him. May be its hidden in the libraries of DB dai . What i want is the exact detailed charges leveled against the victim. I only hear that he was declared "rafzi" .
You should know that "rafzi" is a general term used by sunnis for shias since the time of the split. I dont know how can one be killed by just a flimsy charge of "rafzi".
Because there were are huge numbers of aurangzeb rah royal court who were also "rafzis", hindus etc

sorry if i hurt your feelings but the truth needs to come out.

[bohraji]

Dear Ali Bhai,
In your new found zeal of the Salafi Madhab enlightment.Do not be carried away with the things that your priest wants you to beleive,Just like the Bohri Amils.Even you have been fed stories like the Bohri Amils.If you just go through the net you will find the attrocities of Aurangzeb.Why should a person be killed just because he/she does not comply with your religion.He was a King not the jury,How could he kill his brotehr and call it Halal?
I have seen videos of Sunni Ulemas of Pakistan preaching killing of Shias and you find the shia habit of sending lanats harmful but you feel it right to call an emperor hazrat even though he killed people as they did not comply with his religion!
Just to make it clear Sending Lanats is widely practised by the Sunnis.
Saasa Bin Sauhan was an old companion of Prophet Muhammed.He was there during the Time of the Nabi as well as the time of Imam Zainal Abedin.When the Imam came to medin after karbala,It was Saasa Bin sauhaan who was the first one to go to him and perform tawaaf around teh Imam.
His house was burnt and he was exiled to the Island of bahrain,far away from Medina just becayse he refused the Caliphs order of sending Lanat on Maula Ali.
Ironically apart from Bohras the other majority of people ,who throng to his mazaar are the Bahraini Sunnis.
His Mazaar is just a few metres away from the sea.

[aliabbas_aa]

Dear Ali Bhai,
In your new found zeal of the Salafi Madhab enlightment.Do not be carried away with the things that your priest wants you to beleive,Just like the Bohri Amils.Even you have been fed stories like the Bohri Amils.If you just go through the net you will find the attrocities of Aurangzeb.Why should a person be killed just because he/she does not comply with your religion.He was a King not the jury,How could he kill his brotehr and call it Halal?
I have seen videos of Sunni Ulemas of Pakistan preaching killing of Shias and you find the shia habit of sending lanats harmful but you feel it right to call an emperor hazrat even though he killed people as they did not comply with his religion!
Just to make it clear Sending Lanats is widely practised by the Sunnis.
Saasa Bin Sauhan was an old companion of Prophet Muhammed.He was there during the Time of the Nabi as well as the time of Imam Zainal Abedin.When the Imam came to medin after karbala,It was Saasa Bin sauhaan who was the first one to go to him and perform tawaaf around teh Imam.
His house was burnt and he was exiled to the Island of bahrain,far away from Medina just becayse he refused the Caliphs order of sending Lanat on Maula Ali.
Ironically apart from Bohras the other majority of people ,who throng to his mazaar are the Bahraini Sunnis.
His Mazaar is just a few metres away from the sea.

Alhamdulilla there is no priest maulvi behind me. I have the Quran and Sunnah with me. Whoever sends lanat on muslims is wrong be it shia or sunni. You cannot link this thread with some obscure story without basis.
Can you cite places where sunnis(non barelvi, non sufi) have uttered lanats upon muslims?

[bohraji]

I just gave you the reason why Saasa Bin Sauhaan was exiled to bahrain from his watan.You said that you are still learning Arabic so how can you comprehend the Quran on your own?A lot of hadith is fabricated and that is also in Arabic.You cannot just rely on the translations.
I will Just give you one example.The word "Ain " in Arabic has a total of 8 meanings or even more,One means the Arabic alphabet "Ain",one means the eye,one means a spring of water ,one means the main as when Qutbuddin Shaheed said that instead of a rafzi,he is the "Ain Sunni".And I am not even an Arabic scholar,I Just studied a few classes as that was compulsary in the school in the country that I was brought up.
I have been surounded by Salafis all my life .Even my facebook page has my salafi friends who keep quoting tye hadith that they seem correcta nd the we have arguments about it.One thing they have in common is to spew hatred and intolerance to all who disbelieve in their doctrine.You are also going the same path.The sorry state of affairs is that it is my non Arab friends (mainly Pakistanis) who are more intolerant and the Arab salafis.My Arab salafi friends usually quote Ayats that spread care and love but the non arabs want to stick to intolerance.

[humble_servant_us]

In history we had learnt that Aurangzeb had imprisoned his father and killed his brother. Even if he has not killed Qutbuddin Shaheed this is sufficient to dis-associate from him. A pious person would never ill treat his parents atleast.

But yes you can always argue that the history is all wrong and he was a very pious man. Your argument reminds me of Zakir naik supporting yazid.

[aliabbas_aa]

In history we had learnt that Aurangzeb had imprisoned his father and killed his brother. Even if he has not killed Qutbuddin Shaheed this is sufficient to dis-associate from him. A pious person would never ill treat his parents atleast.

But yes you can always argue that the history is all wrong and he was a very pious man. Your argument reminds me of Zakir naik supporting yazid.

Ill treatment of parents is a major sin, however we are unclear under what circumstances he had taken such a step, but what i had read is that his father had favored his son darah sikoh who was an apostate over aurangzeb rah, hence he could not withstand a muslim sultante to go in the hands of an Apostate. Darah sikoh had full army support of many hindu tribes.

ALLAHU ALAM

[Muslim First]

Br AliAbbas
AS
Please stop defending AZ. You are derailing this thread completely. Ethics of Islam regarding treatment of parents and dead are clear. Those who fall short will be judged by Allah SWT.
Wasalaam

[humble_servant_us]

but what i had read is that his father had favored his son darah sikoh who was an apostate over aurangzeb rah, hence he could not withstand a muslim sultante to go in the hands of an Apostate.

It is good actually you have accepted that aurangzeb imprisoned his father (i thought you would deny this). The reason you have provided does not justify the imprisonment of his father. Atleast I would not like to associate my self with a person like Aurangzeb.

Out of curiosity what makes you add RA to his name.

[Muslim First]

This post is Relevant

Recently, we had some discussion about Aurangzeb and his evil murderous ways. Aurangzeb never drank alcohol, nor was he a womanizer nor a gambler. The Dai and his parasitic family might be similar. Although their evil ways are quite apparent. No one can go close to any of them without money. Even that isn't as big a sin as converting an entire community into mushriks

[aliabbas_aa]

Out of curiosity what makes you add RA to his name.

i put (rah) meaning rehmatullah alaihi. It means may ALLAH swt have mercy on him!
cant we ask for mercy of god even to our enemies?
so putting rah does not mean praising him, but asking mercy of ALLAH be on him.

RA means radiallahuanhu means may Allah be pleased with him which can be put only after the sahabas which were implied in Quran 9:100.(muhajir and ansar of the prophet pbuh) :

"And the first forerunners [in the faith] among the Muhajireen and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct - Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment."

eg:maviya is not included in it. But abu bakr RA and Umar RA are.

[Muslim First]

Br Aliabbas

It should be RhA not Rah

RhA is applied to pious Muslims
RA is applied to many Sahabas
AS is arpplied To Prophets
SAW is to Muhammad SAW
SWT is only used for Allah SWT

[aliabbas_aa]

Br Aliabbas

It should be RhA not Rah

RhA is applied to pious Muslims
RA is applied to many Sahabas
AS is arpplied To Prophets
SAW is to Muhammad SAW
SWT is only used for Allah SWT

br muslim may i know what rha really means?

[think]

atleast rah means that you do ask allah for mercy but what about the bohris who put 'Tus" after the dai. in english tushe means different things and it positively has nothing to do with asking allah for long life. rah can be understandable but what are you thoughts on tus?

[Aarif]

sorry if i hurt your feelings but the truth needs to come out.

Then go do some research dude and bring the truth out. Go get it Tiger.. Imagine what a great finding that will be. That will aquit the great Aurangazeb from the murder of the bohra Dai. But unfortunately all other things posted in this thread about your beloved Aurangazeb are picked up directly from history and hence valid. If you still choose to consider him a pious muslim then you obviously need a few more lessons on Quran and Sunnah...
And I know what you will write in reply. It will be something like "I am not trying to defend Aurangazeb BUT ...." So there you go

[aliabbas_aa]

As i told you i found no evidence to justify your claim, the DBs claim that aurangzeb rah killed hazrat qutubuddin .

The onus of proof lies on the claimant and NOT on the defendant, hence he is innocent until proven guilty.

So it is upto you people to bring out clear proofs for your claim that aurangzeb rah killed hazrat qutubuddin UNJUSTLY.

[humble_servant_us]

i put (rah) meaning rehmatullah alaihi. It means may ALLAH swt have mercy on him!
cant we ask for mercy of god even to our enemies?
so putting rah does not mean praising him, but asking mercy of ALLAH be on him.

why dont you not add RA for the DAIS as well. Atleast they have not imprisoned their fathers or killed their brothers or killed any sikh gurus.

For aurangzeb you have added RA but qudbuddin shaheed you do not add. Was qutbuddin shaheed not pious muslim.

[bohraji]

It is but obvious that ali abbass id judt trying to propogate salafism up to the level that he has been taught.His very claim of putting RA after Aurangzeb and not after Qutbuddin Shaheed shows his mischief.
History books and also his own source that he quoted(Wiki) show how intolerant Aurangzeb was towards all who were not practising his brand of Islam.wonder if ali abbas will kill his own father as according to him all non slafis are apostates!
This topic is derailed and Aliabbass is just hell bent on justifying the Mughal empreror who might not have been an alcoholic but justified of murdering his own brother as he was the favoured to be the next in line to the throne and was practising a brand of Islam,different from Aurangzeb himself.
Wow what a good muslim,not far away rom the thoughts of the likes of Bin Laden!

[Muslim First]

Br Aliabbas

It should be RhA not Rah

RhA is applied to pious Muslims
RA is applied to many Sahabas
AS is arpplied To Prophets
SAW is to Muhammad SAW
SWT is only used for Allah SWT

br muslim may i know what rha really means?

RhA means "Rehmatul Allah"
Usually used for late pious Muslims. One has to be very carefull in this sectarian world. One sects thinking of pious person nay not suit another sect.
Example
Fatemi Khalif Hakim.
Ismailis use ra (radiallah anho) after his name but Sunnis will use ra only for Sahabas. I have seen sa used after Shia Imams but Sunnis use sa for Prophets only.

BTW
HZ or Hazrat is mostly used in indo Persian world for gentlemen and you can get in trouble for using it or not using it depending on sectarian consideration.

Best is to follow
Respect for dead- Islamic perspective .
http://dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewtop ... f=3&t=7275

[aliabbas_aa]

What i asked is only non partisan proofs for the following hearsay claims:
[*]Unjust killing of haz qutubudddin
[*]proof that haz qutubuddin was pious

reg aurangzeb rahmatullah alayhi , there are many independent non partisan proofs(both muslim , hindu and orientalist sources) , some of which i already quoted which claim that aurangzeb rahmatullah alayhi was a pious ruler.

but i searched a lot and could not find any non partisan source (not even a partisan source!!)on the life of haz qutubuddin, hence putting rah does not make sense.

[Muslim First]

Br Aliabbas
you are pushing your luck.
This is Bohra and reform section
Move further discussion in perhaps Islam section

[humble_servant_us]

but i searched a lot and could not find any non partisan source (not even a partisan source!!)on the life of haz qutubuddin, hence putting rah does not make sense

This is not a fair statement.

Aurangzeb is a controversial personality where some consider him a tyrant and some as pious but you prefer to chose him as pious. But for qutbuddeen shaheed, i don't think anyone considers him a tyrant not even the lovers of aurangzeb. For all bohras including reformist he was a pious man. I am sorry but you are not being fair.

[aliabbas_aa]

but i searched a lot and could not find any non partisan source (not even a partisan source!!)on the life of haz qutubuddin, hence putting rah does not make sense

This is not a fair statement.

Aurangzeb is a controversial personality where some consider him a tyrant and some as pious but you prefer to chose him as pious. But for qutbuddeen shaheed, i don't think anyone considers him a tyrant not even the lovers of aurangzeb. For all bohras including reformist he was a pious man. I am sorry but you are not being fair.

The fact is that nothing much is known about haz qutubuddin hence no comments! leave Aurangzeb rah, There are dozens of website on the internet which hold strong negative views for our beloved Prophet Muhammad pbuh, hence i wont buy your argument.

The moral i learned from this thread is that Even the daees are just superficially praised in the majlis with whimsical fairy tale hearsay stories with no basis on truth. Why should we believe that a particular daee is pious? Only ALLAH swt knows who are the Awliya . Infact the true Awliyas are unnoticed , unknown and ghuraba!. Piety lies in the heart which none save ALLAH swt can see, hence we should not be judgmental and pass judgement on who is pious or who is not!