How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History ?

Given modern distractions, the need to understand Islam better has never been more urgent. Through this forum we can share ideas and hopefully promote the true spirit of Islam which calls for peace, justice, tolerance, inclusiveness and diversity.
ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History ?

#1

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Wed Aug 14, 2013 11:21 am

History plays a very important role in shaping the belief and faith of an individual because one forms an opinion on a particular subject or past leaders based on the character as spelled out in historical literatures. Hence history is used as a very effective tool by vested interests to further their agendas due to which the same is many a times distorted and even changed over a period of time the result of which is that people are kept away from the truth. A very recent example is the history of Shivaji which has seen a drastic change over a period of hardly 40/50 years. In the past, the school text books portrayed him as a coward who killed Afzal Khan by deceit, by stabbing him at the back. He was famously referred to as ‘Mountain Rat’ not only in text books but even by the then prime minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. The entire history was then systematically changed by the Maharashtra govt under pressure from the Bal Thackerey led Shiv Sena for whom Shivaji was an iconic figure. Not only does the present text books portray him as a valiant, brave and honest leader but there are even some temples built in his name in certain parts of Maharashtra including Mumbai. There is even a plan to build his huge statue in the seas near Nariman Point which would be bigger then the statue of liberty in USA. This is a systemic process to brain wash future generations into believing something which is highly questionable.

Even the history of earlier Muslim rulers who ruled over India has been drastically changed. They are portrayed as the arch enemies of Hindus who allegedly killed many hindus and also looted and plundered their temples. Many historians have proved them entirely wrong and even furnished evidences to show that those Rulers actually gifted vast tracts of land to hindu temples and that the key positions in their military and administration were held by hindus. Hence if they acted so violently against hindus then why did their militaries under the Rajput commanders not rebel ? There is enough material available on the internet to substantiate these claims hence I won’t elaborate further. However one cannot totally absolve these rulers for their alleged crimes which may or may not have been committed. The fabricated history is part of the greater plan of the saffron brigade like RSS and its affiliates to divide the nation on communal grounds, a fact which is more evident from the recent Gujarat mass genocide, Babri Masjid demolition and various other hindu/muslim riots engineered by the RSS stooge like BJP, VHP and Bajrang Dal. How many of our children even know that the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated by a leading RSS functionary Nathuram Godse ? How many of them even know that Godse had disguised himself as a Muslim, complete with a muslim cap, sherwani and false beard to trigger a hindu/muslim riot ? Some historians even state that Godse had circumcised himself to establish a false Muslim identity and trigger communal riots incase he was shot down. If it was not for the late politician, Shri Gadgil who recognised Godse and screamed at him at that very moment thereby recognising Godse then India would have seen a riot of such vast magnitude which could over shadow all the future riots put together.

In brief, I only wanted to show as to how history is played with and manipulated by vested interests to further their own evil agendas. The same is the case with regard to religious history and we are still witnessing the after effects of some of its distorted versions which has resulted in mass killings between followers of the same Ummah be it Shia or Sunni.

Hence it is extremely important to verify historical contents from all angles by reading its versions from its writers as well as its critics. Atleast people can do it when it concerns a Country or a Religion as the same are open for scrutiny but what about Bohra history which has ONLY the positives, the reason being that the same is written by bohras alone and no historian or scholar was allowed to scrutinise it. Lets take the example of the Dai Qutubkhan Qutbuddin known as Qutbuddin shaheed. We bohras are told that he alongwith hundreds of his followers were killed by Aurangzeb. What is the truth ? If according to bohras, he was allegedly killed by Aurangzeb then is there any mention of it in any of Aurangzeb’s historical literature ? Even after a lot of surfing and interacting with some historians I couldn’t find any evidence to prove the same. The only version available is the Bohra version which is written by a bohra, verified by a bohra, approved by a bohra. I couldn’t find any NEUTRAL source which could prove the alleged killings. Although there are many literatures written by Indian and foreign historians which do mention the alleged killing of Dai Qutubkhan Qutbuddin by Aurangzeb but the “Source” of reference is ALWAYS the one provided by Bohra writers and not any neutral source. There could have been many killings ordered by Aurangzeb but this particular one finds no mention in ANY of Aurangzeb’s texts verified and authenticated by Indian or foreign scholars/historians. Even if we presume that a stray incident concerning a miniscule community could not have been highlighted but then how can the killings of so many bohras alongwith Dai Qutubkhan go unnoticed ? According to bohra version this was a mass killing, a mass genocide. How can such a mass genocide be overlooked by every scholar, archaeologist, researcher and historian ? The bohra version also hinges on the alleged hatred of the entire shia community by Aurangzeb. To understand this, one has to read certain historical facts….. “Aurangzeb was born to Mumtaz Mahal, a Shia wife of Shah Jehan. His uncle (mamoo) Shayasta Khan was Shia and a very important commander of his army. His another notable commander Mir Jumla was also Shia. Other important Shia commanders such as Ruhullah Bakshi al Mumalik and Mir Atish belonged to the Iranian Safavi family. Aurangzeb married his son Azam Shah with Princess Shehar Bano of Bijapur Kingdom. She was a Shia. Aurangzeb’s eldest son Mohammad Sultan was married to princess of Qutb Shahi king who was also a Shia. With such intertwining kinship ties with Shias, it is inconceivable that Aurangzeb could think of taking upon certain kingdom merely because they were headed by Shias. It all boils down to the fact that Aurangzeb’s assault on Deccan Muslim kingdoms was motivated by political reasons rather than any enmity with Shias. It was British trained historian Jadunath Sarkar who concocted the theory of Aurangzeb being anti-Shia while interpreting his assault on Deccani Muslim kingdoms”.

Before the likes of ‘Pristinophobia’ effected people and others jump the bandwagon and label me a wahabi for stirring the hornet’s nest, let me make it clear that Iam no fan of Aurangzeb. According to me Aurangzeb was just a king like many others who ruled over India and he too had his bad and good side, he was not an Islamic scholar nor was he an Islamic leader. He too was capable of committing crimes as he was not infallible. This subject is only of academic interest as there are many other versions of bohra history which too are highly questionable. One of them is the story of ‘Sawa Mann’ (1.25 quintal) ‘Janoi’ (brahmin’s sacred thread) which was alleged to have been removed from hindu Brahmins in one sitting.

By questioning the alleged killings, Iam in no way casting aspersions on the late Dai Qutubkhan Qutbuddin. Iam not questioning his honesty and integrity as he could well be a person of impeccable character and shahadat or no shahadat does not demean his great personality. The crux of the matter is the historical records which finds no mention in any of the research carried out by noted Indian or foreign historians who have done extensive research on the life of Aurangzeb. If there are any authentic and reliable contrarion records to nullify these claims then they are most welcome and I would gladly stand corrected.

If we do not verify the bohra history from neutral sources and question its authenticity then the day is not far when our children and grandchildren will be thrust with false history which will ONLY glorify the 51st and 52nd dai alongwith mansoos to such an extent that our siblings will totally forget Panjatan Pak (a.s.). We have been hearing such unbelievable fairy tales in recent times like the one wherein Mansoos claims to have heard his brother Hozy speaking to him from grave and assuring him that he is in the company of Panjatan Pak (a.s.) hence Mansoos need not worry. Mansoos also claims to have a version of an alleged conversation between Imam Hussain (a.s.) and his Ghoda taken place just before Shahadat of Imam Hussain (a.s.). Then there are the infamous “Baar Ragda”, “Lokhand na joota worn by Shimr” and “Bootha khanjar used by Shimr” which finds no place even in the mainstream Shia version of the battle of Karbala. In future there could be voluminous false documents to prove that the 51st and 52nd Dais were the most honest and extremely pious and lived a life full of piety although the facts are totally the opposite. There will be multiple editions of the Dai’s false mojizas and some of which will even portray him as a superman at the age of 100, he will be shown to have defeated Usain Bolt in 100 meter sprints at the age of 102 :lol: :lol: . Even Narendra Modi would be portrayed as a saint in order to justify the Dai’s felicitation and his gift of over Rs.One crore to Modi thereby erasing the nightmarish massacre of thousands of Muslims under Modi’s rule. With the type of advance technology at their disposal, Mansoos could well come up with a tampered and fictitious video clip showing the 52nd Dai doing nass on him (in clear and audible speech) in the hospital although the Dai was in no position to speak. There could be hundreds of such cases wherein Bohra history could be distorted as part of their nefarious designs to fulfil their evil agenda. Hence I request members to view this post with an unbiased mind, question the authenticity of Bohra history if it is not supported by neutral sources and try to explore the truth.

P.S. I request the followers of so called "Pristine" faith and abde syednas not to derail the thread by harping on Aurangzeb's other killings as they are freely available on the internet alongwith its rebuttals but if they so insist then focus only on the Dai's alleged killings as this is a part of the subject issue regarding the authenticity of Bohra history.

badrijanab
Posts: 809
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:19 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#2

Unread post by badrijanab » Wed Aug 14, 2013 12:06 pm

ghulam muhammed wrote: Lets take the example of the Dai Qutubkhan Qutbuddin known as Qutbuddin shaheed. We bohras are told that he alongwith hundreds of his followers were killed by Aurangzeb. What is the truth ?
GM bhai, Which Bohra book told you that hundreds of Bohras were killed along with Syyedna Molana Qutbuddin Shaheed a.q.? So the truth is you are speaking lies. Syyedna Qutbuddin a.q. was killed alone and not with hundreds of his followers. Name which Bohra book says he was killed alongwith hundreds of his followers (a mass genocide)? Kab sach bologe GM sahib?!!!
ghulam muhammed wrote: If according to bohras, he was allegedly killed by Aurangzeb then is there any mention of it in any of Aurangzeb’s historical literature ?
Answer you already gave Sunni's who worship Aurangzeb has white washed history to hide blood on his head. Distorted history!
ghulam muhammed wrote: Even after a lot of surfing and interacting with some historians I couldn’t find any evidence to prove the same.
You don't use your brain, you only surf internet and copy/paste blindly! BTW which great historian who have doctored in matter of Aurangzeb you have spoken and inquired with - please name the top three alongwith the proof of your meeting and their reply?
ghulam muhammed wrote: The only version available is the Bohra version which is written by a bohra, verified by a bohra, approved by a bohra.
Bukhari was slave, he along with Muslim were paid to forge hadees. Who verified Bukhari & Muslim - if that is the correct history/tradition? Answer is) Forged by Abbasi Caliphs (Sunni's), wrote by Abbasi, and verified by Abbasi.
ghulam muhammed wrote: Although there are many literatures written by Indian and foreign historians which do mention the alleged killing of Dai Qutubkhan Qutbuddin by Aurangzeb but the “Source” of reference is ALWAYS the one provided by Bohra writers and not any neutral source.
GM sahab unknowingly has answered his own question! All who wrote history of Prophet life after Prophet - were those historians were present with Prophet to give first hand information? No. They will quote who were near Prophet or will quote who quoted same. Indian and Foreign historians who you are referring by the same token quoting the original source, Bohras. The point to note is: those reputed Indian and Foreign historians are expert in their fields, they know to separate fact and fiction, their quoting the martyrdom of Syyedna Qutbuddin Shaheed is the proof that they trust the source of information and its authenticity.


ghulam muhammed wrote: There could have been many killings ordered by Aurangzeb but this particular one finds no mention in ANY of Aurangzeb’s texts verified and authenticated by Indian or foreign scholars/historians.
GM sahab, a sentence/para back you have quoted opposite!!! In para just above this, you said Indian and Foreign literature does quote killing of Syyedna Qutbuddin shaheed a.q. by laeen Aurangzeb. Now you are contradicting your own statement. :shock: This does happen when lie is filled in ones heart.

ghulam muhammed wrote: Even if we presume that a stray incident concerning a miniscule community could not have been highlighted but then how can the killings of so many bohras alongwith Dai Qutubkhan go unnoticed ? According to bohra version this was a mass killing, a mass genocide.
You are speaking lie. Prove which authentic Bohra book says that was a mass killing, a mass genocide? Lier GM.

ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#3

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:27 pm

badrijanab wrote:You are speaking lie. Prove which authentic Bohra book says that was a mass killing, a mass genocide? Lier GM.
Why is Ahmedabad qabrastan wherein lies the roza of Qutbuddin shaheed are so many graves which bohra clergy claims are shaheed ? Why is this qabrastan called "Naani Karbala" ? Who were the alleged murderers of these people ?
badrijanab wrote:Answer you already gave Sunni's who worship Aurangzeb has white washed history to hide blood on his head. Distorted history!
The same could be said for Bohra writers who too are capable of distorting history and glorifying their leaders.
badrijanab wrote:You don't use your brain, you only surf internet and copy/paste blindly!
Actually the above quote is tailormade for you who surfs internet to spread the distorted version of mainstream Islam prepared by the enemies of Islam. You even go to the extent of quoting Shia scholars who are LIARS in order to justify your fairytale claims.
badrijanab wrote:Bukhari was slave, he along with Muslim were paid to forge hadees. Who verified Bukhari & Muslim - if that is the correct history/tradition? Answer is) Forged by Abbasi Caliphs (Sunni's), wrote by Abbasi, and verified by Abbasi.
This was expected from you as you are prone to diverting issues into shia/sunni feuds by quoting irrelevant material in order to avoid a direct answer. The issue concerns Bohra history so stick to it instead of raking up historical literatures of other sects as 2 wrongs do not make 1 right. Just as Bukhari/Muslim Ahadeeths are open for scrutiny so should be the bohra literatures.
badrijanab wrote:The point to note is: those reputed Indian and Foreign historians are expert in their fields, they know to separate fact and fiction,
And what about Bohra writers ? Are they not experts in separating facts from fiction ? The bayan of Karbala is enough proof as to how emotionally charged fictitious bayans are doled out which has no mention anywhere in historical literatures.
badrijanab wrote:their quoting the martyrdom of Syyedna Qutbuddin Shaheed is the proof that they trust the source of information and its authenticity.
And what are their sources ??? Only Bohra books without any authentication by neutral sources.
badrijanab wrote:GM sahab, a sentence/para back you have quoted opposite!!! In para just above this, you said Indian and Foreign literature does quote killing of Syyedna Qutbuddin shaheed a.q. by laeen Aurangzeb. Now you are contradicting your own statement. This does happen when lie is filled in ones heart.
What statement ? What contradictions ? I have maintained throughout that Indian/foreign historians have sourced the information ONLY from Bohra books which have NEVER been scrutinised and authenticated by NEUTRAL sources. THERE ARE NO INDEPENDENT FINDINGS OF THE ALLEGED KILLINGS BY ANY NON-BOHRA SCHOLARS/HISTORIANS/RESEARCHERS IN ANY OF THEIR LITERATURES. I have also stated that if anyone is able to provide the same then I will gladly stand corrected. Hence in order to suppress your own lies you are calling me a liar.

Adam
Posts: 1260
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#4

Unread post by Adam » Fri Aug 16, 2013 6:33 am


History is best learned from PRIMARY sources.

For example, Yemeni Duat history has similar studies where history has been documented by Syedna Idris s books along with history books written by the Zaidis of Yemen.
For the history of Syedi Hasanpeer Shahid, many Indian texts were referred to, where comparable studies were done. This research was published in the form of a documentary which is shown to all visitors in Hasanfeer Shaheed Roza in Denmal.

THe Maqtal of Syedna Qutbuddin Shaheed has been documented by Syedi Hasanjee Badshah, who witnessed the entire tragedy (it his from HIS accounts that people such as Syedi Sadiqali Saheb wrote his prose "Je hadesa" and books like Muntaza discuss the Maqtal)
Syedi Hasanjee is a PRIMARY source.
DBs take this particular event from its SOURCE.

About the other Shohada, there names are listed in the Ziyarat books.
They are amoung those who were killed in the tragedy.

I hope this discussion remains academic without abuses from both sides.

What you post is correct, they may be or not be other historians who documented it. If there are, it would be interesting to read the version.
IF there aren't other sources (for whatever reason it may be), that does null the fact that Syedi Hasajee is a primary source and that the event did not take place.

ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#5

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:29 pm

Adam wrote:THe Maqtal of Syedna Qutbuddin Shaheed has been documented by Syedi Hasanjee Badshah, who witnessed the entire tragedy
You have gone in circles and finally said the same thing as me i.e. that the ONLY source of information are the Bohra books written and certified by Bohras alone. Although I don't doubt the honesty of Syedi Hasanjee Badshah but the next question is whether is there any ORIGINAL handwritten document available anywhere and in the absence of which are there not many chances of the alleged document being distorted ? It may not be of any relevance to the brainwashed abdes but it does raise pertinent questions in the minds of right thinking persons that an event of such proportion doesn't find any mention in any of the works undertaken by historians, scholars and researchers who have penned down the history of Aurangzeb which runs into several volumes.

badrijanab
Posts: 809
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:19 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#6

Unread post by badrijanab » Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:14 am

Booka Name: The Ismaili's - Their History and Doctrines, 2nd Edition
Author: Dr. Farhad Daftary (FYI - He is not Dawoodi Bohra)
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Page# 283

"The tenure of the thirty-second daı Qutub khan Qutub al-Dın (1054–1056 / 1644–1646), coincided with Awrangzıb’s brief governorship of Gujarat, when the Ismaılı's were persecuted. Awrangzıb, who himself did not exercise religious toleration, had come also under the influence of Abd al-Qawi, his mentor and close adviser,who was strongly against the Shia of all forms. Upon his arrival in Ahamadabad in1055/1645, Awrangzıb started a prolonged campaign against the Ismaılıs. The dai Qutub khan and his close associates were arrested and imprisoned. The Ismaili Bohras, accused of heresy, were now pressured into embracing Sunni Islam and their mosques were placed in the hands of Sunni administrators. Many Daudi's converted to Sunnism or fled from Ahamadabad in fear of persecution, and the community once again resorted to taqiyya practices. These persecutory measures culminated in the trial of the dai Qutub khan in a Sunni court and in his execution in 1056/1646 on Awrangzıb’s order."


Also similar text can be find in book: Mausam a Bahar which makes Kothar frightened of truth and snatch Kothar's fake Islamic mask. Remember this book was permitted and vetted by forefather of Mohammed Burhanuddin sahib! This discussion is beyond the scope of this post, this one liner was only for info purpose. Anyone interested in learning it further can open another thread I will try to share further info on same, Inshallah.

Also similar text is available in book: Misra, Muslim Communities (pp. 32–34).

ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#7

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:44 pm

badrijanab wrote:Dr. Farhad Daftary (FYI - He is not Dawoodi Bohra)
Yes, he is not a dawoodi bohra but he is an Iranian Shia and Shias views are mostly biased against sunni leaders. Even if we presume that Daftary does not hold bias views but the same are taken from bohra literatures and he has not conducted an independent research on the said subject. Hence we go in circles and again come back to the moot question as to why is there no mention of the alleged killings of Dai Qutubkhan Qutbuddin in ANY of the works of noted non bohra historians, scholars, researchers and archaelogists in their essays on Aurangzeb. Was there no non bohra witness when the alleged execution took place ?

[img]http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/1064/l9tm.jpg[/img]

ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#8

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:48 pm

While on the subject on Daftary, you may be interested in his views on Imamat which seems to be opposite to that of yours :-

Ancestry of HIDDEN Ismaili Imams Reveals Designtion of Imamat is NOT by previous Imams

http://mostmerciful.com/?p=825

Al Fateh
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:42 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#9

Unread post by Al Fateh » Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:39 pm

unless kothar publishes intellectual material to common bohras, none will have any clue what is this all about.

badrijanab
Posts: 809
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:19 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#10

Unread post by badrijanab » Sun Sep 15, 2013 3:08 am

ghulam muhammed wrote: he has not conducted an independent research on the said subject.
Prove it?

Haggi
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:01 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#11

Unread post by Haggi » Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:04 pm

ghulam muhammed wrote:While on the subject on Daftary, you may be interested in his views on Imamat which seems to be opposite to that of yours :-

Ancestry of HIDDEN Ismaili Imams Reveals Designtion of Imamat is NOT by previous Imams

http://mostmerciful.com/?p=825
Farhad Daftary is a distant relative of the Aga Khan but does not practice Ismailism. He is an Ithnashery but he was still appointed as the head of Institute of Ismaili studies
in London by the Aga khan.

ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#12

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:08 pm

badrijanab wrote:ghulam muhammed wrote:
he has not conducted an independent research on the said subject.


Prove it?
The onus of providing the proof lies on YOU as YOU have relied on the source to substantiate your claims.

badrijanab
Posts: 809
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:19 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#13

Unread post by badrijanab » Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:30 pm

ghulam muhammed wrote:
badrijanab wrote:ghulam muhammed wrote:
he has not conducted an independent research on the said subject.


Prove it?
The onus of providing the proof lies on YOU as YOU have relied on the source to substantiate your claims.
You are claiming that he has not conducted an independent research. I've not said anything about it. As you are claiming so onus is on you to prove your claim as true.

shehzaada
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#14

Unread post by shehzaada » Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:42 pm

Interesting perspective by GM, Jazakallah Khair

shehzaada
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#15

Unread post by shehzaada » Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:59 am

adam,
Primary sources are infact considered to be weakest sources in history. This is even the policy of wikipedia, only secondary third party non aligned sources can preserve a conflict of interest free picture

Bohra spring
Posts: 1307
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:37 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#16

Unread post by Bohra spring » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:45 am

i have done my own research and concur with GM bhais observations that there is missing evidence around what actually occurred in Ahmedabad.

It is difficult to say whether Sayedna Qutbudinn shaheed was a victim of intolerance, a genocidal purge of deviant sects according to Sunni fundamentalism or real issues of malpractices existed that irked the establishment .

All my hits are either praising Aurangzeb as a Muslim hero or for non Muslims an intolerant Islamic propagator. No non Bohra reference about what happended to Bohras.

Read the subtitles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K37ELusbxFA

shehzaada
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#17

Unread post by shehzaada » Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:30 am

Jazakllah khair, thanks for sharing such a wonderful narration , May Allah grant Haz Aurangzeb Rah. a lofty position and devastate his enemies among the Mushrikeen. We need to praise such individuals who inspite of being raised in the environment of darkness ,shirk and ayyashi and rose up and stood for none but Islam. This is also a reminder for the bohra bretheren who should reject their forefathers beliefs and embrace Pure verifiable Islam.
Ameen.

Habeel
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:01 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#18

Unread post by Habeel » Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:53 pm

I spent some time on studying history on internet and following is my logical analysis:
As I always stated in my earlier posts that history is full of contradictions, facts and contexts. On the contrary of this great praise in youtube video, AuZeb had comprised his policies (Fatawa-e-Alamgiri) and whoever was not complying with that is not complying with Sharia (his firm belief).
He executed many Sufis, including Saint Sarmad and killed and imprisoned his own family members. Also he killed many Sikhs and their gurus. He approved killing of our beloved Maula Qutbuddin Shaheed (RA) and promoted his representatives to kill many of our people because he was made to believe that our practices are not complying with his policies therefore against sharia.
He was devoted, great follower and executor of his policies. By studying his character I can assume that many good things might have happened based on his policies and equally humanity might have brutally suffered. While following rules, new thoughts and ideas which may challenge his view, might not have tolerated.
Basically any smart person can make oolloo out of him by complying with his policies and one can easily make someone against sharia based own his policies and beliefs. Thanks for provoking the curiosity by this thread which actually have firmly grounded my ekhlas and trust in Maula Qutubkhan Qutbuddin (Ra) and may Allah give us taufeeq to stand firm in our Aqeedah.

think
Posts: 1838
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:15 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#19

Unread post by think » Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:45 pm

reading the rebuttles between badri janab and g.m. . Mr. g.m. is already one point ahead. Badri did challenge G.M. as to where he got the notion that there were a whole number of shodas other than qutubuddin shaheed. The graves of the shoda in the qabrastaan are right there next to qutubbuddin shaheed therby proving the point that there were definitely a whole group of people with qutubbuddin shaheed that were killed by aurangzeb. That also stands to debate if it is truly factual that they were killed under the orders of aurangzeb or was it some other . The fact being that aurangzebs near and dear ones were of shia faith.

reading Mr. Ajmeri , it begs one to ponder what would be the affairs of this so called bohra religion whose history may be completely falsly written, 51, 52 and 53 and their families could very well be put on a high pedestal like greek gods and godesses and the new generation of idiots may just as well worship them. Taking the present time as it is; there is no mention of the word dai or syedna. The one title is moula and then additions are made and false p.h.d.s are claimed. this distortion of history is of grave concern.

salaar
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:36 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#20

Unread post by salaar » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:56 pm

when syedna qutub khan qutbuddin maula was martyred aurangzeb was the governor of gujrat after that the shahadat of Maula Qutbuddin shaheed his zulm and tyranny lasted for the next 60 years to come that is the sahadat was in year 1646 and it went on till 1704 (aurangzeb died in 1707) during these years after syedna qutub khan qutbuddin shaheed, he was followed by syedna feer khan shujauddin(33rd) he was followed by syedna ismail badruddin maula(34th) he was followed by syedna abdul tayyab zakiuddin maula(35th) he was followed by syedna musa kalimuddin maula(36th) during all these years aurangzeb ruled and persecuted the bohra community and five duat karam faced the hardships, after the shahadat of qutbuddin shaheed time after time a number of people from the community were butchered even small children were thrown into grinding machines. to give a brief detail about the shohodas of ahmedabad ----- in the main qabristan of mazar e qutbi is the qabar of mulla raj shaheed, on the west side under an umbrella are the qabars of three shohada who were martyred during the shafa time in morning, on the north of maulai hasan qabar are the qabars of more shohadas a little distance and you will find quboor of 40 shohadas, a little ahead two more shohadas qabar,on the west of moula ali bin feroze one more shaheed, on the west side of maulai hasan one more qabar of shaheed, after covering some distance in that direction another 40 shohadas quboor,, near the wall of mazar e qutbi you will find many quboor with markings of prisoners' on them, walking on the west from the qabar of maulai hasan you will find quboor of 90 fuzollah who were in the khidmat of syedna shaikh adam safiuddin they were arrested taken to lahore and later killed,a little distance ahead from the 40 shohada umbrella on the north is the quboor of panj shaheedan that is 5 shuohada two of them are shaikh ahmed and shaikh burhanuddin. then two more shohada hasan jee shaheed and allo jee shaheed. the place near the water stream where qutbuddin shaheed maula was initially buried a little distance from there are the quboor of shaheed mulla masood, mulla malik bin shaikh idrees khambati, mulla ismail, besides these there are many other quboor of shohadas with their untold stories belonging to that period. as for the history source other then bohra it is like asking too much who will tell you these details besides those who really suffered we have everything in our books believe it or dont but truth cannot be denied and it is clearly associated with aurangzeb that he was a prejudiced man who could not tolerate anybody other then sunnis and mercilessly killed shias bohras sikhs hindus and people of other sects.

shehzaada
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#21

Unread post by shehzaada » Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:23 pm

These are all concocted lies , why would a person of Aurangzeb rah. stature would meddle with the obscure Bohra , unless they commit open blasphemies? I am sure that even if Aurangzeb rah. ordered the execution than there has to be serious and proven charges against Qutubuddin. There is a strong reason behind all such strong events. Like Sarmad claimed divinity hence was executed.

Habeel
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:01 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#22

Unread post by Habeel » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:07 pm

I do not want to prolong this discussion any further but I truly love qutbuddin shaheed Maula(Ra) and I would say this. I trust what Hasanji badshah and other leaders has narrated history. I don't need any justification. Argzeb who is so much caught up in his beliefs that he could not see the reality and see everything based on his glasses Fatwa alamgir. Sufism is wisdom and appeals to intelligence. He executed sarmad as he used to say La illaha illallah! Ppl used to ask what is next and he would keep silent. Based on this he decided to kill him. Sarmad on his last stage of life explained that ppl asking him wrong question Mohammed un rasullullah doesn't come after la ilaha illallah, it comes with it.

shehzaada
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#23

Unread post by shehzaada » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:36 pm

No, sarmad was executed as he proclaimed divinity and also wrote many things against the prophet pbuh in his poetry. He himself said in one of his poetry that he was a kafir. This was the prime reason for his execution ,the la ilha.. was later concocted.

salaar
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:36 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#24

Unread post by salaar » Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:41 am

yes for you everything was concocted

Bohra spring
Posts: 1307
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:37 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#25

Unread post by Bohra spring » Wed Apr 30, 2014 5:49 am

When Aurangzeb's sister died in a fire in 1644, he took three weeks to return home to Agra rather than rushing back immediately. Shah Jahan was so angry about his tardiness that he stripped Aurangzeb of the Viceroyalty of Deccan.

Relations between the two deteriorated the following year, and Aurangzeb was banished from court. He bitterly accused the emperor of favoring Dara Shikoh.

Shah Jahan needed all of his sons in order to run his huge empire, however, so in 1646, he appointed Aurangzeb Governor of Gujarat. The following year, the 28-year-old Aurangzeb also took up the governorships of Balkh (Afghanistan) and Badakhshan (Tajikistan) on the empire's vulnerable northern flank.

In late 1657, Shah Jahan became ill. His beloved wife, Mumtaz Mahal, had died in 1631, and Shah Jahan never really got over her loss. As his condition worsened, his four sons by Mumtaz began to fight for the Peacock Throne.

Shah Jahan favored Dara, the eldest son, but many Muslims considered him too worldly and irreligious. Shuja, the second son, was a complete hedonist, who used his position as Governor of Bengal as a platform for acquiring beautiful women and wine. Aurangzeb, a much more committed Muslim than either of the elder brothers, saw his chance to rally the faithful behind his own banner.

Aurangzeb's 48-year reign is often cited as a "Golden Age" of the Mughal Empire, but it was rife with trouble and rebellions. Although Mughal rulers from Akbar the Great through Shah Jahan practiced a remarkable degree of religious tolerance and were great patrons of the arts, Aurangzeb reversed both of these policies. He practiced a much more orthodox, even fundamentalist version of Islam, going so far as to outlaw music and other performances in 1668. Both Muslims and Hindus were forbidden to sing, play musical instruments or to dance - a serious damper on the traditions of both faiths in India.

Aurangzeb also ordered the destruction of Hindu temples, although the exact number is not known. Estimates range from under 100 to tens of thousands. In addition, he ordered the enslavement of Christian missionaries.

Aurangzeb expanded Mughal rule both north and south, but his constant military campaigns and religious intolerance rankled many of his subjects. He did not hesitate to torture and kill prisoners of war, political prisoners, and anyone he considered unIslamic. To make matters worse, the empire became over-extended, and Aurangzeb imposed ever-higher taxes in order to pay for his wars.


according Salaars testimony Aurangzeb was the governor of Gujarat and not emperor in 1646 of 27 years of age and not yet prime fundamentalist.

it is not clear from written history what was Aurangzebs motive to kill Sayedna Qutbudin , the only perspective is we have a Bohra internal scriptures.

next from Hindu history it is not until 1665 where he started getting radicalised that is almost 20 years after allegedly killing Sayedna Qutbudin.

Is it ok to deduce he started being intolerant to Shia Ismailis and only after 20 years started focussing on Hindu and Sikhs as he would consider them mushriks. Something is a miss here. Can i ask for a better explanation if we want to ensure our history is bullet proof.
Since coming to power by imprisoning his father and killing his two brothers, Aurengzeb had been consolidating his power base. After ten years he now began to apply his power throughout the country. Aurengzeb was an orthodox Muslim who dreamed of purging India of all ‘infidels’ and converting it into a land of Islam. Aurengzeb had no tolerance for other religions and proceeded on a brutal campaign of repression. Famous Hindu temples throughout the country were demolished and mosques built in their place. Hindu idols were placed in the steps of mosques to be trodden on by the feet of Muslim pilgrims. Aurangzeb issued a number of harsh decrees. In 1665 he forbade Hindus to display illuminations at Diwali festivals. In 1668 he forbade Hindu Jatras, in 1671 he issued an order that only Muslims could be landlords of crown lands, and called upon provincial Viceroys to dismiss all Hindu clerks. In 1669 he issued a general order calling upon all governors of all provinces to destroy with a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels; and they were told to put a stop to the teachings and practicing of idolatrous forms of worship. In 1674 lands held by Hindus in Gujarat, in religious grants were all confiscated.

monginis
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:00 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#26

Unread post by monginis » Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:54 am

shehzaada wrote:These are all concocted lies , why would a person of Aurangzeb rah. stature would meddle with the obscure Bohra , unless they commit open blasphemies? I am sure that even if Aurangzeb rah. ordered the execution than there has to be serious and proven charges against Qutubuddin. There is a strong reason behind all such strong events. Like Sarmad claimed divinity hence was executed.
Aurangzeb has destroyed not just bohras but also number of sunni tombs, go to ahmedabad and ask sunni muslims they will give you proofs.

shehzaada
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#27

Unread post by shehzaada » Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:12 am

Alhamdulillah tombs are worse than hindu Idols. It is thrice worse than a pagan Idol as it involves deception+shirk+disobedience to prophetic hadith.

We know from both shia (including Daimul iSLAM) and sunni hadith that building TOMBS is haram.

badrijanab
Posts: 809
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:19 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#28

Unread post by badrijanab » Wed Apr 30, 2014 12:51 pm

shehzaada wrote:These are all concocted lies , why would a person of Aurangzeb rah. stature would meddle with the obscure Bohra , unless they commit open blasphemies? I am sure that even if Aurangzeb rah. ordered the execution than there has to be serious and proven charges against Qutubuddin. There is a strong reason behind all such strong events. Like Sarmad claimed divinity hence was executed.
Has Allah or his Prophet s.a.w.w. authorised Aurangzeb to take decisions in religious matters? No. Hence, Aurangzeb is guilty like any other murderor. And murderor is awarded punishment not praises. So those who praises Aurangzeb for him murdering those who keep different religious view are religiously fools, brain-washed and unintelligent.

Murderor Aurangzeb is no different than any other terrorist like terrorist belonging to Lashkar-Jhangwi or LTTE or RSS / Bajrang Dal Hindu terrorist!

anajmi
Posts: 13403
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#29

Unread post by anajmi » Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:26 pm

4:59 O you who have attained to faith! Pay heed unto God, and pay heed unto the Apostle and unto those from among you who have been entrusted with authority; and if you are at variance over any matter, refer it unto God and the Apostle, if you [truly] believe in God and the Last Day. This is the best [for you], and best in the end.

badrijanab,

April 5 to gayi. Ab cinco de mayo aa gayee. Matlab ab teri durgati banegi.

According to above ayah Aurangzeb has authority from Allah just like your hidden Imam.

JC
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:01 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#30

Unread post by JC » Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:08 pm

Can Badrijanab reply if Akbar and Jehangir were 'AUTHORISED' to declare the Dai of their times as correct? If that was Fateh Mubeen why cry on Aurangzeb's decision? And have you done any 'independent research' on why Qutubudin was killed? Do you know 'all'???