This is a non-Bohra or anti-Bohra forum

[humanbeing]

humanbeing,

I am not strictly for or against any statement of belief or faith. And here I confine my comments to religious beliefs held by large numbers of people ranging from a million upwards. Ultimately they are man-made and people should be free to practice those beliefs without attacks from those whose beliefs differ. No belief or faith is better than or worse than any other belief

I am against those who would consider their beliefs to be the only valid ones and then unleash terror on those who do not share those beliefs. They assume they have God-given responsibility to force their beliefs on everyone. The case in point are the followers of the Najdi fanatic who hate anyone who calls himself a Muslim if they do not subscribe to their interpretation of scripture.

Because this is a Bohra forum, I defend their liberty. If I was on an Ahmadiyya forum, I would defend their rights against attack too.

^^Agree^^

[humanbeing]

Is it the people who are mis-using the belief system ? or is it the belief in its content wrong ?.

I am against those who would consider their beliefs to be the only valid ones and then unleash terror on those who do not share those beliefs. They assume they have God-given responsibility to force their beliefs on everyone. The case in point are the followers of the Najdi fanatic who hate anyone who calls himself a Muslim if they do not subscribe to their interpretation of scripture. .

Please advise, how does Fatimid-belief followers differ than wahabi/salafi/najdi follower ! reference to your above observation, such extremist behavior is observed from Fatimid believers too ! the scope and ways of enforcing their ideologies be it Fatimid or wahabi is different but the base of their philosophy is same.

[SBM]

Because this is a Bohra forum, I defend their liberty. If I was on an Ahmadiyya forum, I would defend their rights against attack too.

So how come you DID not defend SKQ's sons to visit Raudat Tahera and do Ziyaraats of their family members. How come you do not defend every Dawoodi Bohra whether they are SMS or SKQ followers to attend every Waiz and visit WITHOUT THE E CARD. Double standard for an Atheist.

[fayyaaz]

humanbeing,

Yes, all religions have history of violence, including Hinduism and Buddhism. We are now in a stage of history where there is unparalleled and accessible knowledge available to everyone. Religious violence will not disappear just like thieves will not disappear. I am going to guard myself against both the fanatics and the thieves.

[fayyaaz]

SBM,

SKQ and his children should avoid going to places where SMS fanatics hold sway. I defend SKQ followers to hold their views. I do not defend violence. But you did not get that from many posts of mine.

I will not further answer any of your comments from now on.

[SBM]

SBM,

SKQ and his children should avoid going to places where SMS fanatics hold sway. I defend SKQ followers to hold their views. I do not defend violence. But you did not get that from many posts of mine.

I will not further answer any of your comments from now on.

Why because you can not answer my questions.
Now all of sudden SKQ has no right but SHOULD AVOID, A TRUE REPLY FROM A COWARD AND PAID LACKEY OF SMS
While Burhani Goonds have right to hurt people

[anajmi]

Yes, all religions have history of violence, including Hinduism and Buddhism. We are now in a stage of history where there is unparalleled and accessible knowledge available to everyone. Religious violence will not disappear just like thieves will not disappear. I am going to guard myself against both the fanatics and the thieves.

Over the last century, religious violence has been nothing compared to the violence unleashed by the progressive nations of the world on mankind. No religious nation has nuclear weapons. Religious nations are fighting with bows and arrows and sticks and stones against tanks and fighter jets. Let us not blame religion for violence caused for political gains and resource loot.

[Rebel]

humanbeing,

I am not strictly for or against any statement of belief or faith. And here I confine my comments to religious beliefs held by large numbers of people ranging from a million upwards. Ultimately they are man-made and people should be free to practice those beliefs without attacks from those whose beliefs differ. No belief or faith is better than or worse than any other belief

I am against those who would consider their beliefs to be the only valid ones and then unleash terror on those who do not share those beliefs. They assume they have God-given responsibility to force their beliefs on everyone. The case in point are the followers of the Najdi fanatic who hate anyone who calls himself a Muslim if they do not subscribe to their interpretation of scripture.

Because this is a Bohra forum, I defend their liberty. If I was on an Ahmadiyya forum, I would defend their rights against attack too.

So in essence the Bohra clergy tyrannize their own community using various methods. Mullahs and co. twist religious rituals, customs and even belief systems to suit their purpose, create hatred with other communities, loot mumineen's and muminat's hard money for their luxuries. According to Bohra clergy, Bohra religion is purest of them all and mullahs consider themselves as the chosen ones and yet they would tryannize, loot and rape the community system for their benefit. What you discuss is the reflection of the bohra, they force religion on you without making us understand it. They even prohibit us to understand Quran.

[Rebel]

i infact countered Anajmi when he told me that science and religion cannot co-exist and i told him that THEY CAN, and that would perhaps explain the missing link, where one took a back seat and allowed the other to take over

Dichotomy is not between Science and Religion. It is actually between Philosophy and Religion. Let me explain.

Religion deals with death, the existential fear of every human being. Human fear death of self and of loved ones and they experience it a thousand times while they are alive. If your daughter/son does not call you or does not answer your call while they are away from you, you fear the worst and that is the fear of losing them. You pile up regrets for lost lover, lost childhood, and all those people and things which you know are gone forever.

Religion steps in to offer eternal life as long as you live your life in total trust in the Divine and in complete humility. They promise that you will encounter your loved once more after death and you will live in bliss forever united once more with them. Of course every Religion has its own brand for the life in the Hereafter. Christians will be with Christ who is the Way. Hindus will be with Paramatma and so on. Muslims will have their own Paradise so vividly described in the Quran and hadith.

Being Bohras, you have a problem. You do not want to end up with Christians, Hindus and non-Bohra Muslims. Yo do not want to be with Umar, Muawiya, Yazid and their modern followers. Remember they also offer Muslim Paradise to their followers. Just like you need Safai Chit to be in the company of Bohras during Hajj, where you get to experience being in Heaven at its climactic moment, you can guarantee your place among your loved ones in Paradise by taking Ruku Chit with you to your grave. Remember, follower of every religion must trust their teachers and have faith and humility in the face of the Divine.

Thus the whole system of Religion is to assuage the existential fear of death, either here or in the hereafter. You simply do not want to be alone and you want to be with those you love. If you are 'baarated out', that is like a living death. And you don't want that to happen in Heaven too.

Of course we will have Pure Muslims calling these things shirk, idol worship etc. That is OK. No one has the monopoly of truth except in the twisted minds of the Pure Muslims. We have a prominent one on this forum, a Pure Muslim.

Let us turn then to Philosophy. Its enterprise is total lack of trust in the Divine. They believe that they are better off looking within to seek happiness rather then look out to the other. They start out with nature and use reason to pursue knowledge of the Cosmos and they discovered what a marvelous thing it is. They created morals and ethics based on the harmony they observed in nature. To this day, Philosophers always look at Science and what they can learn from it. They stared death in its face but through reason and logic overcame their fear of death and offered many ways to organize societies. So, science is subsumed under philosophy. Newton's books on Physics are called Natural Philosophy.

Christian religious teachers were the first to condemn philosophy. They accused them of lack of trust (atheism) and gross arrogance and said, like Satan, they will be hurled into eternal fire. Modern day Kharijites, who call themselves the purest Muslims, have special hatred for most Muslim Philosophers. They have on many occasions persecuted them and burned their books.

The point is that Religions and Philosophies cannot co-exist. They are diametrically opposed. It is a misnomer to name religious speculations, philosophies. Thus Christian, Hindu, Muslim philosophies are contradictions in terms. The dichotomy is between 'No Reason to formulate the Divine' and 'Total Faith in the Divine'; Divine as understood by religions. Ancient Greek Philosophers used the word Divine for Observable Harmony in Nature.

Let us now see the Pure Muslims making hay. Quran as I alone can reveal to you, he will say, says 'this' and he will condemn similar sayings by Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. from their respective Holy Books. Like Chirst, he will say, I am the Truth, the Way and Gate to Eternal Salvation.

Let me guess what they will say about me. Fayyaaz/Maethist has an episode of verbal diarrhea. We are so comfortable here sitting at the feet of a Great Muslim and benefiting from his eternal wisdom. We do not want anyone like him. Let him go jump in a lake. Let him go fly a kite etc. etc.

You need to refer to Philosophy of Religion. Your comments are incorrect. Philosophy of Religion is a branch of Philosophy and explains the existence of God and the Divine. It even connects religion and science in a mathematical and logical manner.

[fayyaaz]

humanbeing,

I am not strictly for or against any statement of belief or faith. And here I confine my comments to religious beliefs held by large numbers of people ranging from a million upwards. Ultimately they are man-made and people should be free to practice those beliefs without attacks from those whose beliefs differ. No belief or faith is better than or worse than any other belief

I am against those who would consider their beliefs to be the only valid ones and then unleash terror on those who do not share those beliefs. They assume they have God-given responsibility to force their beliefs on everyone. The case in point are the followers of the Najdi fanatic who hate anyone who calls himself a Muslim if they do not subscribe to their interpretation of scripture.

Because this is a Bohra forum, I defend their liberty. If I was on an Ahmadiyya forum, I would defend their rights against attack too.

So in essence the Bohra clergy tyrannize their own community using various methods. Mullahs and co. twist religious rituals, customs and even belief systems to suit their purpose, create hatred with other communities, loot mumineen's and muminat's hard money for their luxuries. According to Bohra clergy, Bohra religion is purest of them all and mullahs consider themselves as the chosen ones and yet they would tryannize, loot and rape the community system for their benefit. What you discuss is the reflection of the bohra, they force religion on you without making us understand it. They even prohibit us to understand Quran.

Since you have the intelligence to understand the cult-like behavior of the mullahs, why don't you use the same intelligence to escape from the cult?

Would you remain a Scienologist if you found out that it was a tyrannical cult?

You remain in the Bohra cult because you see some value in it. Instead of complaining on this forum, you must first convince yourself that it is best to leave the cult because it has no value for you. Leave the cult. Then, advertise your services as a CLEARER so that those who wish to leave the cult can avail your services to de-brainwash them.

You will have your work cut out seeing that the members clearly love being in the cult, and you will not have many takers for your services. But hope springs eternal. Here is wishing you success in your endeavor.

[fayyaaz]

You need to refer to Philosophy of Religion. Your comments are incorrect. Philosophy of Religion is a branch of Philosophy and explains the existence of God and the Divine. It even connects religion and science in a mathematical and logical manner.

I use the term Philosophy of Religion as described the Western intellectual tradition. Medieval Religious philosophies, most particularly the Muslim Religious Philosophy, are misnomers and they are still stuck in Medieval mindset.

Modern Philosophy of Religion does not explain God's existence. It explains why people believe in God's existence with particular reference to Linguistics, the Theory of Evolution and Sociological findings from the studies of ancient cultures, both extant and extinct.

[Rebel]

You need to refer to Philosophy of Religion. Your comments are incorrect. Philosophy of Religion is a branch of Philosophy and explains the existence of God and the Divine. It even connects religion and science in a mathematical and logical manner.

I use the term Philosophy of Religion as described the Western intellectual tradition. Medieval Religious philosophies, most particularly the Muslim Religious Philosophy, are misnomers and they are still stuck in Medieval mindset.

Modern Philosophy of Religion does not explain God's existence. It explains why people believe in God's existence with particular reference to Linguistics, the Theory of Evolution and Sociological findings from the studies of ancient cultures, both extant and extinct.

Please refer to Kant and Aquinas and most recent philosopher Richard Swinburne, these Philosophers of Religion have proved existence of God using ontological argument. There are several other recent Philosophers who have also proved mathematically and rationally the existence of God. No one is stuck in Medieval mindset......all religions have evolved and have put forth premises which concludes existence of God. When I took Philosophy of Religion as one of my subjects, my professor mathematically proved in the class the existence of God. That negates your statement that Philosophy of Religion does not explain God's existence - it does explain that God exists, perhaps you are not aware of it.

[fayyaaz]

Please refer to Kant and Aquinas and most recent philosopher Richard Swinburne, these Philosophers of Religion have proved existence of God using ontological argument. There are several other recent Philosophers who have also proved mathematically and rationally the existence of God. No one is stuck in Medieval mindset......all religions have evolved and have put forth premises which concludes existence of God. When I took Philosophy of Religion as one of my subjects, my professor mathematically proved in the class the existence of God. That negates your statement that Philosophy of Religion does not explain God's existence - it does explain that God exists, perhaps you are not aware of it.

Modern Western Philosophy of Religion does not prove God's existence.

Kant's is an argument from necessity. He says because we are moral animals, there must be an ultimate Law-giver. That is God. That is not proof. He says that there must be one. It is his faith.

Aquinas argues from First Cause. He says that there must be someone who created everything. That is God. That is not a proof. Just a faith in there being the first cause. His argument is destroyed when one asks who created God.

Swinburne is a Christian apologetic. He says that God must exist because Christians feel the Holy Spirit. OK. But that is not proof of God's existence. Again it is his faith.

If your professor has proved mathematically to you that God exists, why don't you outline the proof. I am not convinced that there is any proof for the existence of God. Just faith.

[Rebel]

So in essence the Bohra clergy tyrannize their own community using various methods. Mullahs and co. twist religious rituals, customs and even belief systems to suit their purpose, create hatred with other communities, loot mumineen's and muminat's hard money for their luxuries. According to Bohra clergy, Bohra religion is purest of them all and mullahs consider themselves as the chosen ones and yet they would tryannize, loot and rape the community system for their benefit. What you discuss is the reflection of the bohra, they force religion on you without making us understand it. They even prohibit us to understand Quran.

Since you have the intelligence to understand the cult-like behavior of the mullahs, why don't you use the same intelligence to escape from the cult?

Would you remain a Scienologist if you found out that it was a tyrannical cult?

You remain in the Bohra cult because you see some value in it. Instead of complaining on this forum, you must first convince yourself that it is best to leave the cult because it has no value for you. Leave the cult. Then, advertise your services as a CLEARER so that those who wish to leave the cult can avail your services to de-brainwash them.

You will have your work cut out seeing that the members clearly love being in the cult, and you will not have many takers for your services. But hope springs eternal. Here is wishing you success in your endeavor.

LOL...it is one of the most tyrannical cult, mullahs would torture you psychologically to no end. I have come across so many people who dread to visit masjid to sit like zombies for numbers of hours listening to tirade of mullahs describing a fairy tale which may not even exist. Mullahs are ruthless, they can destroy your health, wealth and honor in a matter of minutes. They only want to control your mind, your hard earned money and make their ghulam. My remaining in the cult or not remaining in it is none of your business unless you are mullah too who is asking me to leave it or be a ghulam. It is very common statements by mullahs that if you can't pay to dawat and if you don't do what we you to do than don't come to our masjids.

[fayyaaz]

Rebel,

Then I must conclude that you love living in a tyrannical cult. Enjoy it. Why complain here?

[Rebel]

Rebel,

Then I must conclude that you love living in a tyrannical cult. Enjoy it. Why complain here?

Hey bud, what do you know? Conclude, assume, presume, imagine do whatever you feel like but you enjoy the ride,

[Rebel]

Please refer to Kant and Aquinas and most recent philosopher Richard Swinburne, these Philosophers of Religion have proved existence of God using ontological argument. There are several other recent Philosophers who have also proved mathematically and rationally the existence of God. No one is stuck in Medieval mindset......all religions have evolved and have put forth premises which concludes existence of God. When I took Philosophy of Religion as one of my subjects, my professor mathematically proved in the class the existence of God. That negates your statement that Philosophy of Religion does not explain God's existence - it does explain that God exists, perhaps you are not aware of it.

Modern Western Philosophy of Religion does not prove God's existence.

Kant's is an argument from necessity. He says because we are moral animals, there must be an ultimate Law-giver. That is God. That is not proof. He says that there must be one. It is his faith.

Aquinas argues from First Cause. He says that there must be someone who created everything. That is God. That is not a proof. Just a faith in there being the first cause. His argument is destroyed when one asks who created God.

Swinburne is a Christian apologetic. He says that God must exist because Christians feel the Holy Spirit. OK. But that is not proof of God's existence. Again it is his faith.

If your professor has proved mathematically to you that God exists, why don't you outline the proof. I am not convinced that there is any proof for the existence of God. Just faith.

You got it all wrong, bhai. There is no point in arguing or debating with you. I have no idea what you are talking about, your discussions have no logic or sense in it only senseless verbal explosions. It is really funny, you disapprove these renowned philosophers that they did not prove the existence of God. Read Swinburne's book "Is There a God?" which may take you several months to understand it LOL. I have pasted the synopsis

Swinburne, one of the most distinguished philosophers of religion of our day, argues that on the contrary, science provides good grounds for belief in God. Why is there a universe at all ? Why is there any life on Earth? How is it that discoverable scientific laws operate in the universe? Professor Swinburne uses the methods of scientific reasoning to argue that the best answers to these questions are given by the existence of God. The picture of the universe that science gives us is completed by God.This new, updated edition of Richard Swinburne's popular introductory book Is There a God? features two substantial changes. He presents a new, stronger argument why theism does and materialism does not provide a very simple ultimate explanation of the world. And he examines the idea of the possible existence of many other universes, and its relevance to his arguments from the fine-tuning of our universe to the existence of God.

[fayyaaz]

Swinburne employs the arguments of creationists to infer, in fact propose, that there must be a God. That is still not a proof of God's existence.

I will read Swinburne, if you promise to read Richard Dawkin's 'The God Delusion'.

Let us postpone this discussion until we have both read these books. Good luck.

[Rebel]

Swinburne employs the arguments of creationists to infer, in fact propose, that there must be a God. That is still not a proof of God's existence.

I will read Swinburne, if you promise to read Richard Dawkin's 'The God Delusion'.

Let us postpone this discussion until we have both read these books. Good luck.

ok bhai, we postpone the discussion...but how in the world an atheist such as Dawkin's gonna prove the existence of God...he is not Philosopher of Religious studies at all.
Richard Dawkins - A preeminent scientist -- and the world's most prominent atheist.

[anajmi]

One should read Surah Maida about God providing proof of his existence and the conditions behind it. It would show why God chooses not to provide the kind of proof atheists seek at least the day of judgment.

If God exists, then chances are that he would want to communicate with his creation. Tell them what is right what is wrong. Tell them they will be punished for misbehaving but that they still have a choice so that they won't be able to blame God for their terrible end.

There can be no proof of God that will satisfy everyone until the day of judgment. People who try to prove the existence of God should stop working so hard. Let faith play its part otherwise what would be the point of heaven and hell?

[Rebel]

One should read Surah Maida about God providing proof of his existence and the conditions behind it. It would show why God chooses not to provide the kind of proof atheists seek at least the day of judgment.

If God exists, then chances are that he would want to communicate with his creation. Tell them what is right what is wrong. Tell them they will be punished for misbehaving but that they still have a choice so that they won't be able to blame God for their terrible end.

There can be no proof of God that will satisfy everyone until the day of judgment. People who try to prove the existence of God should stop working so hard. Let faith play its part otherwise what would be the point of heaven and hell?

But He does communicate with his creation via different methods and ways...doesn't He?

[zinger]

I am against those who would consider their beliefs to be the only valid ones

Is not that what Fatimid Dai tells everyone in the Waiz that only Mumin who follow Dai are going to Jannat and they are the only one who are on right path and righteous
And you have no problem defending them

Agreed, this is what the Fatimid Dai says. But do you see us go an poke our noses on other Muslim forums saying "You guys are kaffirs, morons, mushirqs, you will burn in hell etc etc etc."????

No. we let them be.

Whatever the Fatimid Dai says is limited to a closed group of people and is relevant to a Fatimid audience only

And THAT my good friend, is the point of contention here.

Why must a non-Bohra be allowed to come and poke their noses in matters that do not even concern them?

Stick to the Islam today section. It's a pity you never understood this.

I have said it in the past, and i say it again. You are too busy in befriending the enemy of your enemy because he is your friend then

Our differences aside, i have no objection to you and Al Zulfiqar and Humsafar abusing the system, because you are still in the system (unless AZ wants to disagree with me ) but why should a non-Bohra be allowed to ridicule the Fatimid and Shia Islamic belief? By not defending it, you are inferring your acceptance of it, in which case you need to consider where you want to be and what you want to follow.

And please dont give me the usual "i am against the kothar mocking the Shia and Fatimid beliefs" because other than the Dawoodi Bohras and atheists, i have never seen a Reformist Bohra take a stand when these core beliefs are being mocked and ridiculued

[zinger]

Yes, all religions have history of violence, including Hinduism and Buddhism. We are now in a stage of history where there is unparalleled and accessible knowledge available to everyone. Religious violence will not disappear just like thieves will not disappear. I am going to guard myself against both the fanatics and the thieves.

Over the last century, religious violence has been nothing compared to the violence unleashed by the progressive nations of the world on mankind. No religious nation has nuclear weapons. Religious nations are fighting with bows and arrows and sticks and stones against tanks and fighter jets. Let us not blame religion for violence caused for political gains and resource loot.

Wake up Anajmi, its the 21st century. Not the 17th.

Your sticks and stones and bows and arrows are stingers, SAMS, RPGs, SAWs and Scorpion missiles systems. Dont make a fool of yourself

Dont make stupid comments like these. you are far more sensible than this crap

[zinger]

One should read Surah Maida about God providing proof of his existence and the conditions behind it. It would show why God chooses not to provide the kind of proof atheists seek at least the day of judgment.

If God exists, then chances are that he would want to communicate with his creation. Tell them what is right what is wrong. Tell them they will be punished for misbehaving but that they still have a choice so that they won't be able to blame God for their terrible end.

There can be no proof of God that will satisfy everyone until the day of judgment. People who try to prove the existence of God should stop working so hard. Let faith play its part otherwise what would be the point of heaven and hell?

But He does communicate with his creation via different methods and ways...doesn't He?

Yes He does. in ways we cant even begin to comprehend. Allahhoakbar

[SBM]

.

But do you see us go an poke our noses on other Muslim forums saying "You guys are kaffirs, morons, mushirqs, you will burn in hell etc etc etc."????

Really Zinger then who provoked the riots in Mumbai by publicly doing laanaats on three Khalifas, Who is responsible for the death of innocent Dawoodi Bohras in that riot while the Kothari Master safely escaped to Saify Mahal.

[anajmi]

But He does communicate with his creation via different methods and ways...doesn't He?

Yes. He communicates with his creation through his messengers. It is a conundrum for the faithless. If God were to provide unequivocal proof of his existence, life as we know it on earth would cease to exist. Not because God would cease it but because humans would cease it. What will the atheist do if God provides the proof that the atheist is looking for? What will the corrupt do? You think the Dai will let anyone do sajda to him if God were standing next to him? You think he will ride in a 6 horse AC baggi after the proof of God is staring at him in his face? You think the Imam will remain hidden after this proof of God?

[Ozdundee]

Over the last century, religious violence has been nothing compared to the violence unleashed by the progressive nations of the world on mankind. No religious nation has nuclear weapons. Religious nations are fighting with bows and arrows and sticks and stones against tanks and fighter jets. Let us not blame religion for violence caused for political gains and resource loot.

I could not sit back my apologies, be reasonable ...we tend to rely too much on biased medias. Other thing to realise some civilisations were better at keeping records or honestly discussed history without fear of embarrsment.

Read the following

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... death_toll

Wars are executed by humans to conquer humans and they use justification for political, material or religious reasons , they are all forms of ideologies.

Many religious minded people focus on the narrow religious aspect while political and rich focus on power. A war is fought on complex broader aspects. Similar to our own Bohra issues it is many issues that make up the grievance list, ours are minuscule in nature. That's why I say if we were a nation we would be at war now! It is human nature to say my religion is better than yours...just like my car is better than yours. It is ok until from verbal arguments , we start using bias ness to deny each other freedoms, access to facilities, and then go a step further to conquer.

So for a civilised progressive he needs to know when to stop the debate from spiralling..in civilised we call it how to control freedoms! Anajmi Bhai the west is not ugly , evil and unislamic as you might think it is.

Yazid was more interested in political control and expansion , but religion and Islamic empowerment of his subjects was an obstacle and he recklessly attacked Husain AS , if he was smarter history would be different, one should also note he was immature..he died at 36 but in that short time caused more damage. ultimately yazid was a failure as a king so religion was part of it.

If one reads Islamic history in the 1st and second century one will notice that as islam was growing those kings and emperors who adapted it as complementary to their growth were successful as part of their expansion strategy while those who stood against it were overcome and lost. This was fine until the downfall of Fatimids in Egypt. But that is a whole new topic for next time around how a divinely guided empire would collapse why it collapsed!

[Nafisa]

Wahabies have full liberty to teach and preach Aqaid Khabisah on progressive dawoodi bohras forum and convert mumineen into their Shaitani cult

[anajmi]

Anajmi Bhai the west is not ugly , evil and unislamic as you might think it is.

Yazid was more interested in political control and expansion , but religion and Islamic empowerment of his subjects was an obstacle and he recklessly attacked Husain AS ,

And the west is apparently not interested in political control and expansion. They are there just to spread freedom and democracy right?

he died at 36 but in that short time caused more damage.

Actually, the damage caused by Yazid was magnified by the moharrum processions and the chest beating and wailings that have been going on for the last 14 centuries.

But that is a whole new topic for next time around how a divinely guided empire would collapse why it collapsed!

Well you and I both know the answer to that. It collapsed because it wasn't divinely guided. No empire is.

[qutub_mamajiwala]

see what the ummayads version of islam teaches

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 085196.cms

RIYADH: It's only for women over 30, who must be off the road by 8pm and cannot wear makeup behind the wheel. But it's still a startling shift. The Saudi king's advisory council has recommended that the government lift its ban on female drivers, a member of the council said on Friday.

The Shura Council's recommendations are not obligatory on the government, but simply making the recommendation was a major step after years of the kingdom staunchly rejecting any review of the ban. There have been small but increasingly bold protests by women who took to their cars over the past year. The council member said the Shura Council made the recommendations in a secret, closed session held in the past month.

Under the recommendations, only women over 30 would be allowed to drive and they would need permission from a male relative. They would be allowed to drive from 7am to 8pm on Saturday through Wednesday and noon to 8pm on Thursday and Friday. It wasn't immediately clear why the restrictions would be different. The conditions also require that a woman driver wear conservative dress and no make-up, the official said. Within cities, they can drive without a male relative in the car, but outside of cities, a male is required to be present.

The council said a 'female traffic department' would have to be created to deal with female drivers. It recommended the female traffic officers be under the supervision of the "religious agencies."

The council placed heavy restrictions on interactions between female drivers and male traffic officers or other male drivers, and stiff penalties for those who broke them. Merely speaking to a female driver, it said, was punishable by a one-month jail and a fine.