DAI

[udaipurresident]

This is for Mr Insaf. Do u consider mohammed burhanuddin as the dai-up-mutlaq?or consider him as the dai-nazim.Also i would like to know your opinion on this office that should this office be abolished or be retained for future?

[Humsafar]

You should be more worried about this typo: dai-up-mutlaq.

An instructive Freudian slip which lends an interesting interpretation to what the mutlaq dai is UP to.

To answer for Insaf bhai, yes reformists accept Sayedna Mohammed Burhannudin as their dai al mutlaq but contend that he is not fulfilling the duties his title enjoins on him, and is not quite qualified for the job.

[S. Insaf]

Dear Brother Udaipurresident,
In Fatimi Imam's court (darbar) after Imam there were official positions of 1) Hujjat (proof), Dai-Balag (lieutenant), Dail-Mutlaq (missionary). For example in Imam Amir's court Hurrah Malakah was Hujjat, Yahya was Dail-Balag and Sayedna Zoeb was Dail-Mutlaq.
After the controversy arosed with the sudden death of 46th Dail-Mutlaq the history says that no Dai including 47th Dai ever used the title of Dail-Mutlaq.
Even 51st Dai Sayedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb had not used that title till 1938. This is evident from the documents of court cases and various other property agreements of his time. He was refered as Sardar, Mullaji Saheb or Sayedna. Bohras used to call him "Sarkare-Aali".
After the dispute with Mehdi Baughwala he started imphasising on "Dail-Mutluq".
I have no problem in calling Dai by any name as long as he fulfills his religious duties honestly and also has the qualifications of a Dai given by Sayedna Hatim and led down by a Dai Ahmed bin Mohammad Neshapuri of the time of 18th Imam.

[udaipurresident]

Originally posted by S. Insaf:
Dear Brother Udaipurresident,
In Fatimi Imam's court (darbar) after Imam there were official positions of 1) Hujjat (proof), Dai-Balag (lieutenant), Dail-Mutlaq (missionary). For example in Imam Amir's court Hurrah Malakah was Hujjat, Yahya was Dail-Balag and Sayedna Zoeb was Dail-Mutlaq.
After the controversy arosed with the sudden death of 46th Dail-Mutlaq the history says that no Dai including 47th Dai ever used the title of Dail-Mutlaq.
Even 51st Dai Sayedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb had not used that title till 1938. This is evident from the documents of court cases and various other property agreements of his time. He was refered as Sardar, Mullaji Saheb or Sayedna. Bohras used to call him "Sarkare-Aali".
After the dispute with Mehdi Baughwala he started imphasising on "Dail-Mutluq".
I have no problem in calling Dai by any name as long as he fulfills his religious duties honestly and also has the qualifications of a Dai given by Sayedna Hatim and led down by a Dai Ahmed bin Mohammad Neshapuri of the time of 18th Imam.

Do you think the present leader is delivering as per the qualifications laid down by seyedna hatim or not.If no then who is qualified to lead the masses on religious ground?

[S. Insaf]

Do you think the present leader is delivering as per the qualifications laid down by seyedna hatim or not. If no then who is qualified to lead the masses on religious ground? There are 94 qualifications detailed in 94 paras which are sub-divided into 4 major heads as under:
1) Educational qualification
2) Administrative qualification
3) Moral and Theocratical qualification
4) Family and Personal qualities
(These qualities in details are listed somewhere on this board)
There is an important footnote at the end which states:
“If a Dai does not posses the above mentioned qualities in reality and is called Dai, then it is the name only without meaning. It will not benefit. It is useless to hope for any spiritual profit from such a Dai. It is simply to catch the handfuls of a gaz. The assumption of the name of Dai, for such a Dai is a sin and it is a sort of burden over him. If the name of Dawat has no connection with the above mentioned conditions, there is no respect, honour or pride for it (the name), rather it is not just, a mock and a blame for its assumer.
Thereupon it is to be understood that a name does not benefit. There must also be quality and action combined with it; otherwise the name of a Dai is simply to deceive and robe the people of their money and to live in luxury at the expense of others.”

It is for you to judge whether the present leader is delivering as per the qualifications laid down by Sayedna Hatim or not.

Who is qualified to lead the masses on religious ground?

After the huge concentration of wealth at the centre it is now difficult to say whether any one from family of present incumbent can qualify for the post. The process of imparting knowledge and training a person for the post of Dai has been done away long back in the community.

[Muslim First]

.

Who is qualified to lead the masses on religious ground?

Brother Insaf failed to recognize that educated, knowledgeable Muslim does not need anybody to lead them. Our leader is Qur'an and Sunnah of our Prophet SAW.

Instead of just parroting Qur'an one must ponder on it. In the days of in ternate enough material is available.

Wasalaam
.

[S. Insaf]

Brother Muslm First,
You are right. But I was talking for Dawoodi Bohra Community which which far from Islam now. The religion here has turned into a cult.
The Fatimi Imams had set up a procedure for acquiring knowledge and educating Ismailis which is no more now.
Dai (the missionary), Mazoon and Mukasir were required to spread the proper understanding of Faith. They are only for name sack as they are not fulfilling their duties.
Sooner the Bohras understand this and join the mainstreem Islam better for them.

[S. Insaf]

Brother Muslm First,
You are right. But I was talking for Dawoodi Bohra Community which is far from Islam now. The religion here has turned into a cult.
The Fatimi Imams had set up a procedure for acquiring knowledge and educating Ismailis to lead the masses on religious ground. Which is no more today.
Dai (the missionary), Mazoon and Mukasir were required to spread the proper understanding of Faith. They are only for name sack now as they are not fulfilling their duties.
Sooner the Bohras understand this and join the mainstreem Islam better for them.

[udaipurresident]

Originally posted by S. Insaf:
Sooner the Bohras understand this and join the mainstreem Islam better for them.[/QB]

Why dont we progressive take the initiative and join the main stream of Islam?what is detering us from doing so?

[S. Insaf]

Dear Udaipurresident,
Mainstream Islam means not to remain in clutches of any establishment and following the basic principles (Daiem)of Islam. For example offering namaz in any mosque, Performing Hajj with other Muslims, Distributing Zakat and fitra among needy as per Quranic instruction. Do away with Raza, Misaq to Dai and working for general welfare of Muslim Umma, which we are doing.
We are also working for peaceful co-existence with other communities and people of other faith and religion as demonstrated by our holy Prophet (pbuh).
But as we are born as Dawoodi Bohras and we have deep psychological roots in this community, it is our duty to liberate other Bohras from the clutches of an authoritarian establishment.

[accountability]

When you say mainstream islam, it is an embigeous terms at best. There is no such thing as mainstream islam. There are sects, bigger or smaler. Each sect is antagonistic to other. Neither is ready to tolerate the other. The majority can not claim to have title of mainstream. It is also subdivided into many other sub sects. Unification of muslims is rather an illusory task without ground realities. All sects have political agendas, which run parallel to each other.

When Muslim First says, Quran and sunnah should be the only guiding principles.

Quran's divinity rests with its inclusivity of all. It has marks and it is theoritically a guide to reaach an illustrated goal of pleasing the almighty. While it narrates, what makes almighty happy, but simultaneously it says that, Almighty is whole in itself, he is not pleased,
angered or unpleased. Yet does not set a path or criterea.

Sunnah is also not without contradictions. All the narrations were compiled long after the death of Prophet(pbuh), narrators were very young at the time of demise. Six correct version have also contradictions. The criterea was set, that if the narration is not against the principle of quran, it may be included. That was the wrong assumption, anyone could say something that is not contradicted in quran, but can it be described as the saying of prophet. The ahadiths collected have multiple refrences spanning into 5 genreations.

As there was no device at that time for data collection, and 99 percent of bedouine arabs were not familiar with writing, so the verbal transfer could have changed through all those ages.

The principle not to have any guide negates the majority's notion too. The Hanafis have abu hanifa, Salafis have humbal and others. The difference is that, they are not able to agree on anyone person to be their leader for so long. But not agreeing does not not do away the need for a guide.

[S. Insaf]

Some extracts from Dr. Asgar Ali Engineer’s long and detailed article: Why reform movements are necessary?
……..Before we discuss these reasons we would throw some light on religion and religious teachings. A religion itself has been a reform movement at one time. One can hardly think of any religion, which did not come with the mission of reforming a society in which it was borne.
…….All the prophets from Adam to Muhammad (PBUH) were sent by Allah and came with the same message. The core teachings of all these messages were the same. However, each society had its own peculiarities, which were reflected in the traditions of those religions. The shari`ah laws, therefore, differed. But after sometime the core teachings of the religion also got corrupted and there arose a need for another seer, prophet and reformer.
……..It is important to note that a religious or faith tradition consists of two main components: 1) Core teachings as revealed to or preached by its founder; 2) various social beliefs and traditions which, over a period of time, become integral part of religion and corrupt the original teachings of that religion. No religion could escape this fate.
…….. It is the main task of a reformer to recognise the core teachings of a religion and the accretions of various social traditions, which lead to distortion of core teachings of religion. Of course, some people find it extremely difficult to distinguish between the core teachings and the social accretions. For them both are inseparable. Not only that, these social accretions become much more important than the core teachings of religion. And over a period of time these social accretions even replace the core teachings. It is then that Allah decides to send His messenger or create a reformer from amongst the people. As per the Qur'anic teachings Muhammad (PBUH) being the last prophet we can now expect reformers only.
……….A prophet comes with universal message and preaches core teachings of religion. But a reformer has less universal and more specific role.
A reformer belongs to a particular society or a country and his reforms are specific to that country, society or community. This is, however, not to deny certain universal elements also, in their reform movements which may apply across the social or national borders.
……….. Another need for reforms is on account of continuous social change. Society is never stagnant. Changes in small measures may not warrant change reform but continuous change in the society brings about what we can call paradigm change or paradigm shift. When paradigm shift takes place reform becomes desirable or even inevitable.
………..The first major paradigm shift took place in nineteenth 19th century, which is the colonial period for the countries of Asia and Africa. It was not mere political change, which mattered. But more so it is changes in economic and scientific and technological fields, which mattered. These changes were so breath taking that a major paradigm shift took place and reform movements became inevitable. It is for this reason that we witness so many reform movements in the Islamic world. It became highly necessary to grapple with these changes.
…… These changes were so fundamental that they overthrew the old social set up and various social traditions. The old educational system seemed to be totally irrelevant. Reform movements became necessary not only among Muslims but also among all colonial societies. The fast changes which are taking place and the consumerist onslaught from the West have created two contradictory trends in the modern world: 1) Some people have abandoned higher values of life and its transcendent aspects of life in the hereafter and have engrossed themselves in the pleasures of this world, and 2) Some others find solace in old traditions in reaction to such pleasure-seeking trend. Both are equally harmful or problematic. There is yet another variety, which is even more harmful. There are some people who enjoy the pleasures of this world by exploiting religious and spiritual needs of people, amass wealth and seek these worldly pleasures. They create blind faith among their people so that they can exploit it for their own ends.
……. There is, therefore, great need to expose and oppose such exploiters in the name of religion.

[feelgud]

Originally posted by accountability:
.. Each sect is antagonistic to other. Neither is ready to tolerate the other..

Lets calculate this tolerance level on the basis of social acceptence and religious acceptence.

will you plz give example of any sect(you refered in the post)or school of thought(hanfi,hambali,ahle hadees etc) who stops marriage with another one and a sect who stops others to pray inside their mosque.

salam

[udaipurresident]

Originally posted by S. Insaf:
Dear Udaipurresident,
Mainstream Islam means not to remain in clutches of any establishment and following the basic principles (Daiem)of Islam. For example offering namaz in any mosque, Performing Hajj with other Muslims, Distributing Zakat and fitra among needy as per Quranic instruction. Do away with Raza, Misaq to Dai and working for general welfare of Muslim Umma, which we are doing.
We are also working for peaceful co-existence with other communities and people of other faith and religion as demonstrated by our holy Prophet (pbuh).
But as we are born as Dawoodi Bohras and we have deep psychological roots in this community, it is our duty to liberate other Bohras from the clutches of an authoritarian establishment.

How many muslims have we invited in our mospues in udaipur? I have never seen any progressive in udaipur offering namaz in other mosques nor have i seen any non bohra offering namaz under or alongwith us.Our leaders in udaipur have never encouraged people to offer namaz in any muslim mosque in udaipur

[Humsafar]

Udaipurresident,

As always you are missing the point. The idea is not to encourage refomirsts to offer prayers with non-bohras per se, but that if any of us choose to do so there will be no stigma, no criticism attached to it. What it means is that if I go to a sunni or shiah mosque nobody will tell me that my namazz is not jayiz etc. As for non-bohras coming to our mosques, they normally don't because all communities are confined to their own mohllas and prefer to go there. Reformists hold to the principle of tolerance and Muslim brotherhood. For example, when you are outside your own setting, in a different city, country or on Haj you are permitted to pray with any other sect of muslims. That your namaaz is not valid without the Dai's raza is a load of BS.

[babu]

Originally posted by S. Insaf:
Dear Udaipurresident,
Mainstream Islam means .............. Do away with Raza, Misaq to Dai and working for general welfare of Muslim Umma, which we are doing.
We are also working for peaceful co-existence with other communities and people of other faith and religion as demonstrated by our holy Prophet (pbuh).
....

Apart from that , just tell us wht u are doing ???
MAMU

[tahir]

Very good question babu bhai! You must give the example of Syedna to illustrate what is the right thing to do. Now enlighten us about what Syedna is doing.

[tahir]

Originally posted by feelgud:

will you plz give example of any sect(you refered in the post)or school of thought(hanfi,hambali,ahle hadees etc) who stops marriage with another one and a sect who stops others to pray inside their mosque.

salam

Just to add one more query, do any of these sects believe that offering namaz with people of another sect behind their imam is not a valid namaz? And if they have to do it under certain circumstances they should just physically pretend to offer namaz and then perform the 'real' namaz when everyone is gone and no one is watching.

[kalim]

If, by saying that Bohras should convert to "mainstream" Muslims one means bohras should become Sunnis, then I think that is essentially a betrayal of Progressive principles as they are usually understood. Progressive leaders have repeatedly said that we want to carry forward the Fatimid heritage, its culture, philosophy and literature. This means accepting the dawaat hierarchy of Da'i al-Mutlak, Mazoon and Mukasir. We may disagree vehemently with the present da'i's and his administration's policies but that does not mean we want to get rid of them. The key word is "reform" and not "reject". Further, the reform is for social causes and not directly religious. For example we want transparency in handling dawaat resources and not changing the azaan by removing/adding phrases from it.

All these points about detail on praying namaaz, to join them or to separate them, if to follow Bukhari or S. Qazi Noman, are matters of religious detail which the progressive movement is not directly concerned with. This does not mean that individuals should not have an opinion on them but simply that it should be a matter of conscious for a person and that should not be a basis for persecution by the group. This is the only way of having a tolerant and inclusive society.

The bohra basis of beliefs are described in detail in Daim al-Islam and the practice in several handbooks published over the years. For example, the sahifa of the present da'i's wife is available and is very useful. The bohra practice is based on the same hadith literature as goes into the four Sunni schools. Of course, the interpretation of the hadith, the criteria for authenticity, and the reliance on hadiths of Ali and the Imams (besides the prophet) are peculiar to the Shias and Ismailis. However, that is not what the Progressive movement is trying to dispute. No one says dump Daim al-Islam for Bukhari and his pals. We ask for social justice, jamaat autonomy, strict accounting of funds and betterment of poor bohra's lot using the several hundred million dollars collected in zakaat every year. If one want to pray with Shias or Sunnis, or invite them to Bohra mosques, good for them, but that is not the key point of the movement.

Also, I want to point out that the Fatimid/Tayeebi literature and philosophy is very rich and diverse and represents a true attempt at a rational approach to Islam. The Progressives want to preserve this literature, let those few interested study it freely, and possibly augment this based on current state of knowledge. For example, Dr. Engineer has contributed a lot to this effort, so have Dr. Isamil Poonawala, Dr. Abbas Hamdani, Zahid Ali and several other scholars. This has had a very visible and positive impact on the general Bohra population. I will cite two. First, many orthodox Bohras have books by these authors and study them for their own benefit. No need for silly raza or sabaaks. Second, the religious hierarchy is finally waking up to the free availability of what was once "hidden" knowledge and making an effort to get into the fray themselves. For example, Mazoon saheb's daughter Bazat Tahera, has published an extensive analysis of S. Moyaad Shirazi's poetry, several others have written biographies, papers, analysis of haqaiq literature etc. This is directly due to the efforts of Zadis Ali, Poonawala and Hamdani collections becoming freely available for scholarship. Kudos to these progressives!

I am certain that we are actually reaching the point when there could be a mass rethinking among the common bohras about the foolish claims the da'is and his cronies are making on them. The end of the present da'i's reign may signal an end to the era of power through charisma and coercion. Now is the time to push hard to have the Progressive voice known and not just feel grumpy and start turning the Progressive movement into an attempt to convert people to Sunnis.

[anajmi]

No wonder the reformists are loosing this battle.

If the progressives are unwilling to fight the Dai on religious background, they do not have half a leg to stand on. It doesn't matter how much you keep harping about fighting the Dai on social or administration ground, the one and only reason he gets away with everything he does is because that is what he calls religion.

No one is trying to convert the progressives into Sunnis, there are enough of those idiots around already. Just convert them to Muslims.

[Humsafar]

Dear Kalim,

Good to hear from you again. You articulate Progressives' ideals and goals very well. Over the years I've noticed that some reformists in their disenchantment with the Dai and his administration have a tendency to give up on Bohra faith itself and veer off into sunni, ithna ashari, ismaili fold. This is partly because few have read about our rich history and tradition. You rightly point out the contributions of the bohra scholars; their books must be required reading for all reformists, if not all bohras.

It cannot be emphsised enough that we reformists value our heritage and our continuity with the past, and some of us need constant reminding that our fight with the Kothar should not be allowed to dissipate into renouncing our Fatimid heritage. To use a cliche, let's not throw the baby with the bath water.

[anajmi]

Humsafar,

I am not sure if you are kidding others or yourself. By renouncing the belief in the quran to be the word of God you have already renounced "your" Fatimid heritage.

[Humsafar]

anajmi,

The Quran, the Islamic history and tradition - including the Fatimid strand of it, my Indian background with its vestiges of Hindu customs and all the rest of it are all part of my cultural heritage. My rejection of belief in the supernatural does not in any way disqualify me from appreciating and enjoying my culture. If the Quran is part of my heritage, then so is the tradition of heresy which was quite common in the early centuries of Islam, and so is animism, the original and most natural religion of human beings.

But all this is not so simple as the belief in the Quran and suannah. Period. What you are advocating is fundamentalist doctrine, which by its very nature is totalitarian and denies diversity and dissent. I'll rather stick with my rich and varied heritage than give it all up for the sake for a fundamentalist belief. Thank you.

[accountability]

Anajmi: How do you define "real" islam. The way you believe in.

You said, that sharia is not what quran says, but it is amalgamation of quranic verses with ahadith. In your opinion, sharia without ahadith is not complete.

Hadiths are collections by late predecessors, their authencity just rested on the integerity of the person saying it.

While ahadiths are narrated by others, who were not so close to Prophet. If you are ready to believe in what abu hareera said, who aparently had not had close ties to prophet. But you are objecting to fatmid beliefs, who were near and dear ones to prophet.

Hazrat Ali's and Hazrat Hussain's narration carry more wieght than abu hareera and muawiya.

Progressives are right in embracing the fatimid doctorine, as it seems more logical. Present flawed administration is not representative of real fatimid heirarchy. which was benovelent and inclusive.

[Average Bohra]

Good post Kalim, and welcome back.

In spite of my past criticism of the progressive movement, your posts along with Humsafar's helps gravitate the attention to the movement's primary focus. It is limited in scope by design, which is wise based on its scarce resources and challenges it must overcome.

[anajmi]

Humsafar,

If all progressives are like you, kalim and the Average Moron (which I hope and pray they are not), the progressives, according to my simple calculation, are even less trustworthy than the Dai and the Kothar.

If we were to believe you, that there is no word of Allah, prophet of Allah and the word of Allah then the Fatimid heritage, Abbasid heritage, Sunniism, Shiaism, Ali, Fatima, Hassan, Hussein is nothing but a pack of lies, and you still want us to continue believing in them for what? Heritage?

Does that fit anywhere in your science or mathematics?

[anajmi]

I forgot to mention the Imam and the Dai amongst the pack of lies that the progressives would want us to continue to believe in.

[anajmi]

accty,

For progressives like Humsafar, Kalim and the Average Moron, narrations of Hazrat Ali or Hazrat Hussein carry no more weight than the narrations of Abu Huraira or Muawiya.

Fatimid doctrine, heritage, hierarchy, culture, is based on Tauhid and their own interpretation of the quran and the sunnah according to whoever. To reject belief in the quran and Allah and continue to value Fatimid heritage (for which I am sure there is an agenda) is paradoxical.

[Humsafar]

anajmi,

To profess belief in a book whose language you don't understand is also paradoxical. And this paradox is so widespread that it needs no commenting.

More importantly, please try to undertand that my personal beliefs and attitudes have little to do with the official position of reformists on religion and reforms. It is dishonest of you to mix the two, and paint all reformists in the profane and ungodly colours of Humsafar.

[kalim]

Dear anajmi: First, the Progressives are not loosing anything. In fact the awareness among the bohras, at least in the West, is increasing. Almost every single bohra one talks to is fed up of the corruption and the heavy handedness of the amils and vali-mullahs. Some few are trying to put a religious twist to it: they claim we must put up with this hardship simply because "maula" has appointed the amils and mullahs. However, such people are in the minority. If the dissatisfaction reaches a critical point the priests will be forced reconsider their position. Our job is to aggressively present the aims of the movement, fight for social justice, reassure that we are not trying to overthrow the da'i's position, and most importantly, show by personal example that we are not the demons the da'i and his administration portray us to be.

Second, one does not need to believe in something for one to consider it part of their heritage. I do not believe in the Greek gods, but I do consider the Greek philosophy, literature and poetry to be a part of human, and hence my, culture and heritage. Rational thinking, logic, mathematics are all Greek heritages. We do not reject them simply because we do not believe in Apollo or Zeus. The Fatimd philosophy and literature marks a milestone in human thought. So does works by Sunni proponents like Ghazali. For example, the books compiled by the Ikhawan al-Safa were an attempt to assimilate Greek knowledge, extend it and give it an Islamic veneer. Now these authors were not stupid, but did not have the benefit of modern science and its methods to guide their speculations. They did not leave us a "pack of lies" as you put it, but they were mistaken, given their limited understanding of the universe. Our present understanding of, say cosmology may appear mistaken to those living 1000 years from now. But obviously we are not propagating a "pack of lies". The problem arises when one tries to say that what some medieval people wrote some thousand years ago is the absolute unchangeable truth. This does not work in either science or ethics. Human condition is changing and wanting simple answers from 1000 years ago is a good recipe for disaster. Of course, sacrifices made by individuals in heroic conditions (like by Hussain and S. Kuttbudin) are to be used as examples of self-sacrifice and perseverance in the face of enormous challenges. They are equally applicable to Hindus as they are to Muslims.

Also, you and others like Muslim First keep parroting the words "just Quran and Sunnah". There is no such thing. Your understanding of these is through intermediaries like Yusuf Ali, Pickhtal and Shakir. Then you may pick up some tafsir which are quite essential to make any sense of the scripture. Then you may read Bukhari, Muslim etc. in translation with commentaries on them. You may attend some scholar's talk or lectures. Now tell me how this is "just Quran and Sunnah"? Your understanding is though heavy filters of these individuals. They decided for you, 1000 years ago what you should believe. Not you yourself by your own efforts of perusing the Quran. The hadith are in a worse situation: they are impossible to verify and the criteria of authenticity were whatever suited the individual whim and prejudice of the collector. This is no different that the filter of the Fatimids or the duat which the bohras use. So you can not claim any superiority over the bohras. Your own beliefs are equally superstitious and ridiculous as everyone else, including Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jews etc.

Anyway, there is no question of any bohra accepting the Progressive ideals if we dispose the da'i and his administration. We can only try to make them accountable and leave religious beliefs to individual conscious. Finally, as Humsafar pointed out there is a difference between individual beliefs and group positions. No need to put everyone in the same bucket.