Incisive analysis by Mr. Engineer points to historical reasons for the state of the Bohras.
But, whether these reasons are still at play is debatable. A large number of Bohras are aware of Kothar's tyranny but choose to live with it because they value participation in community even more than being the wretches they are. They could hardly be described as "blind".
One of the factors is the nature of the society in the Indian sub-continent and their off-shoots abroad. Societies are fragmented along religious lines and people derive their identity through being a member of these groups.
Progressives do not offer a viable alternative because they are rooted in reaction and, in any case, want to follow, the dated and insipid Ismaili doctrines.
When progressives finally decide to break bonds with the past and offer the community real alternatives for rituals like birth, marriages and death, stranglehold of Kothar will loosen.
A new society for progressive Bohras could hopefully take root in the UK or the USA, where many members have both the philosophical disposition and also the financial muscle to break out of the community and start something genuinely new.
I would hope that the new Bohra religion would openly declare their roots in India, proudly continue with Hindu rituals and at the same time take new directions with new innovative vision of Islam born in the West.
In fact, the Aga Khani model, minus the baggage of Imam's divinity, would not be a bad start.
"What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
new innovative vision of Islam born in the West.
New innovative vision of Islam in the West ? It is non existent, what are you referring to?
This phenomenon is more rudimentary than you both are crediting it to be. Being a Bohra is very <B>easy[/b], as is the case with most religions where the <I>display</I> of faith is paramount, and faith itself is secondary. Please allow me to explain.
To be a <I>good</I> Bohra, you have to pay your dues, be seen at the Jamaat during significant events, and wear proper clothing if there is a chance that you may encounter fellow Bohris. Occasionally and voluntary kissing feet and inviting the Dai to your home for large sums of money makes you a Sheik. This gives you an elevated status (even perception of such a status is usually rewarding enough). That’s it…no questions asked.
To be a “progressive” anything, you have to take a stand, at the risk of destroying family, social and business alliances. I agree that the Progressive movement is reactionary and not a viable option. However, <I> alternatives for rituals like birth, marriages and death,</I>are not an option so long as as few would ever use these services for reasons cited above. It is not <I>easy</I> to do so. One need only look at Iraq to confirm that point. Democracy means accountability, so you embrace the clerics instead even though you have the opportunity at self-rule.
The striking commonality amongst sects arguably based on Islam such as Bohras, Wahabis, Shiites, and Sunni’s as opposed to other religions is that the rule of law is secondary and inconsequential when it comes to Islam. Case in point is the abuse scandal confronted by the Catholics. The clergy have been extremely protective of the priests , and ineffective in confronting the real issue. The acts of abuse will however be prosecuted to the extent of the law, and the accusers will not be vilified or excommunicated.
New innovative vision of Islam in the West ? It is non existent, what are you referring to?
This phenomenon is more rudimentary than you both are crediting it to be. Being a Bohra is very <B>easy[/b], as is the case with most religions where the <I>display</I> of faith is paramount, and faith itself is secondary. Please allow me to explain.
To be a <I>good</I> Bohra, you have to pay your dues, be seen at the Jamaat during significant events, and wear proper clothing if there is a chance that you may encounter fellow Bohris. Occasionally and voluntary kissing feet and inviting the Dai to your home for large sums of money makes you a Sheik. This gives you an elevated status (even perception of such a status is usually rewarding enough). That’s it…no questions asked.
To be a “progressive” anything, you have to take a stand, at the risk of destroying family, social and business alliances. I agree that the Progressive movement is reactionary and not a viable option. However, <I> alternatives for rituals like birth, marriages and death,</I>are not an option so long as as few would ever use these services for reasons cited above. It is not <I>easy</I> to do so. One need only look at Iraq to confirm that point. Democracy means accountability, so you embrace the clerics instead even though you have the opportunity at self-rule.
The striking commonality amongst sects arguably based on Islam such as Bohras, Wahabis, Shiites, and Sunni’s as opposed to other religions is that the rule of law is secondary and inconsequential when it comes to Islam. Case in point is the abuse scandal confronted by the Catholics. The clergy have been extremely protective of the priests , and ineffective in confronting the real issue. The acts of abuse will however be prosecuted to the extent of the law, and the accusers will not be vilified or excommunicated.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Dear porus and Muddai,
I would be the first one to say that the progressives are not perfect, but it is wrong to say that they offer no alternatives, and unfair to say that they are "rooted in reaction".
Let's take the reactionary bit first. Either the two of you do not know what the reform movement stands for or are assigning it a role which is beyond its stated goals.
The reform movement and its agenda is well known: accountability in terms of the money collected from the community and how it is spent; local jamaat autonomy; doing away with the dictates of the Kothar; removal of such egregious practices as misaaq, razaa etc. and, as a consequence of all this, restoring the dignity of Bohras which they have lost in their groveling before two-bit mullahs who have distorted religion beyond recognition. These are not, by any measure, reactionary aims.
It's true that the progressives, in order to explain their aims, try to hark back to the 'halcyon days' when dais were simple souls - without guile or worldly ambitions - and cared for the community. This does not make progressives any more reactionary than those Muslims, say, who invoke the simple lifestyles of Hazrat Ali or the prophet.
The reform movement adheres to the Ismaili Fatimid doctrine not only because it’s part of our faith but also because it provides continuity of tradition - historical and religious. Ismaili Fatimid heritage it is an important part of our identity. I don't see why should Bohras, progressive or not, be apologetic about their past. But then, it's one thing to claim one's heritage and quite another to be obsessed about its "absolute truth". It's precisely for this reason that the reform movement so bitterly opposes the doctrinaire rigidity that the Bohra priesthood has been imposing on the community.
I applaud porus's suggestion about retaining Hindu cultural influences that Bohras have fused within their day-to-day life. These local cultural influences add colour and character, and form a part of Indian Bohras' identity. Local cultural influences are as important if not more, I dare say, as our Islamic heritage.
Of course, purists who strive for an utopian "true Islam” will condemn such a thing as heresy. But the fact is that humans generally are more intimately tied to their culture than their religion - which in many cases has foreign origins and is rooted in alien culture. Is it any wonder that Pakistan and Bangladesh became two countries despite their people belonging to the same religion; or that Indonesians believe in Allah and the sea spirits at the same time? One can multiply such examples.
I don’t think Bohras/Muslims in the West have the capacity to blaze a trail for an enlightened Islam. For what I know from my experience bohras/muslims in the West tend to be more orthodox, bigoted and inward-looking in their beliefs and practices than their counterparts back home. There are quite a few progressives I know who are willing to reject their fatimid heritage and their syncretic culture in favour of a character-less, homogenous (read Arab) and elusive "true Islam".
At the other end of the spectrum, the orthodox bohras have been totally ‘talibanised” into topi-dhadi-saya-rida blandness across the world – completely cut off from the cultural vitality of the larger community they happen to live in.
As for real alternatives, I invite anyone interested to come and visit Udaipur where the reformist jamaat has been functioning for more than 30 years. Our jamaat members are elected, we run a number of social, medical, religious and charity institutions – thanks to the leadership and participation of common bohras. No mullahs, no safai-chiththis, no groveling here. We are free in our thoughts and actions in ways that our orthodox brethrens can only dream of.
True, all is not hunky-dory with us here – there are flaws, there are gaps, money is a constant problem, but there’s no denying that we are slowly evolving and helping to build a healthy alternative to a closed and claustrophobic tyranny that the kothar presides over.
For decades we have been working in isolation – unsung and unappreciated - fighting expensive court cases, suffering under brutal baraat, and constantly warding off “temptations” to cave in. What we need is sympathy and support form people of your calibre. But if you can’t bring yourself to do this than the least you could do is NOT pour scorn on what we are trying to achieve.
I would be the first one to say that the progressives are not perfect, but it is wrong to say that they offer no alternatives, and unfair to say that they are "rooted in reaction".
Let's take the reactionary bit first. Either the two of you do not know what the reform movement stands for or are assigning it a role which is beyond its stated goals.
The reform movement and its agenda is well known: accountability in terms of the money collected from the community and how it is spent; local jamaat autonomy; doing away with the dictates of the Kothar; removal of such egregious practices as misaaq, razaa etc. and, as a consequence of all this, restoring the dignity of Bohras which they have lost in their groveling before two-bit mullahs who have distorted religion beyond recognition. These are not, by any measure, reactionary aims.
It's true that the progressives, in order to explain their aims, try to hark back to the 'halcyon days' when dais were simple souls - without guile or worldly ambitions - and cared for the community. This does not make progressives any more reactionary than those Muslims, say, who invoke the simple lifestyles of Hazrat Ali or the prophet.
The reform movement adheres to the Ismaili Fatimid doctrine not only because it’s part of our faith but also because it provides continuity of tradition - historical and religious. Ismaili Fatimid heritage it is an important part of our identity. I don't see why should Bohras, progressive or not, be apologetic about their past. But then, it's one thing to claim one's heritage and quite another to be obsessed about its "absolute truth". It's precisely for this reason that the reform movement so bitterly opposes the doctrinaire rigidity that the Bohra priesthood has been imposing on the community.
I applaud porus's suggestion about retaining Hindu cultural influences that Bohras have fused within their day-to-day life. These local cultural influences add colour and character, and form a part of Indian Bohras' identity. Local cultural influences are as important if not more, I dare say, as our Islamic heritage.
Of course, purists who strive for an utopian "true Islam” will condemn such a thing as heresy. But the fact is that humans generally are more intimately tied to their culture than their religion - which in many cases has foreign origins and is rooted in alien culture. Is it any wonder that Pakistan and Bangladesh became two countries despite their people belonging to the same religion; or that Indonesians believe in Allah and the sea spirits at the same time? One can multiply such examples.
I don’t think Bohras/Muslims in the West have the capacity to blaze a trail for an enlightened Islam. For what I know from my experience bohras/muslims in the West tend to be more orthodox, bigoted and inward-looking in their beliefs and practices than their counterparts back home. There are quite a few progressives I know who are willing to reject their fatimid heritage and their syncretic culture in favour of a character-less, homogenous (read Arab) and elusive "true Islam".
At the other end of the spectrum, the orthodox bohras have been totally ‘talibanised” into topi-dhadi-saya-rida blandness across the world – completely cut off from the cultural vitality of the larger community they happen to live in.
As for real alternatives, I invite anyone interested to come and visit Udaipur where the reformist jamaat has been functioning for more than 30 years. Our jamaat members are elected, we run a number of social, medical, religious and charity institutions – thanks to the leadership and participation of common bohras. No mullahs, no safai-chiththis, no groveling here. We are free in our thoughts and actions in ways that our orthodox brethrens can only dream of.
True, all is not hunky-dory with us here – there are flaws, there are gaps, money is a constant problem, but there’s no denying that we are slowly evolving and helping to build a healthy alternative to a closed and claustrophobic tyranny that the kothar presides over.
For decades we have been working in isolation – unsung and unappreciated - fighting expensive court cases, suffering under brutal baraat, and constantly warding off “temptations” to cave in. What we need is sympathy and support form people of your calibre. But if you can’t bring yourself to do this than the least you could do is NOT pour scorn on what we are trying to achieve.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Humsafar
Please re-read my post; I am not pouring scorn over the progressives and do support the movement.
However, it is unrealistic to point to a Utopia in Udaipur to progressives in Chicago, Dhaka, or Poona. Movements do not necessarily provide viable alternatives. You can criticize a President all you want, but unless you decide to run for the office, you are not a viable alternative; merely a critic. If someone in Chicago joins your movement, where does he attend jamaat, bury his / her relative, etc. ?
This is not a criticism, simply reality. You cannot provide an alternative with a handful of progressives (if any), willing to take a stand in any given city (unfortunately).
What you have apparently done in Udaipur is hopefully a source of inspiration for others to get to a point to provide an alternative.
The movement is not an alternative except in Udaipur and any other city where you have a similar setup.
More power to you though, hope you succeed....
Please re-read my post; I am not pouring scorn over the progressives and do support the movement.
However, it is unrealistic to point to a Utopia in Udaipur to progressives in Chicago, Dhaka, or Poona. Movements do not necessarily provide viable alternatives. You can criticize a President all you want, but unless you decide to run for the office, you are not a viable alternative; merely a critic. If someone in Chicago joins your movement, where does he attend jamaat, bury his / her relative, etc. ?
This is not a criticism, simply reality. You cannot provide an alternative with a handful of progressives (if any), willing to take a stand in any given city (unfortunately).
What you have apparently done in Udaipur is hopefully a source of inspiration for others to get to a point to provide an alternative.
The movement is not an alternative except in Udaipur and any other city where you have a similar setup.
More power to you though, hope you succeed....
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Muddai,
To attach the word Utopia with what we are doing in Udaipur is unfortunate. You profess to support our cause yet insist on using such mocking words.
Anyways, back to the point of discussion: I'm sorry if you got the impression that Udaipur is the be all and end all of the reform movement. To be part of the reformist movement you don't have to be a member of the Udaipur jamaat. Udaipur has been fortunate because it has had the critical mass necessary for success. But it does not mean that reformists in smaller numbers have nowhere to go. There are a number of reformist jamaats in India itself; malegaon, aurgangabad, hyderabad, bombay etc. Look at the reformists jamaats in England and Canada. These people have also made remarkable strides - more remarkable precisely because of their small numbers. Udaipur is an inspiration to them.
Late last year, a bunch of 40 reformists from the UK and Canada visited Udaipur for the first time. They were impressed by what we have achieved. Their visit is just the beginning in forging of bonds among reformists and their institutions. Such contacts will increase with time - we have a lot to learn from one another and a lot of experiences to share. So, whether you're in Chicago or in Dhaka and believe in the reformist cause, there's always a way to find a fellow traveller (humsafar), to get in touch, to establish bonds. And whenever you've enough numbers you can form something like a jamaat - and join the Force.
How do you mean, movements do not provide alternatives. You can criticise the President, but it is not necessary to replace him to provide an alternative. You can force him (if you have enough people power) to change policies. Indviduals do not matter so much as the social policies on which institutions are built. If institutions are robust, just and fair - the people who run them do matter so much. people will come and go, institutions last for a long time.
That's what the reform movement is doing - forcing the dai and the kothar to change policies and attitudes and build robust, just and fair institutions. That will be the real alternative. Udaipur and other reformist jamaats are just a pointer to it.
To attach the word Utopia with what we are doing in Udaipur is unfortunate. You profess to support our cause yet insist on using such mocking words.
Anyways, back to the point of discussion: I'm sorry if you got the impression that Udaipur is the be all and end all of the reform movement. To be part of the reformist movement you don't have to be a member of the Udaipur jamaat. Udaipur has been fortunate because it has had the critical mass necessary for success. But it does not mean that reformists in smaller numbers have nowhere to go. There are a number of reformist jamaats in India itself; malegaon, aurgangabad, hyderabad, bombay etc. Look at the reformists jamaats in England and Canada. These people have also made remarkable strides - more remarkable precisely because of their small numbers. Udaipur is an inspiration to them.
Late last year, a bunch of 40 reformists from the UK and Canada visited Udaipur for the first time. They were impressed by what we have achieved. Their visit is just the beginning in forging of bonds among reformists and their institutions. Such contacts will increase with time - we have a lot to learn from one another and a lot of experiences to share. So, whether you're in Chicago or in Dhaka and believe in the reformist cause, there's always a way to find a fellow traveller (humsafar), to get in touch, to establish bonds. And whenever you've enough numbers you can form something like a jamaat - and join the Force.
How do you mean, movements do not provide alternatives. You can criticise the President, but it is not necessary to replace him to provide an alternative. You can force him (if you have enough people power) to change policies. Indviduals do not matter so much as the social policies on which institutions are built. If institutions are robust, just and fair - the people who run them do matter so much. people will come and go, institutions last for a long time.
That's what the reform movement is doing - forcing the dai and the kothar to change policies and attitudes and build robust, just and fair institutions. That will be the real alternative. Udaipur and other reformist jamaats are just a pointer to it.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Humsafar,
I admire your passion and support for your movement, and I wish you success, but it does not translate to reality. <I> To be part of the reformist movement you don't have to be a member of the Udaipur, or malegaon jamaat.</I> but to have a viable alternative you have to. You are not <I> forcing the dai and the kothar to change policies and attitudes and build robust, just and fair institutions </I>, by your own admission <I> bohras/muslims in the West tend to be more orthodox, bigoted and inward </I>. I agree, but this is what your movement is dealing with.
I think it is idealistic to have a movement that criticizes the Dai’s policies, and expect him to turn around and embrace your movement. My example of the presidency (political opposition), is a hell of a lot simpler than what you are dealing with i.e religious opposition which is based entirely on faith. It is a lot easier for a political leader to switch sides or establish a moderate line. When it comes to religion, it simply does not happen.
I support you in your efforts to create alternatives for progressives in select cities, but if you are expecting the Dai to eventually embrace and accept you demands, it simply is not going to happen. As long as you are expecting that result, you will not be a viable option.
For what my opinion is worth, the progressive movement needs to provide a long-term alternative that survives in spite of the Dai , rather than expecting the Dai to accept your point of view.
There is nothing democratic about any religion.
I admire your passion and support for your movement, and I wish you success, but it does not translate to reality. <I> To be part of the reformist movement you don't have to be a member of the Udaipur, or malegaon jamaat.</I> but to have a viable alternative you have to. You are not <I> forcing the dai and the kothar to change policies and attitudes and build robust, just and fair institutions </I>, by your own admission <I> bohras/muslims in the West tend to be more orthodox, bigoted and inward </I>. I agree, but this is what your movement is dealing with.
I think it is idealistic to have a movement that criticizes the Dai’s policies, and expect him to turn around and embrace your movement. My example of the presidency (political opposition), is a hell of a lot simpler than what you are dealing with i.e religious opposition which is based entirely on faith. It is a lot easier for a political leader to switch sides or establish a moderate line. When it comes to religion, it simply does not happen.
I support you in your efforts to create alternatives for progressives in select cities, but if you are expecting the Dai to eventually embrace and accept you demands, it simply is not going to happen. As long as you are expecting that result, you will not be a viable option.
For what my opinion is worth, the progressive movement needs to provide a long-term alternative that survives in spite of the Dai , rather than expecting the Dai to accept your point of view.
There is nothing democratic about any religion.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Muddai,
You misunderstand. Nobody is talking about democracy in the sense it is commonly understood. It is a fact of history that whenever enough people got together to force a change, they have been able to turn the world upside down. So long as bohras remain meek nothing is going to happen. But there will come a time when they will be fed up with repression and indignities they suffer. Sure it will not happen in our lifetime, not will the Dai to turn of over a new leaf overnight.
But things will change... change is a dynamic of history. Call it idealism, if you will, but it is also true that nothing happens without human effort and passion. The reform movement is only a transition. To expect it to provide a complete alternative - right here, right now - is wrongheaded and unrealistic
You misunderstand. Nobody is talking about democracy in the sense it is commonly understood. It is a fact of history that whenever enough people got together to force a change, they have been able to turn the world upside down. So long as bohras remain meek nothing is going to happen. But there will come a time when they will be fed up with repression and indignities they suffer. Sure it will not happen in our lifetime, not will the Dai to turn of over a new leaf overnight.
But things will change... change is a dynamic of history. Call it idealism, if you will, but it is also true that nothing happens without human effort and passion. The reform movement is only a transition. To expect it to provide a complete alternative - right here, right now - is wrongheaded and unrealistic
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Humsafar,
I agree in principle with what you are saying. I do question, however, the drive in the orthodox Bohra community to affect any kind of change (for reasons cited in my first post on this topic).
I am less optimistic about any changes initiated by the Dai since the "father to son" concept has become a rule, and is unlikely to be broken. Additionally, secular higher education in Bohri men is a rarity, and community acceptance and conformity has been a necessisty for social and economic well-being.
I am of the opionion that your movement is successful even if it simply raises questions, communicates the issues effectively, and makes people think and be more aware of what's going on around them.
Just my $0.02 worth....
I agree in principle with what you are saying. I do question, however, the drive in the orthodox Bohra community to affect any kind of change (for reasons cited in my first post on this topic).
I am less optimistic about any changes initiated by the Dai since the "father to son" concept has become a rule, and is unlikely to be broken. Additionally, secular higher education in Bohri men is a rarity, and community acceptance and conformity has been a necessisty for social and economic well-being.
I am of the opionion that your movement is successful even if it simply raises questions, communicates the issues effectively, and makes people think and be more aware of what's going on around them.
Just my $0.02 worth....
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Posted in the Guestbook - July 21Originally posted by Muddai:
Just my $0.02 worth....
==========================
Dear ADMN,
Question for you:
WHAT MAKES SUNNIS SUCH BLIND FOLLOWERS ?
brother <brother@yahoo.com>
- Monday, July 21, 2003 at 15:59:09 (EDT)
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Dear brother,
Please ask that question to Sunnis.
Thank you,
Admin
Please ask that question to Sunnis.
Thank you,
Admin
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Muddai,
You're right, the farther-son chain in succession of dais is unlikely to be broken - and reformists have no quarrel with that. Our hope is that future dais will be benign and enlightened, that they will see the errors of their predecessors and start caring about the community and its welfare. But it is also true that the kothar bureaucracy, which is so deeply entrenched, will not give up its powers easily. That is why common bohras will have to force a change. The reform movement serves as a constant reminder to them that there's a way and there's hope.
We're in a for a long haul, no doubt about that....
You're right, the farther-son chain in succession of dais is unlikely to be broken - and reformists have no quarrel with that. Our hope is that future dais will be benign and enlightened, that they will see the errors of their predecessors and start caring about the community and its welfare. But it is also true that the kothar bureaucracy, which is so deeply entrenched, will not give up its powers easily. That is why common bohras will have to force a change. The reform movement serves as a constant reminder to them that there's a way and there's hope.
We're in a for a long haul, no doubt about that....
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Humsafar,
farther-son chain in succession of dais is unlikely to be broken - and reformists have no quarrel with that. Our hope is that future dais will be benign and enlightened, that they will see the errors of their predecessors and start caring about the community and its welfare.
That is rather unlikely and idealistic from my point of view. Why not appoint your own Dai ? What is stopping you ? Unless you believe that this process is legit and this one just happens to be corrupt. Are you not stopping short and taking the politically acceptable route ?
farther-son chain in succession of dais is unlikely to be broken - and reformists have no quarrel with that. Our hope is that future dais will be benign and enlightened, that they will see the errors of their predecessors and start caring about the community and its welfare.
That is rather unlikely and idealistic from my point of view. Why not appoint your own Dai ? What is stopping you ? Unless you believe that this process is legit and this one just happens to be corrupt. Are you not stopping short and taking the politically acceptable route ?
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Muddai,
The reformists have no "political" agenda. If we wanted to appoint our own dai then we wouldn't have bothered with the reform struggle.
We accept the institution of the Dai and its hereditary succession- that's part of our fatimid-mustalian tradition. What we challenge is the corruption, the myths and the cult that have accumulated around this institution.
The objective of the reform movement is to "reform" the system - and in doing so keep the community in one piece, not create a new sect. The latter is the easiest thing to do, and one that would please the Kothar no end.
There's a great misconception or/and deliberate distortion of reformists' idea of democracy in the community. We talk of democracy ONLY in the context of local jamaat autonomy - meaning the local people should have control over local jamaat properties, its finances and its affairs.
We also hold that the dai should have no claims over the monies collected by local jamaats. And he should be accountable for the millions he collects by way salaams and wajibaats from coerced bohras all over the world.
This is the spirit in which refromists talk of democracy and accountability. Election or appointment of the dai is out of the question.
The reformists have no "political" agenda. If we wanted to appoint our own dai then we wouldn't have bothered with the reform struggle.
We accept the institution of the Dai and its hereditary succession- that's part of our fatimid-mustalian tradition. What we challenge is the corruption, the myths and the cult that have accumulated around this institution.
The objective of the reform movement is to "reform" the system - and in doing so keep the community in one piece, not create a new sect. The latter is the easiest thing to do, and one that would please the Kothar no end.
There's a great misconception or/and deliberate distortion of reformists' idea of democracy in the community. We talk of democracy ONLY in the context of local jamaat autonomy - meaning the local people should have control over local jamaat properties, its finances and its affairs.
We also hold that the dai should have no claims over the monies collected by local jamaats. And he should be accountable for the millions he collects by way salaams and wajibaats from coerced bohras all over the world.
This is the spirit in which refromists talk of democracy and accountability. Election or appointment of the dai is out of the question.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
We accept the institution of the Dai and its hereditary succession- that's part of our fatimid-mustalian tradition.
You are way off the mark - the position of Daii is not hereditary. period.
Had expected something better from the flag bearer of progressives/reformists.
You are way off the mark - the position of Daii is not hereditary. period.
Had expected something better from the flag bearer of progressives/reformists.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
You're right simon. My mistake. The succession is not hereditory, even though it would seem so. I stand corrected.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Unfortunately, the cult has been around for centuries. It has grown so that Imam is cult figure endowed with divinity. This is the fatimid-mustaalian tradition. The difference is that in recent years the Dai has assumed the mantle of Imam and has co-opted the divinity for himself and his family.Originally posted by Humsafar:
Muddai,
........
We accept the institution of the Dai and its hereditary succession- that's part of our fatimid-mustalian tradition. What we challenge is the corruption, the myths and the cult that have accumulated around this institution.
.......
We also hold that the dai should have no claims over the monies collected by local jamaats. And he should be accountable for the millions he collects by way salaams and wajibaats from coerced bohras all over the world.
Persistent propganda to this effect has been going in majaalis for a very long time now. I am old enough to remember how the cult of the Dai grew and grew. A generation of Bohras have grown to believe in the divinity of Sayedna and, although in theory, the succession is not hereditary, this has changed. No one ever mentions that it is not hereditary and Sayedna's sons and relatives are given status that accords with the assumption of a dynasty. (By the way, I see "dama majd-hu" written after the names of Sayedna's re;atives. Is this something new?)
Sayedna has been so very successful in not being accountable that he or his family are not going to give up easily. No one gives up power voluntarily. That requires something special which only a few in history have been shown to possess.
And the most important is that a large number of Bohras support it because they believe in Sayedna's divinity.
So, progressives/reformists have very little chance of denting the Kothar's hold on Bohras. But they can provide alternatives. They should start with rituals like marriages and deaths. These are easy in Western countries where these facilities are obtainable at a fair and regulated price.
I would like to know how do reformists in Udaipur conduct marriages and funerals. If they follow the normal rites, who officiates at these ceremonies?
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Humsafar,
I am glad you clarified the "hereditary succession" comment.
However, the rest of your comment bothers me further and is contradictory to your efforts and comments :
We accept the institution of the Dai and....that's part of our fatimid-mustalian tradition. leaves me wondering how a reform movement can exist without fighting tradition ? Isn't that what a reform movement is all about ? Let me resort to dictionary definitions:
1. to change and improve something by removing faults: to change and improve something by correcting faults, removing inconsistencies and abuses, and imposing modern methods or values
An alternative Jamaat in Udaipur is not fatimid-mustalian tradition, a movement to question the Dai is not fatimid-mustalian tradition either. You leave me wondering what you actually mean by reform ......Isn't it all about fighting and standing up against tradition ?
Our hope is that future dais will be benign and enlightened, that they will see the errors of their predecessors and start caring about the community and its welfare.
Hope doesn't translate to reality or reform, unfortunately. I can tell you from simple observation and experience that it is not going to happen. The bottom line is that you are not fighting the system from within, since you have been excommunicated, and the reform Jamaat in Udaipur violates tradition.
Accept that and start a true reform with an alternate Dai conforming to and changing tradition, with viable alternatives for common rituals for birth, marriage, death etc.
I am glad you clarified the "hereditary succession" comment.
However, the rest of your comment bothers me further and is contradictory to your efforts and comments :
We accept the institution of the Dai and....that's part of our fatimid-mustalian tradition. leaves me wondering how a reform movement can exist without fighting tradition ? Isn't that what a reform movement is all about ? Let me resort to dictionary definitions:
1. to change and improve something by removing faults: to change and improve something by correcting faults, removing inconsistencies and abuses, and imposing modern methods or values
An alternative Jamaat in Udaipur is not fatimid-mustalian tradition, a movement to question the Dai is not fatimid-mustalian tradition either. You leave me wondering what you actually mean by reform ......Isn't it all about fighting and standing up against tradition ?
Our hope is that future dais will be benign and enlightened, that they will see the errors of their predecessors and start caring about the community and its welfare.
Hope doesn't translate to reality or reform, unfortunately. I can tell you from simple observation and experience that it is not going to happen. The bottom line is that you are not fighting the system from within, since you have been excommunicated, and the reform Jamaat in Udaipur violates tradition.
Accept that and start a true reform with an alternate Dai conforming to and changing tradition, with viable alternatives for common rituals for birth, marriage, death etc.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Is this tradition necessary?We accept the institution of the Dai and....that's part of our fatimid-mustalian tradition.
How does it help us in living our life successfully in Dunya and Akhira and be closer to Almighty Allah swt?
It doesn’t make sense to me that you accept something just because your forefather use to belief that. Don’t we have ample proof that Dai-ship is a tyranny that must be done with for bohras to be able to achieve a better deal in life?
Pls comment
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
porus,
The reformists have no illusions about how entrenched the cult of the dai has grown. We also know that it will be a hell of a task to fight the system that perpetuates this cult and the new-found divinity that the dai now enjoys. Our effort to change all this may seem pathetic, even doomed to failure, but it's better than meekly accepting our lot and doing nothing. We may fail but it would not be for lack of trying.
I do not want to romanticise our efforts or paint it in heroic colours, but history is witness that it's always the passionate, committed and ordinary people who have brought about changes. Call it idealism or tilting at the windmills, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
As for rituals in Udaipur, they are performed by mullahs (a few leftovers from the kothar) and/or ordinary people well-grounded in the religious texts.
Muddai,
I've no wish to repeat myself. Please re-read my posts above and elsewhere on this board. If challenging a powerful dai and his system is not an attempt to reform "tradition" then what is.
If by reforming tradition you mean doing away with dais and the whole lot, then that's out of the question. True, there's much that's gone wrong with the whole dai business in recent decades (see above) but to jettison the whole thing is like throwing the baby with the bath water. It's like saying that since there's much that's wrong with Islam the way it is practiced so let's do away with islam, or since democracy is so botched up in practice so let's do away with democracy itself.
Reformists are not violating tradition by challenging the current system. It's in fact the recent dais and their "royal courts" who have been violating the fatimid mustalian tradition. All reformists want is to restore and confine dai and his business to religous and spiritual matters. That's reforming the current tradition of cult and power surrounding the dai and his office.
Hope doesn't translate to reality or reform, unfortunately. I can tell you from simple observation and experience that it is not going to happen.
You bet it does. Without hope there's no hope (pls excuse the pun). Hope is the precursor to all action. Hope is the foundation of all life. Each night you go to sleep hoping to wake up the next morning, hoping the sun will rise, hoping to do some useful work to provide for your family, hoping your children will grow up to be good people, hoping that peace will prevail in the world..... hope flows in our blood, it is in our breath, it is in the spring of our steps, hope is the basis of creativity, of change. Hope connects our todays with our yesterdays and our tomorrows. Without hope we'll all be brain-dead, zombies. Of course, hope by itself is of no use. It can only flower when nurtured and nourished by human endeavour. And reformists cannot be blamed for not endeavoring, not trying.
As for your simple observation and experience, happily history is no respector of an individual's whims. It is a function of, again, human endeavour. Even it's said that God only help those who help themselves.
I've said this before, having an alternative dai will amount to creating a new religion, new sect. That's not the solution. That would be, in fact, our defeat, our failure to reform the system. We might as well commit harakiri.
jinx,
You may find answers to your questions above. As for "Is this tradition necessary?"
Yes, it is. It is necessary without its recent accretions (hence the reform movement). It is necessary if you value your identity, your heritage. Your identity is important because it underlines the continuity of tradition, the language, the rituals, the way you talk, the way you dress. It tells you who you are, where you come from and where you belong. It all helps you to relate to your community, and your community to the larger world.
If you don't care about tradition, all this doesn't matter, but you can't escape tradition. Even if you profess to believe in "true islam", in the practice of rituals and tenets you'll most likely be following the traditions of tribal arab culture. Islam emerged in the context of this culture - and retains many obscurantist and outdated elements of that culture. Wearing of hijab is just one example of it. No matter what you do in life - there's always a tradition tied to it.
Either you choose to have a different tradition (a contradiction in terms) or remove the weeds from the one to which you belong. Reformists, for good or ill, have chosen the latter option.
The reformists have no illusions about how entrenched the cult of the dai has grown. We also know that it will be a hell of a task to fight the system that perpetuates this cult and the new-found divinity that the dai now enjoys. Our effort to change all this may seem pathetic, even doomed to failure, but it's better than meekly accepting our lot and doing nothing. We may fail but it would not be for lack of trying.
I do not want to romanticise our efforts or paint it in heroic colours, but history is witness that it's always the passionate, committed and ordinary people who have brought about changes. Call it idealism or tilting at the windmills, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
As for rituals in Udaipur, they are performed by mullahs (a few leftovers from the kothar) and/or ordinary people well-grounded in the religious texts.
Muddai,
I've no wish to repeat myself. Please re-read my posts above and elsewhere on this board. If challenging a powerful dai and his system is not an attempt to reform "tradition" then what is.
If by reforming tradition you mean doing away with dais and the whole lot, then that's out of the question. True, there's much that's gone wrong with the whole dai business in recent decades (see above) but to jettison the whole thing is like throwing the baby with the bath water. It's like saying that since there's much that's wrong with Islam the way it is practiced so let's do away with islam, or since democracy is so botched up in practice so let's do away with democracy itself.
Reformists are not violating tradition by challenging the current system. It's in fact the recent dais and their "royal courts" who have been violating the fatimid mustalian tradition. All reformists want is to restore and confine dai and his business to religous and spiritual matters. That's reforming the current tradition of cult and power surrounding the dai and his office.
Hope doesn't translate to reality or reform, unfortunately. I can tell you from simple observation and experience that it is not going to happen.
You bet it does. Without hope there's no hope (pls excuse the pun). Hope is the precursor to all action. Hope is the foundation of all life. Each night you go to sleep hoping to wake up the next morning, hoping the sun will rise, hoping to do some useful work to provide for your family, hoping your children will grow up to be good people, hoping that peace will prevail in the world..... hope flows in our blood, it is in our breath, it is in the spring of our steps, hope is the basis of creativity, of change. Hope connects our todays with our yesterdays and our tomorrows. Without hope we'll all be brain-dead, zombies. Of course, hope by itself is of no use. It can only flower when nurtured and nourished by human endeavour. And reformists cannot be blamed for not endeavoring, not trying.
As for your simple observation and experience, happily history is no respector of an individual's whims. It is a function of, again, human endeavour. Even it's said that God only help those who help themselves.
I've said this before, having an alternative dai will amount to creating a new religion, new sect. That's not the solution. That would be, in fact, our defeat, our failure to reform the system. We might as well commit harakiri.
jinx,
You may find answers to your questions above. As for "Is this tradition necessary?"
Yes, it is. It is necessary without its recent accretions (hence the reform movement). It is necessary if you value your identity, your heritage. Your identity is important because it underlines the continuity of tradition, the language, the rituals, the way you talk, the way you dress. It tells you who you are, where you come from and where you belong. It all helps you to relate to your community, and your community to the larger world.
If you don't care about tradition, all this doesn't matter, but you can't escape tradition. Even if you profess to believe in "true islam", in the practice of rituals and tenets you'll most likely be following the traditions of tribal arab culture. Islam emerged in the context of this culture - and retains many obscurantist and outdated elements of that culture. Wearing of hijab is just one example of it. No matter what you do in life - there's always a tradition tied to it.
Either you choose to have a different tradition (a contradiction in terms) or remove the weeds from the one to which you belong. Reformists, for good or ill, have chosen the latter option.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Points to ponder for this thread:
<u>Definition of Reformism from a Marxist Dictionary:</u>
Reformism
To cause change to occur within a government without threatening the government in its vital class interests; to amend the way a government represents its class interests. Trade and Labour unions are working class examples of reformist organisations in favor of making the working class more comfortable while under the yoke of capitalism, while ensuring that capitalist system survives.
Reformists are politically between revolutionaries and reactionaries; they are revolutionary in the sense that they want to change laws and institutions to adhere to emerging social-relations. They are reactionary in the sense that they want to maintain the present government, keeping intact the present class structure, and maintaining their own power within that structure.
Most Socialists and Communists (with the exception of ultra-leftists), while not reformist, involve themselves with reformism as one transitionary form of the struggle for the revolutionary emancipation of the working class. One example of this is involvement with labour unions when large sections of the working class are a part of trade unions; involving themselves to advance revolutionary aims (whether through increased working class organization, international workers solidarity, education, etc.), from which reforms will inevitably be a byproduct. Revolution only comes about when the possibility for reforms is exhausted.
<u>Echoes of Orwell's Animal Farm?</u>
They looked at pigs and they looked at men and no one could tell the difference!!
Beware of a reformist co-opted into Kothar's igoverning hierarchy
<u>Kurt Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse - Five</u>
When asked by a movie-maker if his book about Dresden would be an anti-war novel, Kurt said yes.
The movie-maker replied "Why don't you write an anti-glacier book instead?"
What he meant was that there would always be wars and they would be as easy to stop as glaciers.
The point being that I should not concern myself with the future of generations to follow but concern myself with what difference I can make to myself and people close to me. If Bohras complain of Kothar's tyranny, then only they themselves are to blame. Because, the only reason that keeps them there is the mindset which condemns them to a view that there is no life out of the Bohras. There will always be corruption and so on..
Seriously, ask those who never had anything to do with Kothar -like youngsters growing up in the USA - and they will tell you that they do not miss Bohra culture at all.
<u>Definition of Reformism from a Marxist Dictionary:</u>
Reformism
To cause change to occur within a government without threatening the government in its vital class interests; to amend the way a government represents its class interests. Trade and Labour unions are working class examples of reformist organisations in favor of making the working class more comfortable while under the yoke of capitalism, while ensuring that capitalist system survives.
Reformists are politically between revolutionaries and reactionaries; they are revolutionary in the sense that they want to change laws and institutions to adhere to emerging social-relations. They are reactionary in the sense that they want to maintain the present government, keeping intact the present class structure, and maintaining their own power within that structure.
Most Socialists and Communists (with the exception of ultra-leftists), while not reformist, involve themselves with reformism as one transitionary form of the struggle for the revolutionary emancipation of the working class. One example of this is involvement with labour unions when large sections of the working class are a part of trade unions; involving themselves to advance revolutionary aims (whether through increased working class organization, international workers solidarity, education, etc.), from which reforms will inevitably be a byproduct. Revolution only comes about when the possibility for reforms is exhausted.
<u>Echoes of Orwell's Animal Farm?</u>
They looked at pigs and they looked at men and no one could tell the difference!!
Beware of a reformist co-opted into Kothar's igoverning hierarchy
<u>Kurt Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse - Five</u>
When asked by a movie-maker if his book about Dresden would be an anti-war novel, Kurt said yes.
The movie-maker replied "Why don't you write an anti-glacier book instead?"
What he meant was that there would always be wars and they would be as easy to stop as glaciers.
The point being that I should not concern myself with the future of generations to follow but concern myself with what difference I can make to myself and people close to me. If Bohras complain of Kothar's tyranny, then only they themselves are to blame. Because, the only reason that keeps them there is the mindset which condemns them to a view that there is no life out of the Bohras. There will always be corruption and so on..
Seriously, ask those who never had anything to do with Kothar -like youngsters growing up in the USA - and they will tell you that they do not miss Bohra culture at all.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
A Marxist opinion on reform or anything else simply shows what doesn't work (aka communism).
A better analogy from Animal Farm regarding what we are dealing with here is that "Some Pigs are more equal than others".
...fighting that would require a reform that challenges tradition.
A better analogy from Animal Farm regarding what we are dealing with here is that "Some Pigs are more equal than others".
...fighting that would require a reform that challenges tradition.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Although Marx is irrelevant to our situation here (his context is socio-economic system not a religious group), he is absolutely right when he says "Revolution only comes about when the possibility for reforms is exhausted."
If the Bohra ruling class (the priesthood) is wise it should concede to reforms now or wait till the full-blown revolution wipes it out. Either way it can't avoid change. Remember the czars? It's unlikely that the bohra "royal family" will meet the bloody end as that of the Romanovs, but one can be certain that its end will come, sooner or later.
Beware of a reformist co-opted into Kothar's igoverning hierarchy
How true? Some prominent reformists from Udaipur have done so. And they are a disgrace to reformists, and might i add, to the rest of humanity. If you are referring to the reformist movement itself being "co-opted into Kothar's governing hierarchy" then it's not true. Accepting the institution of the dai is not the same thing as accepting the bureaucracy and unjustified power of the kothar. It is very important to make this distinction. If the reformists will have their way, they would do what Diderot suggested: not rest until they have hung the last (kothari) bureaucrat with the guts of the last priest.
Your quote form Kurt Vonnegut and it's interpretation is to the point. Sure, there will always be corruption and all the bad things flawed human beings are capable of spawning. But the same flawed humans are also capable of good things. That's why constant vigilance is necessary (I think it's Trotsky who said this).
Seriously, ask those who never had anything to do with Kothar -like youngsters growing up in the USA - and they will tell you that they do not miss Bohra culture at all.
First, there's more to Bohra culture than Kothar. Second, it's the masses of Bohras in the subcontinent and Africa who are at the receiving end will ultimately make the difference. The youngsters in the West may not have the direct experience of Kothar's atrocities but they are being properly brainwashed into the cult alright. It's pity that they will grow up thinking that dhadi-topi-saya-rida and the worship of Sayeddna is all there is to their religion and culture.
If the Bohra ruling class (the priesthood) is wise it should concede to reforms now or wait till the full-blown revolution wipes it out. Either way it can't avoid change. Remember the czars? It's unlikely that the bohra "royal family" will meet the bloody end as that of the Romanovs, but one can be certain that its end will come, sooner or later.
Beware of a reformist co-opted into Kothar's igoverning hierarchy
How true? Some prominent reformists from Udaipur have done so. And they are a disgrace to reformists, and might i add, to the rest of humanity. If you are referring to the reformist movement itself being "co-opted into Kothar's governing hierarchy" then it's not true. Accepting the institution of the dai is not the same thing as accepting the bureaucracy and unjustified power of the kothar. It is very important to make this distinction. If the reformists will have their way, they would do what Diderot suggested: not rest until they have hung the last (kothari) bureaucrat with the guts of the last priest.
Your quote form Kurt Vonnegut and it's interpretation is to the point. Sure, there will always be corruption and all the bad things flawed human beings are capable of spawning. But the same flawed humans are also capable of good things. That's why constant vigilance is necessary (I think it's Trotsky who said this).
Seriously, ask those who never had anything to do with Kothar -like youngsters growing up in the USA - and they will tell you that they do not miss Bohra culture at all.
First, there's more to Bohra culture than Kothar. Second, it's the masses of Bohras in the subcontinent and Africa who are at the receiving end will ultimately make the difference. The youngsters in the West may not have the direct experience of Kothar's atrocities but they are being properly brainwashed into the cult alright. It's pity that they will grow up thinking that dhadi-topi-saya-rida and the worship of Sayeddna is all there is to their religion and culture.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Humsafar,
Although Marx is irrelevant to our situation here (his context is socio-economic system not a religious group), he is absolutely right when he says "Revolution only comes about when the possibility for reforms is exhausted."
Irrelevant and you are missing a very important distinction here (other than the fact that you guys are quoting Marx, not an icon of ANY freedoms). The atrocities committed by the Bohra leadership are voluntarily accepted by the followers, which makes this "fight" very complex.
It cannot be compared to a socio-economic group (as you correctly pointed out) or a religious group (where dissenting voices are heard and sometimes change is made, but no fear of ex-communication). You are dealing with a cult you are either born into and voluntarily decide to stay in, or join (non-existent in the Bohra community unless forced by marriage). Such groups have historically conceded to external pressures **only**, and not to internal movements for reform. Case in point, Rajneesh (INS & IRS), David Koresh (FBI) et al. They committed atrocities on the so-called believers and these believers voluntarily participated and succumbed (Qiyam, etc.).
What will eventually bring the Dai down will most likely be the IRS in the USA. The current generation may actually witness this phenomenon, unlike any change brought about by a reform movement that does not defy tradition. However, when this happens it will be limited to the US, and he will continue to torment the community in the rest of the world. It may have already begun with his son in Houston, it is a rumor though, and I have no facts to back it up.
Just follow the money……never fails.
Although Marx is irrelevant to our situation here (his context is socio-economic system not a religious group), he is absolutely right when he says "Revolution only comes about when the possibility for reforms is exhausted."
Irrelevant and you are missing a very important distinction here (other than the fact that you guys are quoting Marx, not an icon of ANY freedoms). The atrocities committed by the Bohra leadership are voluntarily accepted by the followers, which makes this "fight" very complex.
It cannot be compared to a socio-economic group (as you correctly pointed out) or a religious group (where dissenting voices are heard and sometimes change is made, but no fear of ex-communication). You are dealing with a cult you are either born into and voluntarily decide to stay in, or join (non-existent in the Bohra community unless forced by marriage). Such groups have historically conceded to external pressures **only**, and not to internal movements for reform. Case in point, Rajneesh (INS & IRS), David Koresh (FBI) et al. They committed atrocities on the so-called believers and these believers voluntarily participated and succumbed (Qiyam, etc.).
What will eventually bring the Dai down will most likely be the IRS in the USA. The current generation may actually witness this phenomenon, unlike any change brought about by a reform movement that does not defy tradition. However, when this happens it will be limited to the US, and he will continue to torment the community in the rest of the world. It may have already begun with his son in Houston, it is a rumor though, and I have no facts to back it up.
Just follow the money……never fails.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
The reason for quoting Marxist definition of Reformism was to indicate the risk that Reformists attempt to change the system from within is liable to perpetrate the tyranny.
Reformists do not wish to deal with the root of Bohraism which encourages tyranny but wants to keep the apparatus intact. Roots are in slavery to dogma which requires absolute authority of imam/dai in all respects, whether religious, social or political.
To quote from the definition, reformist organisations (are)in favor of making the working class (ordinary Bohras) more comfortable while under the yoke of capitalism (Imamism/Daism), while ensuring that capitalist system (Imamism/Daism) survives.
Of course, all reform movements start with persistent dedication of a few individuals. Slavery has been abolished in the West, at least for the natives, and the USA civil rights movement was triggered by Rosa Park's stand on an Alabama bus. So I do not wish to sound like I am discouraging attempts at reform.
I agree with Humsafar that reform probably has best chance in South Asia, where the population is large enough for reformists to reach a critical mass required for significant change.
While Bohras in the West can offer alternatives for rituals, I suspect majority are not interested in religion or philosophy of Bohraism to give it more than a nodding acknowledgement. For those who are successful in the USA, Bohraism just does not appeal or matter. A religious gathering becomes an opportunity for chat but generally most resent having to attend in Qomi Libaas. With the influence of first generation immigrants on the wane, Bohras in the USA will become more and more like people without religious roots, ripe for conversion to mainstream Christianity. This will initially happen on an indiviodual basis but will accelerate to involve groups. Part of the reason is the all-pervasive negative view of Islam, which youngsters tend to sympathize with.
Reformists do not wish to deal with the root of Bohraism which encourages tyranny but wants to keep the apparatus intact. Roots are in slavery to dogma which requires absolute authority of imam/dai in all respects, whether religious, social or political.
To quote from the definition, reformist organisations (are)in favor of making the working class (ordinary Bohras) more comfortable while under the yoke of capitalism (Imamism/Daism), while ensuring that capitalist system (Imamism/Daism) survives.
Of course, all reform movements start with persistent dedication of a few individuals. Slavery has been abolished in the West, at least for the natives, and the USA civil rights movement was triggered by Rosa Park's stand on an Alabama bus. So I do not wish to sound like I am discouraging attempts at reform.
I agree with Humsafar that reform probably has best chance in South Asia, where the population is large enough for reformists to reach a critical mass required for significant change.
While Bohras in the West can offer alternatives for rituals, I suspect majority are not interested in religion or philosophy of Bohraism to give it more than a nodding acknowledgement. For those who are successful in the USA, Bohraism just does not appeal or matter. A religious gathering becomes an opportunity for chat but generally most resent having to attend in Qomi Libaas. With the influence of first generation immigrants on the wane, Bohras in the USA will become more and more like people without religious roots, ripe for conversion to mainstream Christianity. This will initially happen on an indiviodual basis but will accelerate to involve groups. Part of the reason is the all-pervasive negative view of Islam, which youngsters tend to sympathize with.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Porus,
From what I have consistently heard, the Bohra youth in the West tend to be more extremist in their views and deeply entrenched in the establishment (here in the US at least). I would have assumed just as you have, but that is apparently not the case. In most cases they are less moderate than their first generation parents.
I agree with Humsafar that reform probably has best chance in South Asia, where the population is large enough for reformists to reach a critical mass required for significant change.
You are missing an important ingredient in that there needs to be an internal outrage that leads to a call for reform. Masses of people who are comfortable with the status quo, cannot be coerced into reform.
The only way that may eventually turn heads is to follow the money and show how these funds are {ab}used for personal gain, and using the justice system to bring legal proceedings. Since most of South Asia, and Africa (where the Bohra population is significant) have corrupt justice systems, it must start in the West. It is hard to call someone for raza, name your baby, or kiss feet, when he is in jail or you have seen his mug on TV for extortion or fraud.
One would hope at least….
From what I have consistently heard, the Bohra youth in the West tend to be more extremist in their views and deeply entrenched in the establishment (here in the US at least). I would have assumed just as you have, but that is apparently not the case. In most cases they are less moderate than their first generation parents.
I agree with Humsafar that reform probably has best chance in South Asia, where the population is large enough for reformists to reach a critical mass required for significant change.
You are missing an important ingredient in that there needs to be an internal outrage that leads to a call for reform. Masses of people who are comfortable with the status quo, cannot be coerced into reform.
The only way that may eventually turn heads is to follow the money and show how these funds are {ab}used for personal gain, and using the justice system to bring legal proceedings. Since most of South Asia, and Africa (where the Bohra population is significant) have corrupt justice systems, it must start in the West. It is hard to call someone for raza, name your baby, or kiss feet, when he is in jail or you have seen his mug on TV for extortion or fraud.
One would hope at least….
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Muddai,Originally posted by Muddai:
From what I have consistently heard, the Bohra youth in the West tend to be more extremist in their views and deeply entrenched in the establishment (here in the US at least). I would have assumed just as you have, but that is apparently not the case. In most cases they are less moderate than their first generation parents.
You are missing an important ingredient in that there needs to be an internal outrage that leads to a call for reform. Masses of people who are comfortable with the status quo, cannot be coerced into reform.
I have a theory that extremism and fanaticism amongst Bohras in parts of the USA that I have witnessed is more apparent than real.
The reasons are:
1. Display is more pronounced when Sayedna is visiting and dissipates when he leaves.
2. Youngsters are carried away by crowds to display behaviors that they would be ashamed of in private.
3. Youngsters tend to be more zealous in their display than elders (first generation) because age has mellowed the latter.
Talking privately to individuals with close connection to Jamaat committees, I conclude that the closer they are to Kothar, the more disillusioned they tend to be.
But they lack leadership to mount a significant challenge because there is no community except gatherings for religious occassions. There really is nothing common, like madrassas, masjids etc. which they feel serves their profound need. They pay their dues primarily to smooth over the misaq, marriage and death rituals.
My experience is that most Bohras in the USA are closet Progressives but are not motivated to do anything about Kothar because it is not really a significant part of their lives. Their friendships with fellow Bohras are important and they would enjoy them as long as aamils or top mullas are no where near.
When I am invited to social functions like dinner party, I notice the absence of aamil and top mullas. They are thought to "spoil the spirit
of the occassion".
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
I tend to agree with you on that. They are probably better at the act of displaying faith , which unfortunately is paramount when it comes to Bohras.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Exactly what I think. I don’t understand why we need to keep a corrupt dai just because our tradition say we gotta have a dai or else we are no longer bohras.Originally posted by porus:
Reformists do not wish to deal with the root of Bohraism which encourages tyranny but wants to keep the apparatus intact. Roots are in slavery to dogma which requires absolute authority of imam/dai in all respects, whether religious, social or political.
You can make an honest person accountable but a person like burhanuddin, his son and his relatives? They are friend of shaitan and it will be qayamat before you will ever be able to meet any of your demand.
From Udaipur experience – you learn that bohras community can be self sufficient even without having a dai.
You cannot enforce anything on the dai. If he want to act like a bastard he can well act like a bastard.
According to the Ismaili tradition, dai does have a lot of power. Good for dai, bad for mumin. But then again, this bohra religion was only meant for royalty to control the mass and it was never meant to be a democracy.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
porus, jinx
The "absolute authority of imam/dai in all respects, whether religious, social or political" is historically redundant. In the time of the Fatimids, the religious, the social and the political were all fused together and it's true that the imam/dai exercised absolute authority, secrecy, intrigue for the sake of survival - their's and the community's.
But the times have changed. The dawat is under no threat. For centuries after the fall of the Fatimids, dais have proved to be quite decent fellows. The tyranny of recent dais is unnecessary, immoral and unjustified. That's why the reform movement insists that dais change their behaviour, that the community and its wealth, the dawat and its heritage are not their fathers' property. It is our hope and belief that things will change with time and our efforts.
Having said that, the institution of the dai is important for the following reasons:
1) It's central to what is defined as dawoodi bohras. Cut off the dai and you cut off the umbilical cord to dawoodi bohra heritage, history, roots.
2) The larger community, now under the yoke of the kothar, will never accept an alternative where dai is not a part of the equation. And the cardinal principle of the reform movement is to bring reforms to the community, not split it even further.
3) The moment you disown the dai, you stop being a dawoodi bohra and hence lose the right to demand reforms. (Although you could still invoke human rights as a concerned outsider).
Your anger against the dai and his evil apparatus is justified. Calling him names may give you satisfaction, but it doesn't change the situation on the ground a wee bit. What will force change is our collective voice provided we accept the framework within which the reform movement MUST operate.
If you do not accept this framework and are quick to renounce the dai, then how does it matter to you how bad the dai and his evil henchmen are. There is then no need for this song and dance about reforms.
The "absolute authority of imam/dai in all respects, whether religious, social or political" is historically redundant. In the time of the Fatimids, the religious, the social and the political were all fused together and it's true that the imam/dai exercised absolute authority, secrecy, intrigue for the sake of survival - their's and the community's.
But the times have changed. The dawat is under no threat. For centuries after the fall of the Fatimids, dais have proved to be quite decent fellows. The tyranny of recent dais is unnecessary, immoral and unjustified. That's why the reform movement insists that dais change their behaviour, that the community and its wealth, the dawat and its heritage are not their fathers' property. It is our hope and belief that things will change with time and our efforts.
Having said that, the institution of the dai is important for the following reasons:
1) It's central to what is defined as dawoodi bohras. Cut off the dai and you cut off the umbilical cord to dawoodi bohra heritage, history, roots.
2) The larger community, now under the yoke of the kothar, will never accept an alternative where dai is not a part of the equation. And the cardinal principle of the reform movement is to bring reforms to the community, not split it even further.
3) The moment you disown the dai, you stop being a dawoodi bohra and hence lose the right to demand reforms. (Although you could still invoke human rights as a concerned outsider).
Your anger against the dai and his evil apparatus is justified. Calling him names may give you satisfaction, but it doesn't change the situation on the ground a wee bit. What will force change is our collective voice provided we accept the framework within which the reform movement MUST operate.
If you do not accept this framework and are quick to renounce the dai, then how does it matter to you how bad the dai and his evil henchmen are. There is then no need for this song and dance about reforms.
Re: "What makes Bohras such Blind followers" by A
Br Humsafar
With all due repect, I disagree with major point in your post
First you said
So far, both the dai, Taher Saifuddin and Burhanuddin has snubbed their noise at your reform movement and yet your still persist in believing that this faro(pharaoh) will somewhat turn on a new leave? I find this very funny.
Who give them the right to pronounce us as non dawoodi bohras? Dai is just a representative of Dawat to safeguard the interest of the Imam upon the Bohras community. And if the Dai is not serving the interest of Imam Tayyib(as) that means the Dai is already waging a war against the Holy Imam Tayyib(as) and his descendent.
I reject such Dai and the Imam reject such dai. Do you think Imam is happy that a corrupt man like Burhanuddin is doing such tyranny on his followers?
You reform movement might work on a small scale but I don’t see it to ever be successful in the Sub-continent(Indo-Pak). The problem is not with the reform movement but with the community itself. The whole community is damaged beyond repair. No body is willing to fight or to raise their voice.
With all due repect, I disagree with major point in your post
First you said
This is simply not true. Looking closer you will realized that Dawat is facing the biggest threat under Dai Taher Saifuddin and his Son Burhanuddin and His heir apparent which will also be from their clans. These people have introduced so much garbage that Bohras Ismaili dawat and tradition bear no resemblance to what it wasBut the times have changed. The dawat is under no threat.
I think you are too optimist or downright foolish to expect people to change. Thieves, corrupt ppl and jerks do not change. Do you think these ppl who are downright Yazidis are going to change just because you expect them to change?dais have proved to be quite decent fellows.The tyranny of recent dais is unnecessary, immoral and unjustified. That's why the reform movement insists that dais change their behaviour, that the community and its wealth, the dawat and its heritage are not their fathers' property. It is our hope and belief that things will change with time and our efforts.
So far, both the dai, Taher Saifuddin and Burhanuddin has snubbed their noise at your reform movement and yet your still persist in believing that this faro(pharaoh) will somewhat turn on a new leave? I find this very funny.
You may be right here, but no one said Dai cannot be elected and abide by certain rules and regulations. The problem with the current system is that we have Dais who dictates all the terms and not the people who they pledge to serve. And I see this as a huge problem and barrierHaving said that, the institution of the dai is important for the following reasons:
1) It's central to what is defined as dawoodi bohras. Cut off the dai and you cut off the umbilical cord to dawoodi bohra heritage, history, roots.
This is a very valid point but the only problem I see is that those who want to be with Burhanuddin will never join your reform movement and those who will join your reform movement doesn’t really need Burhanuddin.2) The larger community, now under the yoke of the kothar, will never accept an alternative where dai is not a part of the equation. And the cardinal principle of the reform movement is to bring reforms to the community, not split it even further.
This is the same slogan use by Orthodox bohras, and since I don’t buy their reasoning …why should I buy yours? We are born Dawoodi Bohras and we will die as dawoodi bohras.3) The moment you disown the dai, you stop being a dawoodi bohra and hence lose the right to demand reforms. (Although you could still invoke human rights as a concerned outsider).
Who give them the right to pronounce us as non dawoodi bohras? Dai is just a representative of Dawat to safeguard the interest of the Imam upon the Bohras community. And if the Dai is not serving the interest of Imam Tayyib(as) that means the Dai is already waging a war against the Holy Imam Tayyib(as) and his descendent.
I reject such Dai and the Imam reject such dai. Do you think Imam is happy that a corrupt man like Burhanuddin is doing such tyranny on his followers?
Br Humsafar, Most of the Bohras have seen Burhanuddin and Khotar tyranny and I have the personal pleasure to see how twisted the Dawat really is.Your anger against the dai and his evil apparatus is justified. Calling him names may give you satisfaction, but it doesn't change the situation on the ground a wee bit. What will force change is our collective voice provided we accept the framework within which the reform movement MUST operate.
You reform movement might work on a small scale but I don’t see it to ever be successful in the Sub-continent(Indo-Pak). The problem is not with the reform movement but with the community itself. The whole community is damaged beyond repair. No body is willing to fight or to raise their voice.
See, the problem is I don’t believe you can reform a person like Burhanuddin or his khotars. And even if they are reformed, why should I believe Ex-thieves like Burhanuddin family and his relatives deserve the mantle of Dawoodi bohras leadership? Would you approve the leadership of muawiya or Yazid? No. Then why are we compromising our integrity?If you do not accept this framework and are quick to renounce the dai, then how does it matter to you how bad the dai and his evil henchmen are. There is then no need for this song and dance about reforms.