Reformist Activities - Defining Success

[ezzoud]

So the reform movment have organised and completed yet another "successful" conference in Surat ...but is the world "successful" really an appropriate term for such gatherings ?

The history of these worldwide reformists conferences have without question produced substantial hot air with very little productive action in challenging to reform the Kothar.

More worryingly, Have the recent reformists conferences produced a "select group" who are driven by the ambition to produce their own "cult" ??

[serendipity]

AS YOU SUGGEST, both Kothar & Reformists are "select little groups" who know they've got a good thing going. They certainly don't need any Imam to INTERFERE with their building or business schemes!!! Yet the fact remains: WITHOUT HIM, THEY HAVE NO REASON FOR BEING. They might as well be Zaydis or Sunnis! (Fortunately I know that he has some true followers, even where there are BUNCHES of Zaydis and Wahabis living. )

[Humsafar]

The irony of your situation is obviously lost on you. Do you appreciate the fact that you can come to this site and demand that reformists define their success? That in itself in no small measure defines the success of the reform movement. Try doing the same thing - that is question the success of Kothar's tamashas - on any of the orthodox sites and you will know what you are up against. One would not have normally taken you seriously but your cynicism must not go unchallenged.

The reformist conference was held in Surat - at the centre of Bohra orthodoxy - without any opposition or calls of "Islam in danger". The first reformist conference in the 70s in Bombay was marked by huge protests organised by the priesthood and was held under police protection. Can you see the difference the three decades have made? The priesthood is now subdued and on the defensive. And that , for starters, is the success of the reform movement and the latest conference.

You talk about reformists doing "very little productive action in challenging to reform the Kothar". You've any idea what you are talking about? As a small group, reformist are doing what they can, but the real productive action is only possible when more and more common bohras wake up from their slumber and start supporting demands for reform. A small group can only do so much in challenging a powerful and perverse clergy. What we need is the critical mass - which alas is not possible so long as cynical fence-sitters like you keep producing flatulent hot air and expect that change and reform be presented to you on a platter. If you care, join the struggle. Only then you have the right to carp and quibble.

Have the recent reformists conferences produced a "select group" who are driven by the ambition to produce their own "cult" ??

Is that a question or an accusation? It's nobody's contention that the reform movement is or should be perfect. Of course there are clashes of personalities and positions. But then that's the whole frigging point. Perfect discipline and order are possible only in a totalitarian system, e.g. the kothar. Of course there are differences amongst us, but to label them as "select groups" and "cult" is to border on paranoia.

And dear Serendipity,

For the love of your Imam, pls do not make a fool of yourself. Imam has nothing to do with this. It's really pitiful that you should be reduced to clutching at measly scraps such as "select little groups". Your desperation is showing, get a grip on yourself.

[serendipity]

No desparation at all, bro...you're the one who takes himself far too seriously (ALWAYS in a deadly & lengthy lecture mode, I might add). But ezzoud's got it right about how SIMILAR you are to that "priesthood" you love to trash. You have as much of a VESTED INTEREST in this as they do, which is why you're always "on the defensive" too!

[trance]

all,

I might take it that we do not bother with these minor insignioficant groups who are no threat to our dawat.
Maybe you should remain underground and remain insignificant ! Asghar (the snake) and his entourage.

YOU MUDDAIS ARE A LOST CAUSE WALLOWING IN SELF PITY,LEADERLESS POWERLESS FAITHLESS AND COWARDICE.

BYE for now

[Humsafar]

For pity's sake Serendipity, my point to you was only this, that Imam has nothing to do with all this.

But all you do is turn around - in a classic non-sequitur mode - and accuse me of being defensive, hectoring and what not.

Well, now that you mention it, let it be known that any unfair and unthinking criticism of the reform movement on this board will not go unchallenged. If I've to resort to "deadly lecturing" then so be it, and you and others better be prepared for it. Besides I believe in explaining my position clearly and at length. I see no virtue in cryptic soundbites that raises more questions than answers them. For example, can you elaborate on this gem of yours: "You have as much of a VESTED INTEREST in this as they do"? Can you provide evidence to support your statement? Or this just another of your wild, Imam-inspired shot in the dark??

[serendipity]

Hey bud...for one who acts so "pollyanna" about not ridiculing or throwing dirt at others, you sure love to dish it out!! You are AS VESTED in the battle for people, property, masjids, budgets, and PR propaganda, as your sinister opponents. It's just a good ol' fashioned corporate power struggle, so cut the crap... there's NO ALTRUISM involved in any of it.

While it's a real CHUCKLE to you, and conveniently ignored by BOTH parties, the irreducible fact of the matter is that "without Imam" neither reformists NOR syednists possess an ounce of credibility or legitimacy....you're just bogus. But before you resort to your habitual SCORN, why don't you try asking some ismaili from Najran and Saudi if THEY know their Imam? I guarantee you'll get a DIFFERENT answer and it won't be jaded cynicism. But then they understand the meaning of REAL hardship (something an ex-Trot should be able to appreciate). It's called repression, murder, torture, arbitrary imprisonment, and systematic "re-education" of children -- inflicted by their own "fellow-religionists". And while there may not be the ASSETS of an AFFLUENT people (the dawoodi's) to have a power struggle over, their Faith is strong, bro...the Faith is STRONG.

[Humsafar]

Serendipity,

How you raise straw men and then love to shoot them down. For Imam's sake, reformists have no pretensions to ALTRUISM or even extra-worldly spiritualism. Our battle, if you have not yet figured it out, is for very down-to-earth matters, i.e. rights, dignity and accountability. I've no idea how you can equate this to "corporate power struggle", but then that's your problem.

As for the Imam, his presence or absence doesn't change the ground reality one wee bit. Ditto for credibility and legitimacy. I don't care about the kind of "credibility and legitimacy" you're talking about, but supposing we had all of it - to its very last frigging drop - our problems would still remain. The reform struggle is of itself and in itself completely legitimate, as legitimate as any struggle for rights and dignity in human history. A lack of Imam cannot take away our legitimacy any more than it can deny us our inherent rights as human beings. It is as simple as that.

why don't you try asking some ismaili from Najran and Saudi if THEY know their Imam?

What has this got to do with anything, for crying out loud? Oh ye master of logical fallacies when will you stop going off at cryptic tangents???

[ezzoud]

Originally posted by Humsafar:
The irony of your situation is obviously lost on you. Do you appreciate the fact that you can come to this site and demand that reformists define their success? That in itself in no small measure defines the success of the reform movement.

The reformists movement has been operational for over 75 years+ & within that timescale, technological advances have allowed the growth of mediums of communication like the Internet…so what is your point ?

Try doing the same thing - that is question the success of Kothar's tamashas - on any of the orthodox sites and you will know what you are up against. One would not have normally taken you seriously but your cynicism must not go unchallenged.

The reformist conference was held in Surat - at the centre of Bohra orthodoxy - without any opposition or calls of "Islam in danger". The first reformist conference in the 70s in Bombay was marked by huge protests organised by the priesthood and was held under police protection. Can you see the difference the three decades have made?

Try to look beyond the poor examples you have provided. Lets look at the at the actual content of these conferences…Are they really justified taking into account the expense and lack of progressive action that derives from them ?

The priesthood is now subdued and on the defensive. And that , for starters, is the success of the reform movement and the latest conference.

Please, do not fall into the trap that many of the reformists ‘leaders’ fall into. Gross sensalization and irresponsible hype. FACT. With over a 1 million bohras and less than 12,000 reformists Bohras, The current reformists movement is a non-entity in the Kothars eyes.

You talk about reformists doing "very little productive action in challenging to reform the Kothar". You've any idea what you are talking about?

Yes – Perhaps more than most reformists know. Try to stick to the subject matter rather than pandering to meaningless speculation.

As a small group, reformist are doing what they can,

Disagree – Over the last 20 years there is too much internal conflict which has blunted the direction of the movement, largely due to ego massaging of our so called leaders…

But the real productive action is only possible when more and more common bohras wake up from their slumber and start supporting demands for reform. A small group can only do so much in challenging a powerful and perverse clergy.

This is the problem..The reformist leaders are so focussed on promoting their own positions that the gathering of the reformists community into a unified movemet , focused on the challenging of reforming the kothar has gone astray.

What we need is the critical mass - which alas is not possible so long as cynical fence-sitters like you keep producing flatulent hot air and expect that change and reform be presented to you on a platter. If you care, join the struggle. Only then you have the right to carp and quibble.

The reformist movement provides a comfort zone for its member’s. This is again an issue, which the reformist’s leaders need to tackle.

Have the recent reformists conferences produced a "select group" who are driven by the ambition to produce their own "cult" ??

Is that a question or an accusation?

Both.

It's nobody's contention that the reform movement is or should be perfect.

The understatement of the year

Of course there are clashes of personalities and positions. But then that's the whole frigging point.

Really I thought the ‘point’ was the direction of the reform movement ?

Perfect discipline and order are possible only in a totalitarian system, e.g. the kothar. Of course there are differences amongst us, but to label them as "select groups" and "cult" is to border on paranoia.

In your opinion but the drastic reduction in numbers of people in the reform movement worldwide is perhaps the key indicator that the reformists activities are proving to be a deterrent rather than beacon which represents the true Dawat Faith to its members.

[serendipity]

Regarding H's remark: "...reformists have no pretensions to ALTRUISM or even extra-worldly spiritualism."

Should they not then at least HONOR the ideals that supposedly DEFINE who they are?? I find a distinct LACK of such respect in you, as well as DISBELIEF - "excused" by you on the grounds that it's not your particular agenda!!

"As for the Imam, his presence or absence doesn't change the ground reality one wee bit. Ditto for credibility and legitimacy. I don't care about the kind of credibility and legitimacy you're talking about."

IN CASE it has somehow escaped your notice all these years, "Dawoodi bohra" means something VERY SPECIFIC within the world of Islam and belief systems in general. If you "don't care about" the origins and defining characteristics of what you're trying to REFORM, then at least find another way of expressing your "noble urge" for social justice!! Because in the face of your obvious INSINCERITY about the fundamental tenets of bohra faith, your solemn and "professorial" pronouncements JUST DON'T FLY!

[Humsafar]

Originally posted by ezzoud:
The reformists movement has been operational for over 75 years+ & within that timescale, technological advances have allowed the growth of mediums of communication like the Internet…so what is your point ?

The point is, you're not allowed to ask questions at the orthodox sites. All this has nothing to do with techonolgical advances.

Try to look beyond the poor examples you have provided. Lets look at the at the actual content of these conferences…Are they really justified taking into account the expense and lack of progressive action that derives from them ?

Poor examples? That reformists can now hold conferences peacefully without Kothar being able to create any trouble is of significance to you? If you can't appreciate this, then you've no idea what distance we have travelled. As for the actual content, obviously it doesn't fill your heart with pride? Nor does it mine either? But c'mon it's not all that bad.

But the question is, when was the last time you suggested a more "meaningful content" (assuming you're a reformist). This cynical disgruntled grumbling from the sidelines does nobody any good. As I said, if you care, join in and do something. Stop being a quitter and whinger. That's the easiest thing to do.

Please, do not fall into the trap that many of the reformists ‘leaders’ fall into. Gross sensalization and irresponsible hype. FACT. With over a 1 million bohras and less than 12,000 reformists Bohras, The current reformists movement is a non-entity in the Kothars eyes.

12,000 or even 1200 ... how does it matter. Reformists' fight is based on principles - calling for deep commitment, sacrifice and suffering. And we are in it for the long haul. Not everybody has the stomach for this kind of struggle. All the opportunists have left us by and by, and we are none the worse for it.

Disagree – Over the last 20 years there is too much internal conflict which has blunted the direction of the movement, largely due to ego massaging of our so called leaders…

That's a sweeping statement! And you sound terribly bitter and disgruntled. Please explain what's the "too much internal conflict" and how it has "blunted the direction of the movement"?

This is the problem..The reformist leaders are so focussed on promoting their own positions that the gathering of the reformists community into a unified movemet , focused on the challenging of reforming the kothar has gone astray.

Again, support your statements with evidence.

The reformist movement provides a comfort zone for its member’s. This is again an issue, which the reformist’s leaders need to tackle.

Why would you deny reformists their comfort zone? What is wrong with that?

Really I thought the ‘point’ was the direction of the reform movement ?

You're quite hung up on the "direction of the reform movement". It would help if you could explain how the movement has lost its direction, and what it should rather be doing. Real constructive criticism would help.

In your opinion but the drastic reduction in numbers of people in the reform movement worldwide is perhaps the key indicator that the reformists activities are proving to be a deterrent rather than beacon which represents the true Dawat Faith to its members.

As I said, reformists should not fall into the trap of the numbers game. We should only care about people with commitment. Our numbers have dwindled because people care more about their petty interests and little conveniences.

[jinx]

Originally posted by serendipity:
AS YOU SUGGEST, both Kothar & Reformists are "select little groups" who know they've got a good thing going. They certainly don't need any Imam to INTERFERE with their building or business schemes!!! Yet the fact remains: WITHOUT HIM, THEY HAVE NO REASON FOR BEING.

Isn't the answer obvious. Where was the Imam when we needed him?

Maybe there is no Imam ...and we are just fool for believing in him. Maybe beliving in Imam is a good thing for us because by having an "invisible friend" we can somewhat justify our faith?

They certainly don't need any Imam to INTERFERE with their building or business schemes!!!

Exactly. Khotar has been using the name of Imam for every rotten scheme comming our way, did the Imam voice his objection/approval? No. So how useful is the concept of invisible Imam?

The reformist can by same mean, call people to the conference and to the reformist society/organization by the same standard and I bet the Imam would not dissaprove/approve..and so what does that tell you?

The Imam is a pawn in khotar scheme of thing. And it is best for reformist to not get into the same business of using the name of Imam for everything under the sun

[spot]

to all,
i find it ironic in this discussion. reformist have come to a point of justifing their existance.

i thought the reform movement was to educate bohras in general of the misleading and malcontent of the priesthood. however, this is far from what they actually do.

only recently have reformist leaders begin giving courses on the basics of rituals, this as a result of reformist youth (and many elders) not knowing how to pray or recite quran.

there have been absolutely no publications of actual doctrines (original or translation) to teach and support the reformist in anyway. the diam islam of qadi numan, translated by poonawala, while a great work in itself, doesn't support the reformist cause, its tenet or its objection. and nothing has been written by reformist leaders to cross examine what priesthood teaches and what the reformist complain about.

all that is constantly written about is what the reformist don't like and that it is anti ismaili. yet not one publications is offered to support the reformist claim. reformist push their doctrines without substancing them, and still deny ortho doctrines without substancing them. YOU TALK OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, YET BASE IT ON NOT ONE SOURCE OF ISMAILI DOCTRINE. democracy is not ismaili, nor is indivdual jamat bodies.

yes there have been many articles of analysis written in magazines and on this website, but the proof cross reference is always gloss over.

my point in writing this diatribe, is that the reformist had a conference in surat and nothing of any substance came of it but a social convention (majority of the participants didn't even look like muslims!!!). the fact that no disturbances occurred is more a credit to the ortho in an education of manners rather than any great claims by reformist.

reformist mocks and points the faults of the orthos priests, yet provide absolutely nothing that is more correct with more understanding. The lack of education to the reformist is just as bad!

reformist are dawoodi bohras and should act, dress, and speak as those described by the Imams and early Dais. how can we criticize ortho bohras about not following the ismaili doctrines when we don't even resemble muslims!!!

[Humsafar]

Here comes another clueless whiner. If you're not a reformist then your diatribe is irrelevant. If you are a reformist, then I've just this to ask you: when was the last time you did anything - anything - to advance the reformist cause? Launching such bitter and banal broadside is easy. If you care, do something.

Anyways, here's a response to your diatribe:

i find it ironic in this discussion. reformist have come to a point of justifing their existance.

How are reformists trying to justify their existence? And even if they are, why should it be deemed as ironic?

1 thought the reform movement was to educate bohras in general of the misleading and malcontent of the priesthood. however, this is far from what they actually do

Well, you thought wrong. Not many bohras need education about their corrupt clergy. They KNOW how bad the priesthood is. They are not fools, just weak of heart and mind. What they need is the motivation and the will to do something about it.

there have been absolutely no publications of actual doctrines (original or translation) to teach and support the reformist in anyway….

Are you looking for a quran for the reformist cause? Maybe it's a good idea (but don't hold your breath for it). But for those who want to know and care to know there's enough information available in The Bohras by Asghar Ali Engineer, in two inquiry commissions reports on the human rights violations by the Bohra clergy, in hundreds of articles and resolutions (some of them available on this website).

In all of these there's enough doctrinal support for the reformist movement.

the diam islam of qadi numan, translated by poonawala, while a great work in itself, doesn't support the reformist cause…

It's supposed to be a translation. It wasn't translated to support the reformist cause. The point is that even if a half-aware reader who reads daim ul Islam and compares it what is happening in the community, he will know that something is terribly wrong with the way our community is being run. You don’t need further exigesis and explanations to support the reformist cause. Dain ul islam on its own does a good job of it.

reformist push their doctrines without substancing them, and still deny ortho doctrines without substancing them.

It seems the more you write on this subject, the more your ignorance shows. For crying out loud, reformists tout no doctrine of their own, leave alone "substancing" them. All we are asking for is simple social reforms. By the same token, we do not oppose any ortho doctrines. If you read reformist literature you will know why reformists oppose certain practices of the priesthood and we provide enough doctrinal "substancing" for it. If you can find any instance where we have said something and not provided enough 'substancing", pls bring it to our notice and we'll be happy to do so.

YOU TALK OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, YET BASE IT ON NOT ONE SOURCE OF ISMAILI DOCTRINE.

As for "social justice", that's a sweeping term and I'm sure you've no idea what it means. Every sane and sensible person should demand and fight for social justice, and you need no justification for it other than the fact it is your inherent right as a human being. If you can't understand these simple, fundamental truths without some doctrine to support them, then you should know that islam started out as a revolt against social ills of meccan society. It was a movement for social and economic justice. The quran talks about charity and justice for the poor for nothing. It berates the rich and their usurious practices for nothing. It calls for end to slavery, and at least for just treatment of slaves for nothing. (And here I'm just skimming the surface.)

If you insist on Ismaili justification, well can you name any imam you called and treated his followers like slaves, who usurped up community's wealth and spent it on his out-of-control incestuous 'royal family', who made mullahs in exchange for money, who demand to be paid huge sums for ziyafats, etc. etc? (Here too I'm just skimming the surface.)

To sum up, reformist are not fighting of "social justice" (I wish they were) but certain "social" reforms and we underline the social part of it because we know there are fools out there who will distort and misrepresent the whole thing as a struggle for "religious reform".

democracy is not ismaili, nor is individual jamat bodies..

Again, democracy is a fundamental truth of human existence. Democracy is human. If democracy is not Ismaili, then Ismailism is not human. But this is beside the point. To raise the issue of democracy in the context of the reform movement is to set up a bogeyman. Reformists are not asking for the election of Dai (though I personally would prefer that). All they want is the autonomy of local jamaats: what this means is that members of a jamaat should have full control of the property, decision-making and running of the jamaat. Only an autocrat can have objections to such a sensible position.

my point in writing this diatribe, is that the reformist had a conference in surat and nothing of any substance came of it but a social convention

What do you think should have the ideal outcome of the conference? The purpose of a conference - any conference - is to meet, share ideas and experience, reaffirm commitment, take stock, plan future course of action etc. There's a sense of euphoria and renewed determination during the length of the conference, resolutions are passed, promises are made. And in the course of time, certain things are done and others fall by the wayside. This is how a voluntary, ad hoc movement works - fuelled solely by the commitment, time and effort of dedicated individuals. There's no coercion here, and the reform movement is a not a well-oiled machine a la Kothar (and thank god for that). Of course, it can do better. But then, even god could have done better.

(majority of the participants didn't even look like muslims!!!)

Here you crossover from ignorance to stupidity. What are muslims supposed to look like? I will wait for your answer with proper "substancing" before I tell you what I think of your stupidity.

the fact that no disturbances occurred is more a credit to the ortho in an education of manners rather than any great claims by reformist.

Okay have it your way. At least somebody is learning manners.

reformist mocks and points the faults of the orthos priests, yet provide absolutely nothing that is more correct with more understanding. The lack of education to the reformist is just as bad!

You repeat yourself. See my response above.

reformist are dawoodi bohras and should act, dress, and speak as those described by the Imams and early Dais.

Can you provide "substancing" in this matter from Imams and early dais.

how can we criticize ortho bohras about not following the ismaili doctrines when we don't even resemble muslims!!!

Again you repeat yourself. Muslims, for your information, should act, dress and speak like human beings - in as many variety as they come. The trouble is some of them behave like zombies - and that is the problem.

[Alislam]

Declaring openly against the Quran, finding faults with the Prophet, denying the existence of an Imam by many reformists on this board and elsewhere and thus denying the basic tenets of being a dawoodi bohra cannot be called a reform moment.

It is sheer hyprocricy to say that the reform is mainly to do with social issues and nothing to do with the basic tenets of ismailism and then going all the way in questioning the tenets.

[Humsafar]

Here comes another one!!! When it rains it pours.

My personal opinions are entirely mine and have nothing to do with the reform movement. Confusing the two does justice neither to me, nor to the movement - and exposes you as one with poor intelligence.

Though I tend to speak in behalf of the reform movement more vociferously than most, I am NOT the reform movment. I'm entitled to my opinions, and free to express them.

[Average Bohra]

Spot,

Humsafar beat me to this, but I too am curious as to what a Muslim is supposed to "look like" [!] when you say "majority of the participants didn't even look like muslims! "

Last time a checked Islam was a religion, not a gene pool.

[spot]

humsafar,
i am not a scholar, so other than physical body count, i can't advance the movement. but the reform movement has many scholars, many of which have copies of the source documents they rip the priesthood on. to be a participant is not the same as being a leader. yet our leaders, just like the priest, gloss over actual content and only reference and rarely a direct quote. the engineers, hamdani, abid ali scholar i refer to are scholars and degrade the priesthood by tongue and pen, but with the same undocumented scholarship as the priesthood does.

it is ironic because the whole movement has/had a goal, and majority of what it does now is to catch up before imploding. we are losing members because we offer nothing more than an agenda. an agenda will not sustain a movement.

remember education is the key, an our members are just as ignorant of the actual info and practices as when the movement first started. majority of bohra, reform or ortho, know most of the shiekh, mullahs, bhaisaheb are corrupt to some degree. but the basis reformist use is from our history and sources to criticize the corruption. where are we than? no where!

i am not looking for a quran from the reformist, i am looking for info to substanitate the basis of our claims, not just the rhetoric we spew. i read the book by dr. engineer. i could have found most of it on the internet and from the agha khan ismaili books. the articles on this website describe events and problems, but in the few instances where a historical document of the past dais or imams practices are referenced, the info is totally gloss over. we use this info as the basis of our case and never quote or translate a single passage from them.

every cause must have a basis. how can a reformist say the dai is not following the guidelines per the description of dai naishapuri, when no reformist has a complete passage (original or translated) to quote from.

social justice per what you think is social justice or what our imams and dais described as social justice? yes, i am looking for ismaili justification (its the first thing i wrote) because i am an ismaili bohra and i want to practice the beliefs i claim to believe in. i don't want to act on the justification of us or europe or saudi or iran.

democracy is not islamic nor was it ever supported by the imams. this i know from maulana ali so don't push that crap. and this is what i mean. the reform movement was to take us bohras back to the way the dais and imams treated their followers. i am not talking about electing a dai, but everything outside of that is an election, and the imams or dais didn't do that.

the conference should have scholars come together and supplement the movement, educate the attendee on the basis of reform, not just that we don't like what they do because it is not right.

humsafar and ab, muslims defined by diam islam, translated by dr. poonawala, clearly describes what shiah should look like and clothing worn, whom shiah should have contact with, the manners of gathering. what did the pictures of the convention portray: majoriy of mens in suits, heads uncovered, few beards, sitting next to women (most of who heads were uncovered), interacting as though they were mehram.

don't get me wrong, i am not spouting a wahabi style gathering, but we should at least practice our faith according to our books, right?! but than again, in canada we need mullahs to give courses on teaching youths and adults how to pray.

Can you provide "substancing" in this matter from Imams and early dais.

Other than from one translated book of dr. poonawala, not i can't, and that is exactly the problem. i can't tell you why the priest is wrong other than i don't like. i nor you can quote from a historical book or saying of an ismaili imam or dai to support my argument. this is the problem!

here's an idea, how about an article on how a bohra mumin should dress, talk, and act according to our sourcees, and actually quoting from them. how about an article on how a dai should be quoting and translating passages from the actual book that describes this.

let me quote an example of the reformist rhetoric:

"Islam stands for accountability both to Allah and to society. The Holy Prophet (pbuh) and Hazrat Ali (S.A) always accounted for the Baitul Mal and even if the humblest one in society questioned them about the expenses from state treasury they most willingly accounted for it. Even the dearest ones of the Prophet (PBUH) and the members of the Ahl al-Bayt did not claim any privilege above other mu'minin (believers) and they were ever ready to serve others." (march 2005, bohra chronicle, resolution 2)

this is a great passage and i have been taught as a reformist to believe this. i have yet to read something leaders quoting from our sources actually claiming this though. is this passage just an opinion or is it factual? i wanna know, don't you?

oh and i repeated myself and you still didn't get it.

[kalim]

As Humsafar has made it clear many times the Reform Movement is a
social struggle and not one of doctrine. One part of this is to
achieve local jamaat autonomy. This way local resources can be best
managed. Of course, Amils or Wali mullas are still needed to guide the
religious life of the community. However when the priesthood oversteps
itself and starts interfering in personal and secular matters of
individuals tyranny sets in. The issue of excessive monetary demands
have also been highlighted previously on this board and website.

Many people on this board have often said that democracy is not
Islamic or individual liberty is not Islamic or some other concept
predominantly found in Western countries is not Islamic. Why this
should be is not so clear. Fourteen hundred years ago when Rasul-allah
brought Islam life was very different. The community was initially
small and there was a need for stricter laws to maintain unity and
propagate the religion. Now Islam is a global religion with people of
all backgrounds, cultures, languages and ethnicity. In such a
situation religious laws must change and become more flexible to
accommodate local culture and customs.

One example of this is the Islamic literature found in almost all
languages of the world. This is not a new phenomena. For example even
at the time of the Fatimid Empire many Da'is wrote in languages other
than Arabic. For example, the great Da'i Nasir Khusraw wrote almost
exclusively in Persian. The Da'is of India adopted Gujrati as the
community language. Not only did these Da'is and Imams adapted new
languages but they also borrowed ideas heavily from Greeks, Indians
and other Gnostics. How come these people did not think that any
language other than Arabic is not Islamic or any knowledge other than
from Arabs is not Islamic?

Another example is the numerous Indian customs that have been adopted
by the Bohras and Khojas. For example, certain marriage ceremonies,
birthday "wadhavanu", etc. are all essentially Indian traditions. Many
people many not know this but the traditional dress worn by the Da'i
is essentially of Rajput origin. This is not so surprising given that
the Da'is claim decent from Bharmal and Tarmal who were Rajputs.

Anyway, this shows that the Da'is and Imam's were all progressive,
adapting religious attitudes according to the times. In today's world
people value individual liberty. A person who has has the freedom to
express himself or do as he pleases within the bounds of local law
tends to live a satisfied life and wants others to enjoy these
freedoms too. If a religion tries to stifle these freedoms then that
religion will seem tyrannical. This is specially important as it is
today impossible to find a country (except for totalitarian regimes)
in which all people share exactly the same values and religion. The
very act of participating in this forum is an exercise of your
liberty.

Someone mentioned that there is no doctrinal literature which one can
learn from. That is not at all true. Firstly as the Progressive
Movement is not about doctrine the same books used by the orthodox can
be used by the progressives. Further a huge amount of information is
available in English. As Humsafar mentioned the book by Dr. Engineer
is a good starting point. Another valuable book, though now long out
of print and difficult to find, is "Gulzare Daudi for the Bohras of
India". More recent books are "Mullahs on the mainframe : Islam and
modernity among the Daudi Bohras", "The Ismailis: their history and
doctrines". There are also several dozen books on Fatmid/Ismaili
history and philosophy all in English. Besides this there are
literally over a thousand papers on Ismailis in various research
journals. For details about religious ceremonies one should consult
the handbook (sahifa) written by Amatuallah Aai Saheba. It has all
details about Namaz, marriage, various special duas for Ramadan and
Muharran etc. Someone also mentioned that information about court
proceedings are hard to come by. That is also not true. Supreme court
of India maintains an excellent website and for a small sum of money
you can read exact proceedings of any case you wish.

I also do not see the harm in looking at the life of Rasul-allah and
the text of the Quran more critically. Although Rasul-allah's behavior
may be completely in line with his times, a modern person reading his
biography, or specially the hadith literature, might find many
disturbing things. For example, his marriage to Aisha when she was
still very young (six or seven according to hadiths), or his marriage
and desire for his adopted son's wife Zainab, or having more wives
than permitted to other muslims are rather strange from a modern
perspective. Anyway, this is a sensitive issue and many muslims may
find it hard to have a civil discourse about it.

Finally I would like to express my opinion about Serendipity's point
about spirituality. Once again, the Progressive Movement is not about
doctrinal details or about another route to spirituality. It is about social
causes. Another point is that mystical experiences have meaning for
only the person who experiences them. You may feel you have a deep and
spiritual relation with the Imam however such feelings do not hold any
meaning for others, unless they experience it for themselves. Most
people will find it hard to philosophize in the face of social
adversity. As someone has said before "its no use teaching metaphysics
to the hungry".

[serendipity]

Re: "You may feel you have a deep and spiritual relation with the Imam however such feelings do not hold any meaning for others, unless they experience it for themselves. Most people will find it hard to philosophize in the face of social adversity. As someone has said before its no use teaching metaphysics to the hungry."

Perhaps. But also consider the "social adversity" I mentioned above, that is endured on a regular basis today by the non-dawoodi bohras of najran, in saudi arabia. These people are routinely brutalized & ostracized by the Wahabi regime there in ways that make all of the Kothar's crimes seem MILD by comparison!

Yet it's the SPECIFIC NATURE of their bohra faith that keeps these people going in adversity; as with the brothers there who would only talk to me BECAUSE I shared their belief and experience of the Imam. ONE THING FOR CERTAIN. This was hardly some "luxury" they could afford to "philosophize about"!

[spot]

kalim and humsafar

i don't think my words or questions are getting through clearly.

the progressive/reform movement is completely about confirmation of the dawoodi bohra doctrines. reformist believe the priesthood has corrupted this doctrines and thus you have the social struggle. the struggle is the interpretation of doctrines. everything the priesthood does is cloaked in their interpretation of doctrines and history, not just secular social justifications.

this is why bohras have little on their side to argue with, they know something is wrong yet have no access to source documents to prove the mullahs wrong.

it is statements like when the "priesthood oversteps itself and starts interfering in personal and secular matters of individuals" that you are confused with. the priesthood use interpretation of doctrines of faith to do this, they're not just inventing stuff. zakat, sabil, raza are all doctrines terms. it is the use of these terms that reformist disagree with. but do we have anything written or passages that substantiate our disagreement from the sources? i sure haven't seen it!

let me give you an example of what i mean:
zakat is required by all muslims. the priesthood say it is to be collected by a person assign by the amil, who is the rep of the dai. the amount is either documented or negotiated. and it must be paid based on what you have, not just what you want to give. reformist say the zakat is charity and can be given to anyone in need and can be in any amount (it is between them and God).

now i ask you, who is correct and what is the basis from our books and history to support the reformist argument. the mullahs say this is the way the imams collected zakat yet provide a few hadiths from diam islam to support it. the reformist have no supporting evidence published from our sources to counter with. this is what i mean.

another example is barat:
the priesthood say if a bohra breaks the misaq they had taken, it is justified in excommunication from the community. they bas this from the quran, they reference hadiths to support its use AS THEY DO. now reformist disagree with this, but provide no historical evidence to trump the priesthood with, other than the words "its not islamic". based on what, this is what i want to know.

regarding democracy, i am not refering to rasullah and his times, i am referring to fatimi imams or the dais of yemen or india, who controlled vast and diverse areas. did they appoint people to religious posts and run the jamats or did the individual community run the jamats? this is what i want to know?!

in the end, you suggest i should do the research. firstly, i don't think i am qualified to interpret doctrines. secondly, shouldn't the leaders and scholars of the reformist community have done this already.

[Humsafar]

Kalim, thank you for adding a voice of sanity and gravitas to the discussion. You've managed to tackle a whole range of issues very nicely and, I might add, eloquently. Welcome on board, literally.

Spot, I'm glad you've changed the tone of your language - from carping cynicism to that of sincere inquiry. Way to go.

You'll hopefully find answers to your questions in the following articles - with proper doctrinal references. I've picked up the most relevant ones, but there are more here: http://dawoodi-bohras.com/issues.htm. Please read them. There's no substitute to reading -- and thinking. Think for yourself - as a reformist and, more importantly, as a human being you owe it to yourself. The excuse that I'm not a leader/scholar will not work. Besides, "leader" and "scholar" are meaningless labels. The problem with our community - and all human organisations - is that we allow the so-called leaders, scholars to do the thinking for us.

Religion is far more simpler than it is made out to be. And if you think religion is important to you then you must find the time and make the effort to study and understand it, otherwise you're setting yourself up to be exploited by corrupt priests and self-serving leaders. If you expect to be spoonfed then all that you'll be fed is garbage.

One more thing, it's always a bad idea to view scriptures with absolute rigidity. Nothing is eternal. Values, morality, ideas etc. change with time. Islam originated in the 7th century tribal Arabia and Ismaili Imams ruled during the medieval times - it is foolish to live by the values, ethos, requirements and expectations of those times. Scriptures lay down broad guidelines and absolute principles by which we should lead our lives. Apply these principles in whatever you do - how you speak, dress, behave etc. That's the key. Religion has been reduced to mere rituals. And rituals, in my personal opinion, don't matter. Do what makes you happy so long as it is in accord with the spirit of the scriptures.

Here are the articles:

http://dawoodi-bohras.com/issues/baraat.htm

http://dawoodi-bohras.com/issues/boh_reform.htm

http://dawoodi-bohras.com/issues/nathwani.htm

http://dawoodi-bohras.com/issues/misaq.htm

http://dawoodi-bohras.com/issues/code.htm

http://dawoodi-bohras.com/issues/beliefs.htm

http://dawoodi-bohras.com/issues/infallibility.htm

http://dawoodi-bohras.com/issues/seminar-report.htm

http://dawoodi-bohras.com/issues/movement.htm

http://dawoodi-bohras.com/issues/psyche.htm

[spot]

humsafar,
i have read those articles, and they are lacking exactly what i have been talking about, quoted passages from source documents.

the leaders/scholars have the ability to translate and transmit the sources documents, and i feel as leaders, they have a responsiblity to the laymen of the cause to do so. they have publishe just as little as the priesthood has done.

here my analysis of the article on barat. the terms is definitely islamic and is meant as "disassociation (excommunication)" as in severing the link between the follower and the guide. to me this is more important than excommunication from the community. but as a result, the community also excommuciate you.

the arguement by dr. engineer is that the term is NOW improperly used. but gloss over the words by dai hatim on the actually use or its limits. dr. engineer starts the article with an assumption and uses references with full quotes to support them. i know from shiah hadiths that imam jafar sadiq claimed barat against shiah who didn't support him or believe him. dr. engineer starts by saying "No Fatimi Da'i ever declared Baraat against dissenters before this was resorted to by the 51st Da'i" and then goes on to say how dai hatim did barat of ali al'zawahi. and then gives a definition of the limits of the barat, but never quotes from dai hatim's or the historical texts. the quote is what is needed!

regarding the article on misaq, the argument is "This oath, according to the reformers, is oppressive and binds the Bohras to submit to a total surrender not to God but personally to the Sayedna Saheb." in reading the rest of the article and the quoted misaq, many things are stated.

one, the misaq is an invention by the dais. what is this claim based on, when the 3rd dai hatim also took the misaq of his followers.

two, it should be for the imam only. the article says dai hatim words, but doesn't quote a passage of the dai's actual words for using it. if it is for the imam, why is the dai's name in it (forging?). the article misaq is dated the time of the 45th dai.

three, if it only of historical and ritual value, why even take it? did all the dai before dai saifudin use it only as historical and ritual value? this is what is need to be known.

[Humsafar]

Spot,

Good, you're not taking the scholar's word at face value. Challenge scholars/leaders with uncomfortable questions - that's the only way to keep them on their toes, and preserve our liberty.

The points you raise are a bit too fussy for my taste. I don't care either way whether baraat and misaaq can be validated by scriptures or not. To me they are inhuman practices - and no amount of doctrinal justification can make me accept them. Reformists reject them for the same reasons, and Dr. Engineer provides historical background to support that position.

But obviously you've your doubts and find gaps in his argument. Which is a good thing. Dr. Engineer is the best person to answer your questions. You can write to him at "csss@vsnl.com" and feel free to raise these points. He sure will respond to you.

[spot]

humsafar,
while i am a reformist and i support the reformist agenda, what you wrote is outside the limits of the agenda. i am a dawoodi bohra and honor the true ismaili dawa and belief whatever that may be, whether i personally consider them humane or not.

what you consider humane today maybe far different from what is humane tomorrow. belief cannot be based on the person's subjective reasoning. this is the same argument i've been having with JC on homosexuality.

"Reformists reject them for the same reasons, and Dr. Engineer provides historical background to support that position."

reformist reject barat on the basis of it being doctrinally true but misused, not because it is inhumane or not. the problem is dr. engineer didn't provide any doctrinal evidence to what it should and shouldn't be used for by the past imams or dais, though he may legimately have it.

[porus]

How is it that the current Dai and his Dad were able to transform a God-fearing 'Muslim' community into a cult of the Dai worship?

By interpreting the scriptures and all the books of Daawat to justify their activities. No matter what doctrinal authority you quote to demonstrate Kothar's 'iniquity' etc, the Dai will be able to convince his followers that you are wrong and are the enemy of Daawat. This is so because only the Dai is the voice of God for Bohras and there are no checks and balances on his use of authority.

Imams are no different, as some Aga Khanis have found. They will spin their own take on scriptures.

Even the great lynchpin of the Fatemi fiqh, Daaimul Islam, is entirely a justification of the divine right of the Imams to do as they please; and for Bohras, the same goes for the Imams' spiritual heirs, the Dai.

So, fighting for reform on the basis of doctrinal authority is a losing proposition. Is there a better way? There is, but must necessarily include attacks on the "solid and almost immovable' mass of doctrines. But then, reformists are not going to that, are they, seeing that they approve of being the slaves of the Imam.

[Humsafar]

i am a dawoodi bohra and honor the true ismaili dawa and belief whatever that may be, whether i personally consider them humane or not.

If you willfully choose to remain blind and thick, it's your prerogative. By the way, there's no such thing as "true" belief.

what you consider humane today maybe far different from what is humane tomorrow.

That is exactly my point. What was humane yesterday is inhumane today. Slavery was once acceptable - and even tolerated in the quran - but today judged by the norms and values of our times is considered immoral and illegal. Baraat/misaaq may have been fine once (although they were never used for purposes they are being used now) they are not so today.

belief cannot be based on the person's subjective reasoning.

Baraat/misaaq have nothing to do with belief. They are not fundamental to Ismaili doctrine. Even if they were, belief for its own sake is a meaningless exercise. Belief can only have meaning if it helps you become a better human being, if it lifts you spiritually and morally and shines light in the dark corners of your consciousness. Otherwise belief is dead ritual - or a tool of coercion by a corrupt and vulgar priesthood.

reformist reject barat on the basis of it being doctrinally true but misused, not because it is inhumane or not.

So long as they reject it, I'm fine with it.

the problem is dr. engineer didn't provide any doctrinal evidence to what it should and shouldn't be used for by the past imams or dais, though he may legimately have it.

Why are you getting caught up in pointless detail. As I said, write to Asghar Ali and he sure will be able to help you.

Porus has very succinctly expressed the dilemma of reformists. Our agenda is limited and immediate - to bring reform in the way our community is run and managed. Core Ismaili beliefs are not only off limits but quite irrelevant to our struggle. No matter how much doctrinal justification you provide for reformist position, dai's devotees cannot care less. To emphasise too much on donctrinal aspect is to dig yourself into a hole. So long as Imam is absent, the dai is on a shaky ground because he can only claim Imam's powers and rights by deceit. Reformists have a good reason to clobber him. But once Imam makes an appearance - and if he turns out to be as depraved as the dai - then reformists are in real trouble.

Ergo, if I were Dai, I would hey presto, produce an Imam.

[spot]

porus and humsafar,
ok, now we are in a quandry.

you say that we are now to ignore the doctrines of the imams and past dais because WE feel it is injust or otherwise.

you see my objective is not pointless, but at the heart of what the reformist are preaching. please read the article "No separation please, we are Dawoodi Bohras" which says the reformist is rooted in the ismaili-mustali faith and that the royal family has "hijacked" this faith.

the ismaili faith is not a society club where we inact and retract our own rules and reg. the imamate is the heart of this faith.

we cannot by any means accept the norms of today as a means for justification. otherwise concepts like homosexuality, alcohol, and a pandora's box of other things are also par for the course. acceptance of any idea because everyone else does it is just as blind and ignorant as not accepting it. islam and its tenets are not a compromise.

"Baraat/misaaq have nothing to do with belief. They are not fundamental to Ismaili doctrine."

you and others say these things but give little exegsis on the statement. what of the ismaili doctrine is fundemental... "doctrines according to humsafar"?

"But once Imam makes an appearance - and if he turns out to be as depraved as the dai - then reformists are in real trouble."

as rough a statement as this is, it calls to my point. i want to judge the actions of the current dai against the actions of previous dais and imams. this is the only legimate resource i can compare apples to apples. did the imams and dais of before practice the same as the current dai and BASED ON WHAT? you can't say the dai is "corrupt" in your opinion, if he is doing what the past dais or imams did.

if the imam were present his was corrupt and i didn't accept his action, should i call myself his follower than or denounce him like we do the current dai? you can't support the empty position yet not support the person in it, when you have no choice/decision in either matter.

i will be contacting dr. engineer and hopefully he can share his wealth of knowledge.

[porus]

Reformists are mistaken in thinking that Bohras consider Dai any less than Imam. There is no chink in his armour to open up this particular wedge; to think that it is possible to dis-associate any particular Dai from Imam.

No, the doctrine, as developed by the Dais, appropriates to the Dai all the powers and privileges of the Imam. Hence it is an error to seperate them. It is best to call the person Imam/Dai. Both the Imam's and the Dai's positions are occupied by specific person through divine command. How so?

Justification of the divine position of the Imam is too well known to need further discussion. But divinity is also applied to selection of the Dai with direct reference to Quran. For example, we have heard that ayat 4:174 refers to the current Dai. (It says " O mankind, Burhan has come to you from your lord. Lo we have sent down to you a manifest light"). Similarly, Sura "Ta Sin" is claimed to apply to Sayedna Taher Saifuddin.

In these circumstances, reform can only be possible if these doctrines are challenged.

Dai is not like a US President, where it can be claimed that a particular person is not fit for office. God decides who the Dai is.

Therefore, adherence to doctrine have you caught by short and curlies. Any form of attack on Kothar, however mild, is interpreted as attack on Dai, and hence on God, And we all know what the people who attack God deserve, don't we?

[mumineen]

Porus said:
"Dai is not like a US President, where it can be claimed that a particular person is not fit for office. God decides who the Dai is."

BS! and that's NOT Kothari Bhai Saheb (BS). What's Nuss! Appointment by a living Dai - NOT God.

Muqaddas Moula willed in writing to his son the current Aqua Moula that he should do the Nuss to the current Mazoon Khuzeima BS when he passes away. That was not God. The present Dai's sons - all seven of them do not wish their dad to comply with their grand dad's expressed wishes in writing and that's why all the fuss over the succession. Dad is reluctant to do any Nuss yet!