Let us walk the talk

[ghulam muhammed]

I dont think that ozmujaheed intends to use any violent methods but only his language seems to be a bit aggressive. He wants to do something concrete but he has to channelise his actions in a proper and democratic way. No harm in coming out with photographs and other evidence which could further expose kothar but all of it must be based on facts only because we dont want anyone to say that we work on fiction and not facts. Actually what we all have been doing on this forum is trying to expose the evils of kothar by way of factual court cases and real life incidents.

[ozmujaheed]

Guys relax the attack word is meant by keep real pressure on Kotharis for them to give up their methods of oppressing the masses. The pressure will make them alert that they can not go on as if no one is objecting to their methods and we will keep blogging.

Send chain mails and broadcasts to everyone who can be innfluenced and non-Bohras who can sympathise with our intents. Stop mixing words and relating this mission to the politicised other deviants and criminals. This is a fight to cleanse Bohras who have gone astray in the name of Islam for personal greed.

The next step which was completely misunderstood by the Guju timidness: Governments around the world will help more if there is enough publicity of their criminal and unethical behaviour and supported by evidence. Speaking to a few government officials will not make them act. Media like Aljazeera, CNN and BBC, loacl news papers are good at exposing and getting attention. Provide evidence to expose to the law of the land their corrupt money laundering. Shame them in front of the media and politicians who they take photo opportunities to fool us on their credibility.

Their must be photos of the hunting trips in Africa, Shirk in Middle East by prostrating and kissing feet, money laundering to escape customs.

If you are not prepared to even expose them that what chance do you have against a multi-million dollar corporation with over 400,000 orthodox who will not change if they have no reason to.

[Humsafar]

Oz,
Fatwas Banker is correct when he says "Your posts are similar to other well wishing progressives who post what should be done but have not taken the initiative to do anything. ...Every reformer appears to be expecting someone else to reform."

I'll just add two more points. 1) Tone down you language. 2) You have some good ideas. Now go ahead and just do it.

If you're expecting others to join you then you'll be waiting for a long time. This I say from experience. There are many who come here and talk big, but when asked to walk their talk, they actually walk away.

[ozmujaheed]

About me doing something ...I have screamed so many times give me evidence and I will do it ?

I have contacts at the The Age, ASIO but they will only act on documentary evidence and all they will do is put it on category implying subject of interest, that alone will deliver an alert which any high profile politician will stay a 100 yards from Kotharis and that means no state guest status.

Now tell me if I am not walking the talk

[Humsafar]

About me doing something ...I have screamed so many times give me evidence and I will do it ?

Don't scream and don't ask. Just do it. You've to get resourceful to find evidence. Nobody is going to give it to you.

[ozmujaheed]

Humsafar this is how the process works I know the operating procedures better than many of you!

For example:

If we call their activity criminal in nature and is being committed in UK, only a UK resident reports the problem to UK authorities. Once the UK authorities determine based on threat risk level and put the info on Interpol another country like US can reference the subject and use it to build a case or level of surveillance in US.

Secondly I cannot printout this forum pages and report to authorities in say Toronto, like a school kids homework, authorities want evidence of fraudulent activities, receipts, bank statements, email transcripts, photo, videos, specific names, details.

Otherwise they receive thousands of reports which are grievances or personal disputes and vendettas. The process described briefly tries to filters real issues from regular communal disputes for prioritisation.

So before making a casual remark as just do it ..think through what will I achieve …I cannot report a Seifee Mahal issue in India or Hunting in Africa from oversees. And of course hunting in Africa is reported to WWF or Greenpeace not FBI.

That is why I am asking progressive volunteers in each and every country join in ….and try reporting with evidence if nothing useful comes out of your effort at least your conscious will be clear that you tried and failed…rather than hypothesizing.

And when the admin got scared with my step by step plan well your naivety forces me to discuss this plan in public and well I bet you Kothari informants will report and tighten their dealings so we will never get the ammo to corner them and we are again on the back foot !

Furthermore I have not said that the softly softly approach of socialising issues with a MP or going to court should be given up, but these softly approaches take time. I want to see changes in my lifetime !

[Humsafar]

OZ, Sorry I misspoke.
But collaboration doesn't happen by "has anybody reported this....." but rather by "We should report this ... can anyone help?". Just my 2 cents' worth.

[East Africawalla]

Oz mate,

There has been a lot of heresay but no concrete evidence of misdemours , until you get that then trying to involve non Bohras/muslims , you will be laughed at.

Our Bohras are brilliant at gossips and stories but when you ask for actual evidence- nothing.

Until you have this evedence then you can share with rest of the Bohras and try to change their minds.

In the first instance you need to get email addresses of bohras where you can send aroung this evidence.

If you just send them stories with no back up, your emails go to junk.

Start from basic first

Knowing our community they enjoy gossips so any emails will be appreciated but has to be hard facts.

[SBM]

Following is the link of celebrating Diwali with BJP leaders. show this to Muslim leaders around India and Pakistan

http://www.zeninfosys.net/zeninfosys/ak ... hbarID=116

[ozmujaheed]

Every reformist on this board should do what I have done after receiving this surprise email...I have sent it to my 200 Orthodox contacts, so should as many of you as possibly can...get the message out !

To:
BCC:
Subject: Milad Mubarak-Other sources of news around our Deen

Dear Brothers and Sisters, Mumineen and Fellow Muslims,

You have a choice of ignoring this message or digesting it to make knowledgeable decisions around your Imaan. Personally I will have no gain if you find the information in this email useful or not but, I am obliged to disclose and pass on the knowledge I have received as Allah Karim’s baraqat and I send you this information to open your eyes and review the other knowledge source that many of you may not be aware. This is a wake up call to your sleeping intelligence and conscience so as inform you not to be blind to what is happening around our deen, life is not as smooth as you are made to believe by our BhaiSahebs!

In these times how can we ignore true Islamic values, or moral decency while we continue to live in backward world that is revolving around man made mythology, superstition, strange rituals, respect derived from money and mental slavery where we are made victims of being ex-communicated or denied invitation to Masjids. In the 21st Century we are being denied freedom and self determination that billions around the world are taking for granted. Non-bohra communities in Africa and Asia enjoy more freedom of association than we are brought up to expect. We have turned into a greed over-confident segregated society where we deceive outsiders but practise a cult based faith that we are brainwashed not to see the vices within.

The websites of interest that you should give a chance are (and 2 sites are not at all related)

1. http://www.islamhelpline.com/about.asp

2. "(http://dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1)" www dawoodi-bohras.com-website

You can continue to refer to this source of knowledge in the future to raise questions within your soul or be aware of what is happening around us time after time. This will raise your intelligence to know right from wrong. Many others already use the sites, proven by the hundreds or thousands of number of website visits and registered members, some use it regularly, some will browse through occasionally for curiosity which ever way you use the site, knowledge will be gained.

Yes the atrocities mentioned in the thousands of blogs, articles, stories are happening around us. This is a fact but we turn a blind eye for our selfish indvidual fear reasons. You have been brought up with the fear of retribution and baraat for exercising your right to freedom of information and knowledge, fear not as I have blind copied this message and your identity is only known to me. Modern civilization has provided email system and websites to do so discretely and anonymously in the privacy of your home. As a result of this message be prepared for Jamaat announcements, additional sabaaks and misaqs to counter the email chance of creating doubts in your minds and a fightback to question their authority. But the hope is that dissent will grow from strength to strength in future years, today there are pockets of resistance and couple of websites, but Insha-Allah the will of God will be achieved. The new generation is more aware, more inquisitive and is aware of individual rights as world around becomes more global and smarter.

Once you have browsed the websites and you still think you are on the rightful chosen path and wish to live in your own tunnel focused world and feel the sites are totally misleading then your conscience will be clear and you will be responsible for your destiny, as I am.

After all this if you find the information useful I request your favour in return by letting others you know, forward it anonymously, blind copy or word of mouth, you know who you can trust. If you are concerned of your own safety you can create an anonymous email account on yahoo, gmail, hotmail etc. I received this mail and I have forwarded to over 300 of my contacts and like pyramid chain mails thousands can be informed slowly and cautiously.

As honor and respect to remain in our Rasullullah SAW's religion it is fortunate that during this Milad season we open and validate our faith. May Allah judge our deeds as we seek sincere dignity, freedom, respect and justice to return to Islamic faith.

Your brother
Yusuf J (aka Kaizar "Czar")

[amils]

----some would say reform is pointless of something whose basis is all "stinky". A revolution is required not a palatable smoothening of the current status quo. For afterall a reformer is a guy who rides through a sewer in a glass-bottomed boat.....one needs to get in the trenches and clean the shit off not sail over it ....

[Humsafar]

Amils, a very nice, graphic analogy but you must explain what is your idea of revolution and what would be the goal of this revolution and how would go about achieving it.

[amils]

.....some would say this cultish reverence for a Dai is unislamic whether it be a subtle (ones reformers are looking for) or fanatical reverence. Why not get to the root and remove the idea of a single religious entity leading the flock. This may eliminate future abuse of power. If a bond amongst peoples is necessary it perhaps needs to be a social one not one mired in religion or the following of a single religious head albiet a religious scholar....some may argue reliance on a single religious leader to interpret religion (however flawed) inhibits honest religious discourse.....

[Al Zulfiqar]

----some would say reform is pointless of something whose basis is all "stinky". ....

you are absolutely right. in my opinion the reformist movement will not achieve any of its goals as long as their entire exercise is based on reforming a system of corrupt leadership which is illegal and wrongly in power. i.e. without nass. this entire family and its administrative set up, its systems of training (brainwashing) amils, the conferment of paid titles, the whole elaborate structure to collect taxes and oppress bohras etc. needs to be dismantled and thrown out by creating a revolution.

the present leadership is nothing but satan's handiwork. satan has overtaken our rightful deen after the 46th syedna and we are trying to reform satan, whom allah has condemned to hell..!!

the present syedna and his father have very cleverly equated a bohra's faith with absolute obedience to his farmaans. so the reformists' attempts to question the taxes and the misuse of the powers of these 2 syednas is bound to fail. what is required is a complete overhaul, by violence if necessary. this may be a shock to some, but each and every social, moral or religious revolution in human history was won only at the point of a sword or gun.

[Humsafar]

Amils,
You're right, the cult built around the dai is a problem and that is why it's on the reformist agenda to educate people about the true position of the dai and the responsibilities and duties this position entails. The solution is NOTto get rid of the dai. If you still want to be called a Dawoodi Bohra then you will have to work within the framework of bohra doctrine and tradition. The position of the dai is paramount in the religious hierarchy of the Dawat. You cannot get rid of the dai and still be called a bohra, or for that matter, still hope to convince common bohras to your point of view. This is why the reform movement has always insisted that our concerns are with social and administrative aspects of the dawat and its misuse of religion. Reformists DO NOT want to reform the religion - this cannot be emphasised enough.

Al Zulfiqar,
I do appreciate your righteous passion to set things right but this is not the kind of support reformists are looking for. Your advocacy for violence must be strongly condemned. Non-violence and peaceful struggle is the bedrock of the reformist movement. There can be no two opinions about this. No responsible reformist - or anyone for that matter - should be talking about using violence. Remember, those who live by the sword die by the sword. Violence cannot bring peace and justice, it always brings more violence. History is replete with evidence.

As for the legitimacy of the last two dais, it's a murky, divisive issue. So is the controversy surrounding the 46th dai, so are many other such issues starting with shia sunni bifurcations down to this day. How far back in history do you want go to right the wrongs? Reformists take the status quo as a given - dais and all - and only concern themselves with the corruption and coercion that plagues the community. And there is a reason for this: the need to end the suffering and exploitation of common bohras is important and urgent. The controversy about the dai is needless and endless and purely academic. It will do nobody any good and will only bring more heartache and fragmentation.

Form your posts I've noticed that you are neither interested in true reforms nor in the unity of bohras. You come here with your personal agenda of hate and vengeance - and now have crossed all limits by advocating violence.

[mutmaeen]

for a revolution to succeed two things are paramount-1 a charasmatic leader and 2 a unity of ideoogy
the reformists have none-some are wedded to whabism-some are athiests and so on....reform urselves b4 embarking on reforming anything else

[Humsafar]

Let us not kid ourselves with the romantic notion of a revolution that will change and overhaul the system in one fell swoop. "Regime change" and "winning" are all misplaced aspirations. That said, we do need a revolution - but one that will change the hearts and minds of bohras. For this we do need a charismatic leader who will fire them up but such a leader will not come from among reformists for the simple reason that being an "outsider" he will lack credibility. Such a leader will have to emerge from within the "mainstream", preferrably from the "royal family" - a rebel who cares about the dawat and the people.

But there is no point in waiting for a leader. Our freedom and our dignity is our individual responsibility - and our right. We'll have to fight for our rights and dignity, nobody else will do it for us. Reformists have shown the way, they can help inspire and inform but the onus of change, revolution - or whatever you may want to call it - rests on "mainstream" bohras themselves. There is no excuse to suffer the oppression and humiliation. Yes some reformists maybe wahabbis and atheists, so what? Such comments are classic red-herrings. Reform is not about religion or religious beliefs. It would help if all of us focused on the core agenda of reforms - accountability, jamat democracy, end to coercion and corruption - and not get distracted by extraneous and pointless matters.

[East Africawalla]

I am concerned about advocating violence , as I have said before we are a peace lovong community whatever our views are ie Kothari or progressives, AZ this is not a forum for your views, you are putting off the border line reformist who migh support the cause of the progressives and are looked about with total scorn by the mainstream. You do not believe in the Dai's after 46th then your views are different to about 95% of progressives.

Admin, please can you strongly condemn this advocacy of violence.

[Admin]

Reformists seek peaceful resolution to their problems, any talk of violence is totally out of line. Speaking on behalf of all reformists and the reform movement we denounce and condemn this. Al Zulifiqar, you have a right to your opinion, but to even suggest violence as a means of action is highly irresponsible and is contrary to the ethos and principles of the reform movement.

[Al Zulfiqar]

Al Zulfiqar,
I do appreciate your righteous passion to set things right but this is not the kind of support reformists are looking for. Your advocacy for violence must be strongly condemned. Non-violence and peaceful struggle is the bedrock of the reformist movement. There can be no two opinions about this. No responsible reformist - or anyone for that matter - should be talking about using violence. Remember, those who live by the sword die by the sword. Violence cannot bring peace and justice, it always brings more violence. History is replete with evidence.

As for the legitimacy of the last two dais, it's a murky, divisive issue. So is the controversy surrounding the 46th dai, so are many other such issues starting with shia sunni bifurcations down to this day. How far back in history do you want go to right the wrongs? Reformists take the status quo as a given - dais and all - and only concern themselves with the corruption and coercion that plagues the community. And there is a reason for this: the need to end the suffering and exploitation of common bohras is important and urgent. The controversy about the dai is needless and endless and purely academic. It will do nobody any good and will only bring more heartache and fragmentation.

Form your posts I've noticed that you are neither interested in true reforms nor in the unity of bohras. You come here with your personal agenda of hate and vengeance - and now have crossed all limits by advocating violence.

Humsafar,

Let us analyse your post.

1. you say that the issue of legitimacy of the dai's is a 'murky issue'. Thats a load of escapist crap, as the facts from history clearly show that the 47th, 48th, 49th and 50th dais officially called themselves Dai e Nazims. Why? The 51st dai, Syedna Taher Saifuddin, wanted to cleverly circumvent this issue and get out of this trap once and for all. So he slowly and insidiously started testing the waters and by various subterfuges finally ended up with the self-given title, Dai ul Mutlaq. Even he initially used titles like Sarkar-e Aali, Vada Mullaji, etc etc, but when he realised that the the more he terrorised the community and the more they gave in, he slowly turned into an absolute tyrant. The only way he could wipe out the issue of legitimacy was by intimidation and money power which he undertook by expropriating all bohra jamaat properties worldwide, bribing govt officials, spreading terror, imposing new and innovative taxes and using as his instrument the weapon of baraat against his enemies. His son today has consolidated this position by tightening his grip on the community, imposing more taxes, altering our deen, and putting a completely corrupt and brainwashed army of paid minions to carry out his mission of subjugating and milking the dormant community to the last drop.
So the whole issue of accountability, democracy, transparency and restoring spirituality to our community is inextricably linked with the illegitimate dai's who have taken over.
2. You are unneccessarily bringing up the shia sunni issue. I have not referred to it. In fact I have categorically stated many times here that in the larger interests of the muslim Ummah, we should put aside our differences and adopt the islam which was practised by the Prophet and Ali. Besides by raking up that issue we are also questioning the wisdom of the Prophet himself who had declared the first 3 khalifas as his companions in Paradise.
3. I do not advocate divisiveness among bohras. In fact the best way for the reform movement to succeed is by ordinary bohras remaining inside at all costs but showing spine, defying the diktats of the amils as much as they can and motivating others to do the same. Walking away to isolate yrself in a marginalised group and living in peace is not the solution.
4. Even the Prophet and his companions were forced to pick up the sword and fight physically to vanquish their opponents when they were attacked, or did they retire into the desert to lick their wounds in private and talk of non-violence? That is the spirit I would like to see in our people and those who are pasionate about reform. Do not be afraid of physical, emotional and religious intimidation and bullying. Stand up and fight, not instigate organised attacks like the terrorists of today. What the syedna and his hired goons are doing today is nothing but violence even if it is disguised as emotional, mental and religious torture. People are being thrown out from our jamaats, abused and prevented from attending namaz, majlises, uruses and visiting dargahs, they are being humiliated in private and public, they are being forced and blackmailed to pay up huge sums just to remain on the kothar's good side just because they are decent and docile.
5. In Udaipur too, the youths and even women came out onto the streets to physically defend their rights, inspite of goondas being unleashed on them. That is how they won their freedom and their rights. They are still subjected to it every day but their readiness to fight, deters the kothari goons. They are today the single largest group of bohra reformists in the world, and their secret is their possession of most of the bohra jamaat properties, masjids, etc in udaipur, which they have held on by force if neccessary.
6. No one is denying that the position of Dai is not neccessary and is not central to the dawoodi bohra faith, but how do you reconcile the fact that impostors have taken over its august office and have no mood to ever loosen their evil and iron grip on our community? As they get more powerful, the reformists are getting weaker and more marginalised. Your hope that a messiah will arise from within that stinking pond of kothar is something that even I would like to dream about, but in reality if such a rare and miraculous person were to even show the slightest sign of rebellion, he will be crushed and summarily finished off, as the last dai used to do. Its not impossible, but who will aid him? A bunch of strong and fearless people or the spineless and docile banias who constitute our majority today?
7. If I was not interested in reform, then why do I come here? Is criticising the syedna and his corrupt, exploitative family who are living off us like leaches and daily terrorising simple, ordinary, faithful bohras a personal attack?
8. If the unity of bohras so important, why did you leave the fold and join the reformists? Why do the reformists out here in the west actively encourage bohras to leave and join them? Why did the adtalisiyas, the suleimanis, and all the other factions leave? The only way the community can remain united is by blindly and as cowards accepting the farmaans of the syedna and his goons. That is just what they want. Take it or leave it is their attitude, so you left too.
9. As for the reformists accepting the dai as their undisputed leader, its like living in a fools paradise, as the syedna and our entire community consider the reformists as dawat na dushman. So you are back to square one.

If you are afraid that I am giving the official reformists a bad name, then let me categorically state to all those who visit this forum that I am not a part of the PDB reformist movement, my views are my own and do not reflect on their official line and policies.

[GreatBarrier]

Guys there is frustration on both sides of Progrssives and Centre right orthodox where there is massive corruption in the administration but are unable to resolve this. We ar walking a thin line where if we become slightly violent or aggressive many will be branded terororists, however the Orthodox fanatics will easily excercise mob justice within the confines of their Jammat Khannas, and if you try reporting to police, they will claim trespassing or private dispute.

The masses believe that upsetting Moala is far much worse then continue suffering without bitterness. Kothar knows this and are exloiting to the maximum...Bohras are treated like spiritual beggars...if you want the society and association...well go on your knees and pay up and then you have access to your Moala.

Moala is an institution that regardless who occupies that position gives Bohras an easy access to solve the strict Islamic rules...for many middle class bohras it is easy to fork out a few hundred bucks and "please" Bhaisahebs who will relay their degreeof faith when they next visit Moala and this acknowledgement will wipe their sins, bring happiness to their soul... women can socialise and mingle with men in Community centres .. hold their hand in Jannah......etc. This is exactly how avengelical christians have convinced that belief in Christ will save you ! Bohras are perfecting this method.

In modern lifestyle this is far more a conveneient rather than run out offices and change from suits and ties for 5 times prayers, try to have a conversation with a Arab or West African Muslim , risk your decendents being of mixed race...

Admin I am ammused..you and Progressives are fanning the fire but get scared when you believe it will get out of control, I can understand your worries for the consequencies

Many center right Bohra members appreciate that PDB gave that avenue such as this website to discuss issues that Orthodox establishment have surpressed, and within Orthodox it arouses suspicion if all the news is good news around 1 million Bohras is always glorified and rosy!

[mutmaeen]

az

Thats a load of escapist crap, as the facts from history clearly show that the 47th, 48th, 49th and 50th dais officially called themselves Dai e Nazims.

can u substantiate the statement u made ? can u quote authentic documents/books that prove ur point?

[Humsafar]

Zulfiqar, Let me answer you point by point.

1) That’s murky past mired in controversy. It is so much water down the river. We can't go back and change things. It is wise to move on and focus on things that really matter - like exploitation and coercion of bohras.

2) I bring up the shia/sunni issue to illustrate that we cannot change the facts of history. Haven't we all learned to live with the wrongs of history be it shia/sunni split or other subsequent divisions of the ummah? We can't change history, but we have the control over the present, so let's focus on the task at hand.

3) You're right, the real change will only come from "inside". The majority of reformists are not "outside" by choice - they were ex-communicated. We want to go back but on our own terms – that’s why the reform movement. If reformists wanted "to live in peace" they would not bother with reform struggle and the whole shebang they have got going. Reformists are doing what they can but to expect them to bring about change all by themselves is unrealistic. The abject fear of bohras and their failure to challenge the kothar cannot be laid at the door of reformists. As I have said so many times before, we are here to inform and inspire but people have to take the initiative first. You can bring a horse to the water but you can’t force it to drink the water.

4) The prophet picked up the sword "when attacked". Self-defence is one thing, but what you're actually suggesting is "a complete overhaul, by violence if necessary." This is not "stand(ing) up and fighting". This is "instigat(ing) organised attacks like the terrorists of today." Yes bohras are in a sorry state - the solution to which is not violence but organised mass resistance, non-cooperation.

5) You're confusing "readiness to fight" with violence. In Udaipur we fought pitched battles with sticks and stones - but with the police which was unleashed on us and not with orthodox bohras. Those street battles were spontaneous acts of self-defence sparked by extreme provocation. Violence was never planned and never deliberately started, but by God we were ready to fight then and we are ready to fight today. Violence in social upheavals maybe inevitable and we have not and will not shrink from dealing with it. But our policy is to achieve our goals as far as possible through peaceful means.

6) Part of the answer is in point 1) above. Yes, the kothar is getting more powerful but not against reformists. This is a wrong comparison. The kothar is getting more and more powerful at the expense of common bohras, it’s them who are getting weaker. I'm not hoping for any messiah to come – in fact I state quite the opposite, that there is no point in waiting for one. Read my post again.

7) You may be interested in reforms but your ideas on achieving them are completely different from and unacceptable to the majority of reformists.

As I said, we did not leave we were ex-communicated. Asking bohras to join the reformist jamat does not amount to disunity, it is to strengthen our cause by legitimate, kosher means. Reformists are still dawoodi bohras. We are one community. Calling for violence will surely cause disunity and lead to fragmentation.

9) "Dawat na dushman" - this is pure propaganda. Funny that you should use this to prove your point. The fact is that there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about reformists. Our tasks should be to educate people about our purpose and objectives. Talk of violence will only add fuel to the kothar's propaganda fire. Unwittingly you've ended up aiding the "satan" whom, you're so certain, "allah has condemned to hell".

[ghulam muhammed]

Bro Az and Humsafar,

The views expressed by both of you are good and I dont think that AZ is anyway trying to instigate violent means to achieve the goal its only a misunderstanding of his core views. The recent incident from Mumbra where a weak old bohra gentleman was beaten up by the kothari goons is something to sit back and think. Another incident which took place during Ramzan in Hussaini Masjid wherein bohra men/women beat up the amil and tanzim members for not allowing them to pray without paying for the masalla space had forced the kothar to step back and refund the masalla space amount of not only the Masjid where they got beaten up but even in Qutbi Masjid which is nearby. So you see that violence sometimes becomes neccessary and definately it should not be pre planned but spontanous.

It becomes neccessary to speak in a language which the opposite person understands and hence an act of oppression can be dealt with violently at a given time. In the past kothar has even gone to the extent of removing the dead bodies from the graves and throwing it out and so if such acts are not dealt with sternly then there will be no end to their atrocities.

Everyone on this forum agrees that the bohras should be educated and that kothar's unislamic acts should be exposed which is not neccessarily only their money making racket but various other acts which are against the core principles of Islam. The most important question is who will bell the cat ?

[aftabm]

Why are we (the reformists and thier wellwishers) so worried about change happening in a jiff. It may and will take long time, as all other changes. Our organized movement is just about 40 years old and it would be too subjective to measure its success or failure in tangible terms.

As Humsafar rightly pointed out, what we need is reform of minds and not on the street. Our target and audience are common bohra folks, whos enduring (sometimes willingly too), not the whole world. The tyranny and oppression by kothar regime is a well-known fact amongst common bohra mass. Its not that the junta is not aware of the evil-doings, its thier numbed minds that needs to revigorated.

Dear Bro OZM, We cant just shift blame on OP(As you call them) or reformist leader for not having done better, but atleast they were courageous enough to break the so-called-wall....

[ozmujaheed]

True to my intent I found this and this law is very applicable in Australia..Bohras cannot hide and assume loopholes in Common Law and continue oppressing masses.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Page: 14972


The Hon. PETER BREEN [5.37 p.m.]: I take the opportunity this evening to respond to the contributions of my colleagues the Hon. Eric Roozendaal and the Hon. David Clarke, who spoke about religious tolerance during the adjournment debate. The 2001 census revealed that 75 per cent of Australians identify with a religion, with 70 per cent following the monotheistic traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. More than 100 different religions were identified in the census as being religious beliefs in Australia. So, contrary to popular opinion, we live in a religious society.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal was correct when he said that freedom of speech is a hard-won universal right that comes with responsibility. Universal rights and freedoms include the right to speak freely but not the right to vilify and incite hatred towards any individual or group of citizens based on perceived differences. The purpose of any anti-discrimination legislation is to protect minorities and to remind citizens of our collective responsibility to exhibit tolerance and compassion towards each other. All rights and freedoms are derived from the dignity of the person, and human dignity is to be found in religious beliefs and practices no less than in age, gender, race or sexual preference.

The Hon. David Clarke seems to have overlooked the fact that most anti-discrimination laws are in place to protect minorities. The honourable member is clearly not part of a minority in any capacity that I am aware of and, as a Christian, he is certainly not part of a minority faith in Australia. I am sure that he would feel quite differently about religious vilification laws if he were part of a religious minority. The Hon. David Clarke proposed a distinction between racial and religious vilification. It appears that the honourable member supports racial vilification laws because race is something that people cannot change—something intrinsic and unalterable. On the other hand, he describes religious vilification as targeting:

... expressions of opposition to other religious beliefs and practices in contrast to one's own.

Religious vilification laws do not target expressions of opposition to other religions; they target vilification. In his efforts to draw a distinction between religious and racial vilification, the Hon. David Clarke begs the question of vilification. Religious vilification laws permit offensive statements about another religious group as long as they are made reasonably and in good faith, pursuant to genuine discussion or debate, and do not incite hatred. I am not aware of religious vilification laws that persecute or criminalise people's religious thoughts, as suggested by the Hon. David Clarke. On the contrary, such laws actually protect people's religious thoughts by prohibiting their vilification. The Hon. David Clarke's race-versus-religion argument intrigues me because it proceeds on the basis that to vilify someone based on their beliefs or their choices is somehow acceptable.

I do not consider my own religious beliefs to be a matter of choice, and the teaching of the Catholic Church is that faith is a gift from God. Most Christians receive the gift with infant baptism so there is no exercise of choice. Furthermore, a choice cannot become a standard by which we define our protection under the law. It is unlawful to discriminate on the ground of gender, but what if someone surgically alters their gender? Does that mean because they have chosen their gender they are no longer afforded protection under the law?

In any discussion of religious vilification laws, the case under Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 arises. Those who defend the actions of the people involved in this vilification claim they did no more than quote from the Qur'an and discuss terrorism. However, this was not the case. At various times throughout a seminar in 2002 Pastors Scot and Nalliah stated that Muslims are liars and demons, that they plan to use violence to overrun western democracies including Australia, and that if that happened they would rape and murder Christians. Pastor Scot also said that the true Muslims are the terrorists, that it is impossible to separate Islam from terrorism, and that the prophet Muhammad was a paedophile.

Like the Hon. Eric Roozendaal, I am appalled that anyone would defend those statements under the guise of freedom of speech. The 2002 seminar was not a religious debate, it was not educational and it served no purpose other than to incite fear and hatred. It was pure vilification and an abuse of our responsibility towards our hard-won freedom of speech. The Hon. David Clarke seems to think that because Pastors Scot and Nalliah are themselves from ethnic backgrounds they cannot be held accountable for vilification. This is woolly thinking by the honourable member. Just because a person is part of a racial minority does not make it more acceptable for that person to commit vilification.

Religious tolerance legislation is in line with other Australian States. Whilst the Hon. David Clarke mentioned that South Australia and Western Australia have not yet decided to pursue religious vilification laws, Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania have all passed legislation outlawing the vilification of people on the basis of religious belief. I also understand that in its 2004 Federal election campaign the Australian Labor Party promised to prohibit vilification on the grounds of race, religion and sexuality. Religious tolerance legislation will not restrict freedom of speech and it will not curtail vigorous religious debate or even controversial points of view. The only change will be to make it unlawful to incite hatred, and that is a positive development in my opinion.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [5.45 p.m.]: Following my adjournment speech on 23 February, in which I criticised religious vilification laws in Victoria as an attack on free speech and warned against the introduction of similar laws in New South Wales, the Hon. Eric Roozendaal, by way of a speech in reply, defended those religious vilification laws and made a series of assertions, with which I now take issue. Indeed, I am grateful to the honourable member for keeping this matter alive and providing me with a further opportunity to elucidate on my earlier opposition to having such laws imposed in our State.

Additionally, his comments will serve to let our community know that there are at least a few within the Australian Labor Party who relish the thought of such laws in our State. Fortunately, it would appear that, to date, the New South Wales Government is not among those who support that prospect. The New South Wales Government has not indicated a desire to go down the Victorian path, or that is what I understand the position to be. The New South Wales Government would appear to still value freedom of religious expression. I hope that that will remain the position.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal referred to my mention of the conviction of pastors Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah as a defence of racists. The fact is that both pastors were convicted of religious vilification and not racial vilification: there is a clear distinction between the two. Racial vilification concerns comments directed against persons because of what they are and cannot change, something that is intrinsic and unalterable: ethnic origin or country of birth. Religious vilification laws target expressions of opposition to other religious beliefs and practices in contrast to one's own.

Both pastors in the Victorian case focused on religious beliefs, doctrines and practices, and not on racial issues. Indeed, Pastor Scot, being of Pakistani origin, and Pastor Nalliah, being of Sri Lankan background, would find it bizarre that they have been labelled as racists. The Hon. Eric Roozendaal says he feels strongly about religious vilification. Well, so does Pastor Scot in view of the fact that his conversion from Islam to Christianity resulted in a death sentence being imposed upon him by Islamic extremists, necessitating his departure from his homeland in 1987. Many others in Australia have had a similar experience.

When I previously spoke about the Victorian case I did not refer to the content of the comments made by the two pastors, as to whether they were in good taste or not, whether they were historically or theologically accurate, or whether their remarks breached the Victorian law. My argument is that there should be no religious vilification laws at all. That is a very straightforward proposition. Do I find it offensive that nuns are held up to public ridicule and contempt in Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras? Yes, I do. I wish the organisers would bring this public ridicule to an end; they would gain some kudos if they did. But do I seek to ban the right of persons to ridicule them, unsavoury as I might find it? No, I do not. Do I find periodic assertions against my own church, or other denominations for that matter, to be offensive and unsavoury? Yes I do, but I certainly would not restrict the right to make such remarks.

I agree with the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, the Reverend Robert Forsyth, Anglican Bishop of South Sydney, and many others, that so-called religious vilification laws are a dangerous step. That view is shared by many academics, legal experts and a growing number of Christian churches and other faith traditions. It does not surprise me that Labor governments in South Australia and Western Australia have decided not to go down that path. I agree with Amir Butler, Director of the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee, when he said:

All that these anti-vilification laws have achieved is to provide a legalistic weapon by which religious groups can silence their ideological opponents rather than engaging in debate and discussion …

Who, after, would give credence to a religion that appears so fragile it can only exist if protected by a bodyguard of lawyers?

If so-called religious vilification is used to incite violence or the committing of other crimes, the law is already in place to deal with that situation. These matters are already covered by the criminal and civil law. Why do we now criminalise people's religious thoughts? Religious vilification laws are unnecessary and opposition to them is widespread and growing. I believe that the comments of the Hon. Eric Roozendaal, contrary to his intention, will further galvanise opposition here in New South Wales and elsewhere.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [6.48 p.m.]: Tonight I want to say something about religious tolerance. This week the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal made a decision about penalty in the Catch the Fire Ministries case. The Ministry and Pastors Scott and Nalliah were ordered to apologise to the complainant, the Islamic Council of Victoria. Pastor Nalliah said on the steps of the court that he would rather go to gaol than apologise, so I expect the case is far from over.

In essence, the case is about what certain Christians believe Muslims believe and the right of those Christians to express their opinions. Pastor Nalliah believes he can say and do as he pleases in the promotion and defence of Christianity. Other Christians intervened in the case in support of the Islamic Council of Victoria. These included the United Church of Australia and the Catholic Church. The tribunal heard evidence from Father Patrick McInerney, who had studied Islam at the Pontifical Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies. He holds a Masters in Theology from Yarra Theological Union and his major thesis was titled "Reconciling Differences between Religions."

Father McInerney gave evidence that pastors Nalliah and Scott misrepresented the teaching of the prophet Mohamed as recorded in the Qur'an and the Hadiths. There is no grand Muslim plot to overthrow western democracies and rape, torture and kill Christians in Australia when the time is right, despite what pastors Nalliah and Scott said. Judge Michael Higgins found that those statements were not made reasonably and in good faith or for any purpose in the public interest. His Honour also found that Father McInerney was a very impressive witness. Last night on the 7:30 Report, I noticed that while Pastor Nalliah was denigrating the judge and portraying himself as a martyr on the steps of the court, Rabbi Jonathan Black from the Jewish Community and Father John Dupuche from the Catholic Interfaith Committee defended the decision. While I do not agree with all aspects of the decision, particularly the wording of the proposed apology, I do believe justice has been done.

New South Wales does not have the religious tolerance laws that protect people from vilification based on their religious belief. When Neville Wran introduced the Anti-Discrimination Act into the Legislative Assembly of this Parliament in November 1976, he acknowledged the unfairness of allowing a person to be discriminated against on the basis of their religious conviction. The legislation passed the Assembly with the provision intact. Then Premier Wran was lobbied by Cardinal Gilroy and Archbishop Gough, and the Government removed the religious tolerance provision from the bill in this House.

The church princes did us no favours in New South Wales whether as Christians or Muslims. While minority religions have access to anti-discrimination laws in New South Wales by virtue of the ethno-religious origin definition of race, the two major religions, Christianity and Islam, must rely on the anti-discrimination boards in Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania to defend attacks against believers. When David Oldfield published his Muslim hate web site in New South Wales, it was left to the Victorian Anti-Discrimination Board to bring him to heel because the reach of the Internet extends to Victoria.

The reason Christians and Muslims fail to get a guernsey under New South Wales anti-discrimination laws on the ground of religious discrimination is that the ethno-religious origin definition of race applies only to those religious groups that identify with a particular country of origin. Both Christianity and Islam are world religions, which means if you are discriminated against in the New South Wales workplace on the basis that you belong to the Christian or Muslim faiths, then tough bananas. If you wish to vilify and incite hatred towards Christians or Muslims in New South Wales, then you do it with impunity, unless you happen to also publish the hate material in Queensland, Victoria or Tasmania.

Any suggestion that religious tolerance laws somehow intrude into the right to free speech is quite misleading. The idea that we are free to say what we like without being accountable for our words is simply wrong. I cannot walk into a crowded theatre and cry "fire" and not be responsible for my words. There are criminal laws about public mischief and perverting the course of justice. I cannot stand outside a Jewish Synagogue in the eastern suburbs of Sydney and hold up a sign that reads "All Jewish people should be placed in detention" without attracting the attention of the authorities including the Anti-Discrimination Board. If I were to hold up a sign outside the Lakemba Mosque that reads "All Muslims should be placed in detention", the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board would be powerless to take any action. Similarly, a person on the steps of St Mary's Cathedral with a sign that reads "All Catholics should be placed in detention" would be of no interest to the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board.

The fact is New South Wales anti-discrimination laws are themselves quite discriminatory. They do not apply equally to all citizens and religious tolerance laws operate only for the benefit of those religions whose followers can be identified with a particular country of origin. Earlier this week Premier Carr spoke in the other place about attempts in the United Kingdom to introduce laws preventing the incitement of religious hatred. He said, "It has been suggested that the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended." Well, that depends on whether or not the person offended belongs to a religious minority. There are many circumstances in which people can be vilified on the basis of their religion. Those circumstances will often extend to people who belong to world religions such as Christianity and Islam. I can subscribe to a world religion as a citizen of New South Wales and still be part of a religious minority, but I will not have the benefit of anti-discrimination laws. Premier Carr is continuing the injustice that began when former Premier Wran removed religious conviction as a ground for prohibiting discrimination under the Anti Discrimination Act.

[ozmujaheed]

This is the Law in Victoria, Australia .This law protects PDB and Bohras who are reluctant to blindly follow the Kothar.

Under this law Body Corporate is the registered Jammat.

By virtue of this law forceful Misaq and swearing implies vilification, with reference to consequences of breaching Misaq. Lanaat on PDB members is vilification. lanaat on Sunni Ashabbas is vilification....same time our response to Orthodox also needs to be calculated and measured.

I welcome Kothar legal committee who are keeping an eye on this website to read and advise their leaders !


Act No. 47/2001
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001
PART 2—UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
Division 1—Unlawful Vilification
7. Racial vilification unlawful
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the race of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious
contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), conduct—
(a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and
(b) may occur in or outside Victoria. Note: "engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.
8. Religious vilification unlawful
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
Note: "engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), conduct—
(a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and
(b) may occur in or outside Victoria.
9. Motive and dominant ground irrelevant
(1) In determining whether a person has contravened section 7 or 8, the person's motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant.
(2) In determining whether a person has contravened section 7 or 8, it is irrelevant whether or not the race or religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons is the only or dominant ground for the conduct, so long as it is a substantial ground.
10. Incorrect assumption as to race or religious belief or activity In determining whether a person has contravened section 7 or 8, it is irrelevant whether or not the person made an assumption about the race or religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons that was incorrect at the time that
the contravention is alleged to have taken place.
11. Exceptions—public conduct A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith—
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for—
(i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or
(ii) any purpose that is in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.
12. Exceptions—private conduct
(1) A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the person engaged in the conduct in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that the parties to the conduct desire it to be heard or seen only by themselves.
(2) Sub-section (1) does not apply in relation to conduct in any circumstances in which the parties to the conduct ought reasonably to expect that it may be heard or seen by someone else.
Division 2—Other Unlawful Conduct
13. Prohibition of victimisation A person must not victimise another person.
14. What is victimisation?
(1) A person victimises another person if the person subjects or threatens to subject the other person to any detriment because the other person, or a person associated (whether as a relative or otherwise) with the other person—
(a) has made a complaint against any person;
(b) has brought any other proceedings under this Act against any person;
(c) has given evidence or information, or produced a document, in connection with any proceedings under this Act;
(d) has attended a compulsory conference at the Tribunal;
(e) has otherwise done anything in accordance with this Act in relation to any person;
(f) has alleged that any person has contravened a provision of this Act, unless the allegation is false and was not made in good faith;
(g) has refused to do anything that would contravene a provision of this Act— or because the person believes that the other person or the associate has done or intends to do any of those things.
(2) It is sufficient for sub-section (1)(f) that the allegation states the conduct that would constitute the contravention, without actually stating that this Act, or a provision of this Act, has been contravened.
(3) In determining whether a person victimises another person it is irrelevant—
(a) whether or not a factor in sub-section (1) is the only or dominant ground for the treatment or threatened treatment, so long as it is a substantial ground;
(b) whether the person acts alone or in association with any other person.
15. Prohibition of authorising or assisting vilification or victimisation A person must not request, instruct, induce, encourage, authorise or assist another person to contravene a provision of this Part.
16. Liability of person who authorises or assists If, as a result of a person doing any of the things specified in section 15, the other person contravenes a provision of this Part—
(a) a complaint about the contravention may be lodged against either or both of those persons; and
(b) for the purposes of the complaint, both of them must be taken to have contravened the provision.
17. Vicarious liability of employers and principals If a person in the course of employment or while acting as an agent contravenes a provision of this Part, both the person and the employer or principal must be taken to have contravened the provision, and a complaint about the contravention may be lodged against either or both of them.
18. Exception to vicarious liability An employer or principal is not vicariously liable for a contravention of a provision of this Part by an employee or agent if the employer or principal proves, on the balance of probabilities, that the employer or principal took reasonable precautions to prevent the employee or agent contravening this Part.
19. Who may complain? (1) The following may complain to the Commission—
(a) a person who claims that another person has contravened a provision of Part 2 in relation to that person;
(b) if that person is unable to complain because of impairment—
(i) a person authorised by that person to act on his or her behalf; or
(ii) if that person is unable to authorise another person, any other person on his or her behalf;
(c) if that person is a child—
(i) the child; or
(ii) a parent of the child on the child's behalf; or
(iii) if the Commission is satisfied that the child or a parent of the child consents any other person on the child's behalf.
(2) A person may complain on behalf of the person and another person or persons if the Commission is satisfied that—
(a) each person named in the complaint—
(i) is entitled to complain under subsection (1)(a); and
(ii) has consented to the complaint being made on the person's behalf; and
(b) the alleged contravention arises out of the same conduct.
20. How to complain
(1) A person complains to the Commission by lodging a written complaint with the Commission by hand, fax, e-mail or other electronic communication or post.
(2) A complaint must set out details of the alleged contravention.
21. Commission must assist complainants The Commission must assist a complainant in formulating the complaint.
22. Complaints against unincorporated associations
(1) A complaint about a contravention of a provision of Part 2 by an unincorporated association may be lodged against the association in the name of its president, secretary or other similar officer.
(2) The death, resignation or removal of the person named in a complaint in accordance with subsection (1) does not affect the continuity of the
proceeding and it may be continued against the association in the name of that person's replacement.
PART 4—SERIOUS VILIFICATION OFFENCES
24. Offence of serious racial vilification
(1) A person (the offender) must not, on the ground of the race of another person or class of persons, intentionally engage in conduct that the offender knows is likely—
(a) to incite hatred against that other person or class of persons; and
(b) to threaten, or incite others to threaten, physical harm towards that other person or class of persons or the property of that other person or class of persons.
Note: "engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.
Penalty: In the case of a body corporate, 300 penalty units; In any other case, imprisonment for 6 months or 60 penalty units or both.
(2) A person (the offender) must not, on the ground of the race of another person or class of persons, intentionally engage in conduct that the offender knows is likely to incite serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
Note: "engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material. Penalty: In the case of a body corporate,
300 penalty units; In any other case, imprisonment for 6 months or 60 penalty units or both.
A prosecution for an offence against sub-section (1) or (2) must not be commenced without the written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
26. Incorrect assumption as to race or religious belief or activity In determining whether a person has committed an offence against section 24 or 25, it is irrelevant whether or not the person made an assumption about the race or religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons that was incorrect at the time that the offence is alleged to have been committed.
27. Liability of body corporate
(1) If a body corporate is guilty of an offence against this Part, each officer of the body corporate who knowingly directed, authorised or permitted the commission of the offence by the body corporate, is also guilty of an offence against this Part.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) affects any liability imposed on a body corporate for an offence committed by it against this Part.
(3) If, in a proceeding for an offence against this Part, it is necessary to establish the state of mind of a
18 body corporate in relation to particular conduct, it is sufficient to show that—
(a) the conduct was engaged in by an employee, agent or officer of the body corporate within the scope of his or her actual authority; and
(b) the employee, agent or officer had that state of mind.
(4) If an employee, agent or officer of a body corporate engages in conduct on behalf of the body corporate within the scope of his or her actual authority, the body corporate must be taken, for the purposes of a prosecution for an offence against this Part, also to have engaged in the conduct unless the body corporate establishes that it took reasonable precautions to avoid the conduct.
(5) In this section "officer", in relation to a body corporate, means—
(a) a director, secretary or executive officer of the body corporate; or
(b) any person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the body corporate are accustomed to act; or
(c) a person substantially concerned in the management of the body corporate.
28. Issue of search warrant by magistrate Section 465 of the Crimes Act 1958 applies to and in respect of an offence against section 24 or 25 of this Act as if it were an indictable offence.

[East Africawalla]

There are a very few bohras in Aussieland so what difference will this law make.

The law has been created by the same people who have victimised the natives aborigines in Australia and they themselves were criminals chucked out of UK.

[ozmujaheed]

EA...if Australia can have vilification laws Europe, North America will have similar laws. Progressives and reformists should use the law to their advantage and protection from vilification.

If laws do not exist approach your member of parliament and remind him/her what is possible and law can be created .

PDBs across the globe should do their own research and have the laws in their back pocket. When a Kothari opens his mouth like a red card show it and shut him up !

Regarding Australia history I do not know what relevance that has to our mission.

[ozmujaheed]

Please refer to the link for updates of the silent revelution down under

http://dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewtop ... f=8&t=4692