Disturbing revelations...!!

[Al Zulfiqar]

I had taken quite a long hiatus recently from this forum, not particularly enthused by the paucity of anything substantial going on by way of intelligent debates and sickened by the usual garbage dished out by the league of abdes unleashed on this forum, who display their ignorance and petty narrow-mindedness quite transparently by their use of gutter level language and invectives. all in all, it appeared to me to serve no real purpose in being here and exchanging daily repartees or insults with fellow bohras who have wilfully decided to be blind. no offense meant to all those of reformist bent who come here in search of the truth or to air their anger and resentment at the sad circumstances in our community today. majority of these excellent people who contribute here are in fact, not openly members of the progressive jamaats, but protesting from within.

but sometimes circumstances change and take an unexpected turn. one such incident happened recently with me, which forced me to re-think my participation on this forum. i recently met a young man in the prime of his life, well-educated, qualified, well-behaved and having a good respectable family background. this young man is employed with a world class auditing firm, is well travelled and spoken. from all outwardly apperances, a well-adjusted westernised young man. we started talking about his life, his friends and society etc, as his family is well known to me. the conversation somehow turned towards our jamaat and bohras and i was surprised to note that he was very involved with his jamaat and attended every function, majlis and urus etc, but that was understandable as he was staying alone as his parents and siblings stay in a different country. our small bohra community where he lives, is his only support network as he is a paying member and a good source of home-cooked meals for a non-cooking bachelor!

but where the talk suddenly took a surprising turn was when he told me that he attended sabaks twice a week, and taawil once a week. he had been roped in by his local amil and as he had the natural curiosity of a western educated youngster, he joined up and as i gradually discovered, has been so brainwashed and influenced by all the b.s served upto him, that it was shocking to discover that this apparently affable young guy held such dangerous and subversive thoughts. here are some of the things which were revealed by him, most of it perhaps due to his naivette in front of a father figure, things which a more wily adult woud not. now many of these things are well-known to most of you thinking people, but a lot of it was also new and very disturbing.

1. all those who attend such sabaks and taawils are sworn to secrecy on pain of baraat. they have to swear total allegiance to syedna and imam, over and above the misaak they have given at adolescense.
2. they are told that the ilm that they are being given is because they are the chosen few. it is a divine intervention and syedna's doing that they came forward to seek knowledge. thus they are above and different from the masses.
3. it is emphasised upon them that with the hidden knowledge they receive, they are now way above the others in terms of understanding, intellect and faith. they are told that as they climb to higher and higher stages of learning the taawil and the hidden truths, they are now becoming superior beings and closer to allah and his chosen representative on earth, our syedna.
4. on the one hand they are told to prepared to be able to handle any type of questions put to them by the unbelievers or those of weak faith and the dawat na dushmano, on the other hand they are told to observe, analyse and refrain from engaging in debates with ignorant people of lower intellect and understanding.
5. it is drummed into their brain time and again right from day one, that we as human beings have been put on earth to serve allah and then (with the help of a series of lectures which links allah with the dai), they are told that the dai is the veritable presence of allah on earth. he is the present and reality and any disobedience to his farmaans is a disobedience or denial of allah, which means an instant rejection of the divinity of the imam, his dai and thus allah himself.
6. they are also told that based on the daim ul islam, the dai is a mere figurehead, a tool only in the hands of the imam. a dai can be any pious person of impeccable character, it is the imam's prerogative to choose a dai and if the imam chooses a succession of dai's from one family, then again it is divine will acting through the imam.
7. in another curious twist, they are told that the whole world around them is an illusion, everything as it appears is only superficial and the reality is completely opposite, it is hidden and deep below the surface. it is beyond the understanding and intelligence of the untrained eyes of unbelievers. the world is a contradiction, our deen is in itself a conundrum and a puzzle for the uninitiated. only those who have been invited in, or who have professed their love for their leader and the imam are priviledged to know the deep secrets of what the reality is below all the maze of contradictions.
8. and perhaps the most sinister and novel argument perfected perhaps in the last 2-3 decades (?) is that these gullible are informed that as the world is rapidly evolving and the pace of change is accelerating, eg. as communication technology has grown more in the last 50 years than it did in the past 5000 years, whatever happened with our deen and the dai's of the past is now defunct and outdated. world conditions and the threats to our faith and deen are changing so fast that whatever steps the dai takes, whatever new farmaans he issues or changes directions maybe bewildering to the non-believer and weak of faith, but the faithful know that it is all for the good of our mumineen. whatever the actions of the present dai, he does not have to be influenced by the behaviour and policies of past dais, every era from now on may be different. in fact even within the zamaan of one dai, he may change course in a completely direction...! so quoting that the previous syednas did this for several centuries etc is not important and thus not neccessarily mean that the present dai also has to do the same. the dai is like a skilful captain of a ship with the added divine backing of an imam who is steering the safina of our deen as per the latest weather conditions and benefit of our mumineen..
9. those who have faith in syedna are living confidently knowing that the captain is taking them to heaven, they are peaceful and in bliss, but those who doubt him are living a miserable life, full of self doubts and torment in their souls. all such people have no understanding now and will never understand even in the future. they are all following the islam of the first 3 khalifas who betrayed the prophet and ali and the ahlul bait and committed treachery. their knowledge is superficial and they accept the superficial and illusory as reality.

i was quite aghast and left totally speechless on hearing these distorted views coming from the mind and tongue of this outwardly modern and educated young man. the first thought which crossed my mind was, is the kothar creating a new nazi order or another militant rss type outfit, full of poison and hatred and sinister thoughts, to be unleashed onto the world when the time is ripe? or is this a grass roots indoctrination scheme to further entrench their hegemony and turn us all into zombies?

brothers, as u can see from all the above, and i am sure there is a lot more, the conclusions we can derive are obvious.

1. we as a community are being instilled with a false sense of superiority complex. this is a dangerous and self-serving strategy on the one hand, because when a group starts to feel this way, they will passionately adore their leader who gives them that feeling of false comfort; but on the other hand this superiority complex will lead to our destruction and eventual wipe-out because of the false sense of complacency it induces.
2. we are becoming a secretive community indulging in subterfuge, cunning, hypocrisy and lack of ethics, speaking in forked tongues and pretensive behaviour, as is evident when we are told how to behave in saudi arabia, iraq, etc. and how we behave otherwise.
3. we are being very cleverly led away from the true islam by making us believe that ours is the true islam, all this while they are distorting islam, vilifying it and perverting it, in fact exploiting it for personal gain.
4. they are creating and crafting clever arguments against the vastly more knowledgeable reformists, who have carefully preserved and documented our past history, by claiming that past dais' practices and traditions are now defunct and irrelevant in face of evolution and divine guidance of imam.
5. the whole attempt clearly and patently obvious here is that these are classic strategies in creation of a cult and to raise the status of the dai to the level to a cultist divine being, who cannot be touched or doubted in any way, to the pedestal of a divine being.
6. equating all hated figures in shia islam and particularly in the warped view of our syedna and his kothar, viz. the first 3 khalifas, shimr, laeen, yazeed, moawiyah, the other muslims, the reformists and those who defy them, all of them into one neat bundle and say laanat on them as allah na dushman and dawat na dushman.
7. the creation of new practices and innovations based around maatam-e-hussain and ratcheting up of the shrill rhetoric against the sahabas is a glaringly obvious strategy to implement the above and to constantly hammer the feeling of insecurity into our psyche, as if the events of kerbala happened only last night and we the chosen are under threat from the infidels ourselves.

i was able to pry most of this information out of this boy by very skilful and adroit questioning, some innocent, some provocative, some challenging.. i also asked him how the matter of the syedna hunting and killing wild animals for sport fits in, as well as why he has never heard syedna mentioning his mother ever, why he keeps a rumaal on his hand when u have to support him, but offers it freely when u are doing salaam to him with money etc. he was naive enough to offer to find out, but did mention, as would be expected, that there must be a taawil behind it, which is something i would not understand.

knowing now in more detail that such insidious and macabre plots are being hatched to mislead our community and lead them astray, has been enough motivation for me to come back and counter this horror. remaining quiet in the face of such atrocities would be unconscionable.

[Aarif]

he was naive enough to offer to find out, but did mention, as would be expected, that there must be a taawil behind it, which is something i would not understand.

This is precisely what I was saying in another thread. If you ask sensible questions than you are told that this is beyond your understanding. It is Taawil and you will not understand the logic behind it. I am not surprised by the way this guy thinks. I have seen many well educated people doing Maula Maula at the drop of a pin. They believe that Dai is the representative of Allah on earth.They believe that if you do not believe in Dai you do not believe in Imam. If you do not believe in Imam you do not believe in Wasi i.e. Maulana Ali. If you do not believe in Maulana Ali you do not believe in prophet and hence do believe in Allah. So in-order to prove your luv for Allah and Islam you must have complete faith in the Dai. And those apart from Dawoodi Bohras who do not believe in Dai are not on the right path and will definitely go to hell.

[accountability]

I used to go to sabaq, I was even elevated to first level of taawil. Al Zulfiqar the guy you talked to is first level of taawil, there are numerous, once you complete the 1st level then your are elevated to 2nd and I dont know how many are there. Because they dont tell you.
What he told you is exactly the 1st level teachings. There are only a certain no of student assigned to one ustaad. Their intimacy is very phenomenal. And there are women who are elevated. The group I was in had more women than man. Having said that after this level they narrate the creation, Adam and eve, the universe in a very hypothetical way. Adam and eve are first of humans but Adam the prophet was not the first human. Well anyways What ever they say they do not quote any refrence for that, there is no citation of any book or source for their teachings.
The whole theory is based on total submission to dai. Sabaq is very intelligently created to hypnotise and brain wash a believer. They make you to believe that sole purpose of creation of this universe was to bless present royal family. Nothing beyond and above.

[Al Zulfiqar]

Well anyways What ever they say they do not quote any refrence for that, there is no citation of any book or source for their teachings.

now isnt that the root cause of the troubles facing the bohras today? we have closed our minds to any free and open thoughts, to obtain balanced views and theories. that is the same questions i asked this young man. how could he accept blindly whatever was being dished out to him as the complete truth? isnt one of the foundations of scientific enquiry, the examination of any subject from all angles before arriving at the final conclusion? and again not propounding it as the final incontrovertible fact, since further research may open up other perspectives?

the continous and systematic brainwashing the bohras have been subjected to over the last 5-6 decades has destroyed their seeking minds and their spirit of searching for the truth by looking at the other sides as well. we are 'told' things, without any source citations or authoritative books and we swallow it hook, line and sinker. in essence, we are taught blind allegiance only to one man or one source and any dissent is severely discouraged.

[mumin]

This is very dangerous information. a young man by profession; an engineer or doctor should have positivly mastered the art of logical reasoning and questioning skills to derive at the truth of the subject matter and this specially goes to those young men and women of our society who are pursuing an education in the field of law and practising lawyers and attorneys. The one freedom which is indeed free is the freedom to think. Let not this thought process be captivated . Be bold to ask the questions to reach the truth and the truth will set you free.

[Biradar]

Actually, there is nothing in the above tale of Al Zulfiqar that is truly an innovation of the last two da'is. I suggest that one not be in a hurry to simply criticize before knowing the truth. One makes a fool of ones self. First, what the young man is describing is the traditional knowledge imparted to students for more than a thousand years. He may be a bit hazy about the details and confused, but the creation myths (and mytho-history) of our community are actually quite old. In fact, one can read about them in many books. See in particular Farhad Daftary's book "The Ismailis" for details and any of the bio-bibliographies for references to literature on this. The Ismaili creation myths about Adam/Hawwa and the nature of the universe and its purpose are, in a sense, based on certain Greek neoplatonic ideas. The development of these reached a climax in the second da'i's (S. Ibrahim) book "Kanz-ul Valad" (The Child's Treasure) in which the final form of these ideas was presented. Several papers have been written on this book and one can read them to get some idea.

Second, these ideas are not simple. The philosophical speculations of the medieval thinkers was very sophisticated. They did not have any access to modern instruments and hence could not base their ideas on observations. However, it should not be thought they were fools: quite the contrary. The people who produced the encyclopedia of the Ikhwan al-Safa and the other great philosophical works in the Fatmid times were highly intelligent and sophisticated thinkers. It is a bit too much to expect that someone will grasp this in a few "sabaks". These things take a lot of time to understand and comprehend correctly.

The key point is not that these are "innovations", which they are not, but they are essentially of no actual value anymore. If one wants to know the origins of the universe, its construction and fate, one can read a good physics/cosmology book. There is no need to dig through obscure 1000 year old texts. So, it is true that people should not think of these myths as "Absolute Truth" but simply appreciate that they are an intermediate point in human intellectual history. They are of historical importance, but have no other real value.

[Al Zulfiqar]

biradar,

please read my above post esp. points 7 & 8 in the first part. dont u think that it is a very clever and sinister innovation when the gullible are led into believing that all the contradictions (against islam and against our own founding principles) that they see today in our deen are purposely designed to be there, in essence putting a gloss of authenticity on unislamic practices and institutionalising criminality?

secondly, in order to reduce the criticisms against them of having overturned centuries of moral traditions and ethical practices of past dai's, they are insidiously propagating the theory that all past practices are now defunct due to the changed world of today. dont u find that a very cunning and self-serving ideology?

using the well-known practice of taqiyya from the shias of the past to explain away their present skullduggery, is a most rascally and criminal ploy on the part of the kothar. i am surprised that you would buy into it, without understanding the real and sinister intentions behind what the present bunch of thieves are after and what is the extent and scope of their ill-gotten power.

[Biradar]

I do not contest that the present administration is power hungry and the only thing that motivates it is money and control over other people's lives. However, I think we should be careful that we accept the basic doctrines of our community and recognize that these are not a recent "innovations" but have very deep roots. Hence, I would suggest we not label everything the da'i does as an effort to control the common bohra. Certain things, like establishing the Mahad al-Zahra for the study of the Quran, are good steps he has taken. The sabaks are also good, in one sense, as it gives a chance for people to learn something about their culture and history. Renovating old historical sites helps to create a sense of identity and a sense of being part of something bigger and with a venerable tradition. It is not all brain-washing and praise of the da'i (although sometimes it is). Unfortunately, as I pointed out above, the deeper philosophical lessons may not always be easy to understand and are completely pointless anyway.

Also, I want to point out something else. The da'i al-mutlak, in the absence of the Imam, has full authority. In Islam there is no separation between the religious and the secular. They are all tied into one whole. Hence, as far as the da'i is concerned he is doing what he thinks is appropriate, given the current circumstances.

The issue, I think, is that we as a people, due to modern democracy have experienced great freedom which has made us resent the control the da'i wants to exert on our lives. Hence, we are judging his actions based on a ethical standard that is alien to him. I do not think you will find anything resembling modern democracy in the era of any past da'i or Imam. After all one did not vote in imams or prophets. They were all authoritarian and had absolute control. Da'i al-Mutlak means "Absolute Missionary". I.e. in the absence of the Imam he has total control of the community. In the past, due to lack of means to enforce it in practice it meant little. However, now he has the means to enforce.

Now, I agree with you that the administration run by the present da'i is very corrupt and bent on grabbing power by any means. He is fully culpable in every wicked action of his numerous sons and amils placed around the world who harass the common bohra. However, we should not assume that bohra's are unhappy. Quite the contrary: most are actually very satisfied despite the harassment. It would be an interesting study to study the psychology of the bohra's to see why they are so docile and cannot see the obvious, but the results would be moot.

I support the idea of self-determination through ones own conscience. I advocate thorough-going individualism. So do not get me wrong: I am not supporting the actions of the administration. However, what I am suggesting is that we very carefully examine our desire for freedom and liberty. Is this truly rooted in Islam and our own history? I do not believe so. Hence, a long time ago I decided to forget religion and just live an ethical life, the ethics being one I created for myself. This is what you want to do too. But you also want to find religious justification for it.

Maybe the progressive mission has not had mass appeal because it simultaneously tries to be a secular movement and also severely criticize the da'i personally while pretending to respect him. I think that the extreme da'i bashing itself has alienated the common bohras from reform as the da'i is their moral compass and has been so for generations. I think the progressives need a very careful analysis of the fundamentals of the movement if they are to attract people and help them break free of the tyranny of extreme religious fanaticism.

[Frustrated.Mumin]

Maybe the progressive mission has not had mass appeal because it simultaneously tries to be a secular movement and also severely criticize the da'i personally while pretending to respect him. I think that the extreme da'i bashing itself has alienated the common bohras from reform as the da'i is their moral compass and has been so for generations. I think the progressives need a very careful analysis of the fundamentals of the movement if they are to attract people and help them break free of the tyranny of extreme religious fanaticism.

Well said, my friend. You have put into words, very eloquently too, my feelings exactly!!

[Humsafar]

Biradar, thank you for your posts. I enjoyed reading them, well-written and erudite. Reminds me of porus .

I've a few comments to make. You're right, not everything the administration does must me seen as "innovation", and I agree that our philosophical tradition regarding creation etc. have deep roots going back to the Greeks. But I'm not sure whether those who attend the sabaks are given this context, or an attempt is made to show that dai is only a minor player in the grand scheme of things. Yes, study of the quran and renovation of old sites are good things by themselves, but they are all tied to the glorification of the dai and promotion of the "royal family". Nothing that Kothar does is free of this propaganda. And this - the creation of the cult - is the problem. The dai maybe an "absolute missionary" but neither our history nor our literature supports such absolute, despotic conduct. This is an innovation. Appreciating our philosophical tradition is one thing, sinister manipulation of the same which the Kothar is adept at is quite another. The problem is that bohras have been too dumbed down to see the distinction.

True, freedom and liberty may not be "truly rooted in Islam and our own history". Neither are they rooted in any other ancient religious systems. But the world has changed and human consciousness is ever evolving. A perceptive leader must move with the times, instead he is doing exactly the opposite - making systematic, elaborate attempts to rob his people of liberty and dignity - a practice which, again, finds no justification in our history or literature. This is not to say that we have elections and elect a dai or something but it would really suffice if the dai just stuck to his traditional role - and not fashion himself as a Sultan and behave as such.

You articulate progressives' dilemma accurately. Dai-bashing, though shunned at the official level, is something that cannot be controlled at popular level and unfortunately that's the only thing the orthos tend to see. Dais in the past provided genuine moral leadership and were respected for that, but in this generation, I'm afraid, the respect is more a result of brainwashing than anything else. Regardless, it is a real challenge for reformists to balance the criticism of the system with respect for dai.

Yes, it is important that we value our heritage but do you think the Kothar really cares. (We have to talk in terms of the Kothar because Dai is not an independent actor - and not even seen as such my most orthos.) Kothar will milk every piece of tradition to its advantage. And this is the dilemma intellectuals in our community face - distinguishing between genuine tradition and its devious manipulation.

[Al Zulfiqar]

let us also not forget that over the past 5-6 decades, any form of dissent against payment of ever-increasing and arbitrarily decided taxes, and dissent against nonsensical farmans or any unethical and unislamic rules they come up with, is very quickly and cleverly interpreted as disrespect and disobedience against the dai and then linking him with Allah, as an act of a munafekeen, muddai and naastik. this devious strategy has been the real dilemma facing the reformists, not their inability to offer any 'attractive alternative package'.

the failure in the numbers of the reformists growing should not be laid at their door or their correct ideology, but the cunning and strategic planning of the kothar, where this nexus of divinity attached to the dai and the farmaans that flow from his authority has become an insurmountable obstacle, atleast for now. this was not the case up until taher saifuddin's era, numerous examples of which have been quoted here on this forum by saifuddinbhai insaf. in fact each and every jamaat worldwide was autonomous, self-funded and self-regulated and they owned and governed their own community properties. so this puts the lie to the fact that there was no democracy ever in the eras of past dai's.

the failure of the reformist movement in growing significantly is due to the successful and cunning strategies of the kothar, they learnt their lessons from their setbacks in udaipur and have vowed never to let that happen ever again. blaming the reformists in not offering some sort of 'sexy' alternative to the so-called 'warm and socially comforting' larger bohra ortho jamaats centred around the false spirituality of the dai, is a self-defeating and cynical argument in the extreme.

[TBG]

Dear Bro Biradar,

I have a few comments /questions although i agree with you totally on the fact that bohras are happy in themselves and the fact that we should look at our ownselves and choose our ways.

1) You mentioned about accepting basic doctrines of our community having deep roots. I have some major reservations surrounding some of these doctrins. As an e.g how do you explain the concept of misaaq to begin in. There are numerous other questions i have on these beliefs and practices of bohras including the way we offer salah and what we recite in it. Why do these not tie back to the teachings from the quran and RasulAllah (saw) on which the religion is built.

2) You mentioned about sabaqs being good for leaning culture and history. What good is a learning if it has been grossly manipulated. In this forum alone it has been discussed time and time again about how historical facts have not only manipulated but new ones are created which make no sense. Bulk of this cannot be traced neither proven. As far as culture is concerned our current culture and practices are very sub continental based including hindu traditions. So i fail to see what these sabaks are deriving. I have close family members participating in these and based on what i hear they are told and goes around is not exactly intellectually stimulating and correct imparting of knowledge. Also why is it that when an amil cannot give an answer its because there are tawil related meanings. Its been explicity mentioned in the quran that this books is written in clear language for you to understand. Where does tawil come here. I dont remember the last time hearing in a waaz/majlis please read quran and with the translation. Why ? Allah (swt) has said again and again in the quran for those who reason, or for those who ponder. How many bohras do you know who actually ponder on the verses of the quran, who have actually bothered reading the translation of the whole quran even once? And if they have not whose responsible is this?

3) Dai mutlaq has full authority to do what?. The religion was wholly and solely bought by RasulAllah (saw) and it ends there. Clear guidelines have been given what to do when you need to know something and that starts with the Quran and his Sunnah.
You also said that Dai is doing what he thinks is appropriate. This means that as a human being based on his judgement and knwoledge he can possibly make wrong decisions. What you see around bohras doing is not exactly that. They treat him as a super human being who will always make the right choices all the time under any circumstances. On this forum alone it has been proven that has not been the case. Then why are people doing that and what is causing it? Whose responsible for such behaviours?

4) On your point on his having total control, my question again is to control what. Prophets had control because they were representatives of Allah (swt). How can the control given to prophet be anywhere close to what Dai will ever have. When even in prophets there are different levels, how can a dai be in any comparison to the leaders of all mankind including prophets i.e RasulAllah (saw). Another question is what control does he want. In my opinion we dont need a dai, and even if we did it would be to ensure that as a spiritual guide he ensures the correct teachings of Islam are being followed. What you see around is not at all in conjunction with that.

I do also agree on your point about criticizing dai and pretending to respect. I have read many comments after which i get confused. Im not sure whether people are with or against the dai. I feel with the position of the dai and what that position represent, you can either be with him or against him. You cannot have both or be in the middle.

I also feel that we all like to bash and make talks, but the action that should follow that is negligible. Im very happy to read about what some of our brothers are doing in mississuaga against the amil.

I strongly feel there is a de link somewhere. On one hand we say we are against the dai but the basic teachigns are ok and we would like them as is. I feel that dai represents those basic teachings + the what has been added over the last 50 years. You cannot want the dai to be removed, the administration changed and then everythin will be fine. Like i mentioned above there are some fundamental questions that need answering and evaluation and these are linked to some of the basic teachings of the sect.

We need to make up our minds, whether we want to be bohras and what does that mean in its truest and purest form or we want to be muslims and what does that mean. I have followed these teachings and beliefs been completely convinced by them, only to find out later that I have been completely wrong.

wsalams

[porus]

It is clear that some on this forum cast doubt on the accuracy of the early history of Islam as related to them by the Shia, including the Bohras.

That is as it should be. But, at the same time, they propose alternative ‘history’ by copy/pastes from Sunni websites, without subjecting that history to the same level of incredulity. This is not as it should be.

It is also clear that many on the reformist side of the divide appear to accept without question the authority of the Quran. However, Quran is subject to countless mutually contradictory interpretations, giving rise to sectarianism. It is fair to conclude that there is no single authority on the interpretation of the Quran. The same goes for Hadith and the corpus of Sharia derived from the Quran and Hadith(Sunna). The use of these sources by corrupt individuals for self-serving and perverted aims has been around for as long as religions have existed and is clearly not confined to Bohras alone. They are also used by non-believers to further their own ends. For example, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka are a Marxist group not beneath using the Hindu scriptures to recruit and train suicide bombers.

Leaving aside the interpretation of the Quran, there is a reasonable question about the accuracy of the written text. We are told that Quran was initially uttered by Muhammad and written down, and/or memorized by several close companions. These passages were then assembled to form the early Quran and authenticated during Uthman’s caliphate.

We are told that these companions had perfect memory and they all agreed on the one specific version of the Quran and the rest were destroyed on orders of Uthman. However, variants persisted and were later ‘canonized’ as 12 recitations. Most of us are familiar with the ‘Hafs’ version. But other versions, notably ‘Warsh’ are still being used and there are variations between them, both in the written text and the recitation of it. And the view persists that some variants escaped the scrutiny of scholars and are still around, although this is no longer accepted by most scholars.

I think that there is a reasonable doubt that the Quran we have today may not be 100% replica of what Muhammad uttered.

Nevertheless, in the interests of requiring an inerrant source, all Muslims agree on the complete accuracy and authenticity of the Quran. But then, whose Quran?

This brings me to the issue of Baatin, Zaahir and Taawil. Quran uses all these words in connection with the content of the Quran and all these appear to be accessible to humans. What is clearly not accessible is what the Quran calls Ilm-ul-Ghayb, or the Hidden Knowledge, which the Quran states is known only to Allah.

Zaahir is the ‘apparent meaning’. This, of course, does not mean that it is apparent to everyone. You can verify this by consulting different translations.

‘Baatin’ is the ‘inner meaning’. Muslims have sought guidance from the Quran in all sorts of subjects. When the meaning is not apparent, there is a belief that with deep study these meanings can be discovered.

‘Taawil’ is used as a synonym for ‘Baatin’. But they are different. Taawil is the ‘process’ one engages in to get to the ‘Baatin’. So, when someone says that this is taawil, what they mean is is that it is baatin as derived by some respected authority through the process of taawil.

Taawil is not Ghayb. The latter is known only to Allah.

Quran warns people to stay away from the process of taawil unless they are very well versed in the study of the Quran.

Once, you accept that someone is qualified to engage in the process of taawil and impart the baatin of Quran to you then you are his follower. The authority may be true or false. Without a large body of scholars and an open system to check his interpretations, corruption is clearly possible.

[Humsafar]

porus, glad you're back!!!

[anajmi]

Sorry, I couldn't resist. There is only one quran. Allah says in the quran that HE himself is responsible for its sanctity. At least that is what muslims believes. The disbelievers can believe whatever they want. There are millions even today who have memorized the quran. There is no debate amongst the believers about the differences in the quran. The debate is only amongst those with ulterior motives or the disbelievers. People who talk about differences, should produce examples.Otherwise it is a lot of nonsense. For eg. some more nonsense from anajmi.

"The process of getting to the baatin through Taawil reminds me of how you can get to know baatini taawil through the zahiri baatin via tawili zahir that can be acquired through the process of taawili zaahir via going from baatin to the taawil where you might encounter zaahir that can be acquired through baatin in the form of taawil which is well known."

That made a lot of sense didn't it?

004.082
YUSUFALI: Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.
PICKTHAL: Will they not then ponder on the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity.
SHAKIR: Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.

015.009
YUSUFALI: We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).
PICKTHAL: Lo! We, even We, reveal the Reminder, and lo! We verily are its Guardian.
SHAKIR: Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian.

What do warsh and hafs say about that? Besides, are there any differences in meanings (not interpretations) of the quran in hafs and warsh?

[mutmaeen]

the fact that covert sunniasation of this forum is being taken notice of and objected to is welcome

[observer]

What an enlightening discussion. Kudos to you all. Finally some things to think over. Biradar well done and welcome back porous.

[TBG]

We could have a discussion if we all agree that Quran is the word of Allah(swt) and He like bro Anajmi pointed out has taken the responsibililty of protecting it. If we dont believe in that, i cannot convince anyone that the quran we see now is the quran revealed to prophet Mohammad (PBUB), neither can you convince me that the text is not accurate.

If we were to hold that quran we see now is the word of Allah (swt) and He has taken upon Himself to protect it then there cannot be a second view on its authencity or whether the text is correct or not no matter through what process was used to assemble or collect the verses in it. There already is a school of thought which establishes that the quran was already compiled and assembled in the life time of the holy prophet itself. Moreover It is evident from the Ahadith literature that each year in the month of Ramadan, archangel Gabriel would recite to the Prophet (sws) the portion of the Qur’an revealed until then. In the last Ramadan of the Prophet’s life, he twice recited the whole of the Qur’an to the Prophet (sws).

It has been mentioned in the Qur’an that its certain verses are muhkam and certain others are mutashabih, and the Qur’an itself has specified about the latter that only God knows their meaning. This strips the Qur’an of its status of the final judge if we are not able to distinguish the muhkam from the mutashabih. There it is possible to understand clearly what each meaning means. Moreover, we know that Quran needs to be understood in the context which we know for a fact many of us do not and we take the meanings literal. So i dont understand this whole batin, zahir and taawil thing. If Quran is understood in the correct context using the syntax, morphology and lexicography i do believe there cannot be different interpretations. Also the arabic spoken today is much different from arabic spoken 1400 years back. Same is the case with Urdu where the urdu spoken today is much diluted from how it was 100 years back. Learn the proper arabic of those times and our understanding may be different.

[porus]

We could have a discussion if we all agree that Quran is the word of Allah(swt) and He like bro Anajmi pointed out has taken the responsibililty of protecting it.

Actually, I would not put anajmi in the same league as Allah. He, anajmi, might actually agree even if he gives the impression that he is Allah's right hand.

Have you, TBG, pondered what Allah means when he says it is up to him to preserve the Quran? Clearly, he cannot mean the written Quran that we now have as it was not sent down as a written document. Would you then look for a deeper, inner, metaphoric meaning? In other words, would you consider baatin of the relevant verses?

And what is your criterion for accepting the Quran to be the word of God except some authority? And why would you deny the same right to those Christians and Jews who believe that their scripture is the word of God? Please do not give me the argument that their version is corrupt etc.

This point is relevant because just as fanatical Sunnis believe that Quran gives them the right to blow up the Shia masjids, fanatical Jews are for ever plotting to blow up Masjid al-Aqsa because they believe that the Bible gives them that right.

I accept that Muslims believe that the Quran we now have is identical to the one revealed to the Prophet, despite variations in scripts that have developed over time. And, time permitting, I will discuss issues with you on that basis.

[anajmi]

Actually, it is beliefs like those of porus that give people the right to blow up each other. If Allah is promising to preserve the baatini quran, which is different for each sect, and not the written one which is one, which one is he preserving? Could it be the one that gives people the right to blow each other up? Or could it be the one that porus is hiding? So doesn't that mean that the baatin quran has been compromised too? When we get into this type of baatin, nothing is taboo. Everything goes!! What is the point in preserving the baatin quran which the average person doesn't have access to? If Allah doesn't mean the quran that we have with us, why even make a promise to preserve it? Since we do not have it, how can we mess with it? And those that claim to have it, have been messing with it for centuries.

[accountability]

Welcome back porous. How much did we miss you.

You are so very right in your above post. There are so many restrictions on critical analysis. I have found inconsistencies and many between scripture and its interpretation. Most obvious is, In surah Kafiroon God says there is no compulsion in deen, but on other hand (irtidad) opting out is almost immediately forbidden and warrants severe punishment, even to the extent of death.
I think Quran 90% of the times refers to or contains Injeel and Torah. From Adam and Eve to the birth of universe, from Noah's Arc to Abraham's escape from fire, and from moses arrival in Jeruselam to crucification of Christ.

[porus]

By Quran, I mean the one you probably have in your house and is written in Arabic without any translation or commentary. Any copy will do, whether published in South Asia, West Asia, North Africa or elsewhere. Despite minor variations, they are pretty much identical.

Unfortunately, we have anajmi, the self-styled world class authority on the Quran, who will derail any useful discussion amongst participants on this forum. There is no such thing as a ‘baatini quran’. Baatin is simply an interpretation of the Quran.

I will raise two issues in this post.

One is about Allah’s declaration that it is up to him to preserve the Quran. I asked which Quran he meant. Did he mean Lawh-i-Mahfuz? Some Muslims believe that it is a physical ‘tablet’ located somewhere in the sky. By physical, I mean that it is made of matter and has dimensions like length, breadth and thickness.

It is rather fortunate that Umar proposed to Uthman that Quran should be compiled. (Muslims will say that that was Allah’s will, but then everything is Allah’s will, isn’t it?). We might speculate how history might have turned out if Quran was not compiled. Then, like early Muslims, we would be relying on Huffaz and Qurra, just like today we rely on them for its Tajweed. (Rules of Tajweed are written down but you would still need a Qari to learn them). In that case, you are back to the ‘argument from authority’ to define your ‘truth’. That is unsatisfactory because ‘your truth is not the same as my truth’.

Secondly, fanatics wanting to enforce their own interpretation of Quran have been around for a long time and have caused havoc many times in history, mainly arising out of political and economic desperation. Just like today, they dealt massive blows to the reputation of Islam. But good sense prevailed and Muslims were able to marginalize the fanatics. This is much more difficult today because of the advancement in global communications systems.

Muslims have always shied away from literal interpretation of some Quranic passages and sought wisdom in metaphors. For example, Quran prescribes, literally, that a thief’s hands should be amputated. I guess that all of us have, at some point in our lives, stolen something, even if it is from our parents or siblings. Let us further say that 10% have been caught stealing and punished. Considering that there are nearly 2 billion Muslims, you should see 200 million Muslims without hands today. Clearly, most Muslim societies, except those in the grip of fanatics, ignore this Quranic injunction, or reinterpret it.

Accountability raises the issue of apostasy. Today, many fanatics would put an apostate to death. It is their interpretation of Sharia. It is also the justification that Al-Qaeeda offers for slaughtering Muslims, because they follow Maududi, Syed Qutb and Ayman Zwahiri as their authorities. They argue that Muslims who do not follow their interpretation of Quran are Kafirs and apostates. Therefore they must be killed. That, by the way, is Wahhabism.

[porus]

It is rather fortunate that Umar proposed to Uthman that Quran should be compiled.

Correction. Actually, it should read:

"It is rather fortunate that Umar proposed to Abu Bakr that Quran should be compiled."

[Muslim First]

Br. AC

AS

In surah Kafiroon God says there is no compulsion in deen, but on other hand (irtidad) opting out is almost immediately forbidden and warrants severe punishment, even to the extent of death.

It seems you are making common mistake assuming that Sura Kafiroon permits Muslims to observe their religion as they see fit.

Actually sura is addressed to Kafiroons that is nonbelievers in Islam. For Muslim there is no choice but to practice as per Qur’an and Sunnah of the Prophet.

Remember Allah SWT says:
[Yusufali 2:208] O ye who believe! Enter into Islam whole-heartedly; and follow not the footsteps of the evil one; for he is to you an avowed enemy.

Also Allah Says:

6:159. As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with God: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did

So we have to make effort to enter into Islam completely and have to stay away from those who divide us into sects.

[Aarif]

Br. Porus,

Welcome back... I have a few questions.. It is a well known fact that our prophet(pbuh) did not know how to read and write. In that case the only way he could have ensured authenticity of Quran is:
1) Dictating the verses revealed to him to someone with expert arabic writing skills
2) Asking the person to recite whatever he had written to cross-verify that he had written what the prophet(pbuh) wanted him to write.

However it is in general believed that holy Quran was mostly written, compiled and completed after prophet's(pbuh) demise. Taking all this into consideration how can one evaluate the authenticity of Quran? Yes, we as Muslims believe that Quran is the final word of Allah. But how do we know that the Quran that we have access to today is the one that was revealed to our prophet? This question always puzzles me and I am unabe to find an satisfactory answer to it.

[Muslim First]

"It is rather fortunate that Umar proposed to Abu Bakr that Quran should be compiled."

If this is true then why Shia curs 1,2 and 3?

[Biradar]

I would like to point out that the solution to the corrupt behavior of the present administration is not that we all abandon our cultural and historical roots. The bohras have very rich literature, culture and history. The "Yusufali and Bukhrari" camp would have us forgot all of that, destroy all our institutions and follow a barbarian, tribal religion which they cleverly call "Islam", just to fool everyone. Hidden behind that is a cult that simply propagates 1400 year old racist Arab tribalism. Notice the destruction of historical sites to make room for luxury hotels for affluent hajjis.

Also, those who think that the namaaz that Bohras offer or the fasts they perform are innovations, should first provide evidence for this and show why they think it should be done any differently. As far as the basics of Islam go the Bohras are no different than anybody else. They pray, fast, go to hajj, pay zakat etc. Certain Shia like the Ismailis claim that these external acts are no longer needed. The Bohras say no such thing. In fact, to his credit, the da'i always exhorts his followers to pray on time and offer non-obligatory prays, specially in Ramazan. Many Bohras go to the masjid for mid-night prayers. These prayers are written by various people (in particular Imam Ali Zain al-abeedin), are full of quranic quotations, are very beautiful and offer sincere supplication before god.

The only thing is that the bohras also emphasize knowledge in addition to acts. Hence, the concept of sabaks where one learns from a scholar who not only is meant to know his subject but also to live it. These are all ancient traditions and not innovations. Tawwil, as porous has pointed out many times, is not "hidden" but just not obvious. Those who think the quaran is a "simple book" should ponder how many translations they had to read, how many volumes of tafsirs they had to consult before even understanding the apparent meanings. Once you quote from Yusufali you have already gone through a step of interpretation done by Yusufali. In fact, even the putting down of the quranic message in arabic by the prophet is a form of interpretation. Surely, if one believes in revelations, one can-not imagine god talking to the prophet like in some cinematic film. The process of prophesy is said to be one of mysticism, not of ordinary hearing. Otherwise god would just speak to all of us directly in a manner we could hear with our ears.

However, Humsafar is correct in pointing out that a proper background is not given to those who attend sabaks today. The emphasis is on inculcating blind obedience to the da'i and, by proxy, to the local amil. Also, there is extensive corruption in the administration and absolutely no accountability. All these lead to a waste of resources and dejection among the bohras who wish to lead a simple life with their family and friends.

The da'i has been reduced to an autograph collector who hops from one country to another to meet so-called dignitaries and have his picture taken. He seems to preach a message of simplicity, modelled after Ali, but live a life of great pomp and luxury. All this for what? I wonder how the orthodox bohras explain this behaviour? More frightening is the recent moves by his representatives to give him divine attributes. People no longer blink when he is described a "raab" or said to have the power of divine creation by using words like "kun". I am sure 99% or bohras do not even know what this means and the da'i and his cronies slyly use it to desensitize the common bohra.

Sadly, the progressives do not appear to provide a proper alternative. Unless disgruntled bohras tone down their intense hatered of the da'i and the bohra culture they do not stand any chance of winning over people. I strong urge folks not to get abusive or post ridiculous things here. This forum is a very visible aspect of the progressive movement (although majority of posters and not officially progressives) and it really turns off many well-meaning folks. We should attempt to set a higher standard of discussion and not behave like a bunch of rowdy hooligans. Frankly, I detest some of the people on this board and feel it is a major deterrent for any real discussions to happen.

[Biradar]

Br. Porus,

Welcome back... I have a few questions.. It is a well known fact that our prophet(pbuh) did not know how to read and write. In that case the only way he could have ensured authenticity of Quran is:

I do not speak for porus, but bohras do not believe that the prophet was illiterate. The meaning of this statement is that the prophet could not have written the quran himself but had to have it revealed to him by god. That is the really meaning of illiteracy: illiterate compared to gods knowledge and not that he could not read or write.

[Aarif]

I do not speak for porus, but bohras do not believe that the prophet was illiterate. The meaning of this statement is that the prophet could not have written the quran himself but had to have it revealed to him by god. That is the really meaning of illiteracy: illiterate compared to gods knowledge and not that he could not read or write.

Biradar,

With due respect I have read this in multiple places that our prophet (pbuh) was an "ummi" (illiterate).

Here is the common text on various site about the revelation of holy Quran to our prophet (pbuh)

Once, in the month of Ramadan, Muhammad was praying in the cave when Angel Gabriel appeared. The Angel greeted him and commanded, "READ!"

As Muhammad did not know how to read he replied, "I cannot read."

Angel Gabriel squeezed his arm and embraced him tightly and commanded him again, "Read!" Muhammad felt exhausted but his heart was now ready to receive the word of God. The Angel recited the first verses of the Qur’an and Muhammad repeated after him,

Read! In the name of your Lord,
Who created -
Created mankind out of
A leech-like clot of blood.
Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous.
The one who taught with the pen.
He taught man what he did not know. Qur'an (96:1-5)
This was the beginning of the revelations of the Qur’an from God to His Last Prophet. This was the start of Prophet Muhammad’s mission as a Messenger of God. Gradually, in the next twenty-three years, God completed the revelation of His last book, the Qur’an, to teach humanity His religion, Islam. The year was 610 C.E.

Since the Prophet did not know how to read or write, whenever Angel Gabriel brought the messages, the Prophet memorized them, then dictated it to his companions, and were written down by scribes.

[ghulam muhammed]

Also, those who think that the namaaz that Bohras offer or the fasts they perform are innovations, should first provide evidence for this and show why they think it should be done any differently.

Bro Biradar,

You will agree that 'Azaan' is an integral part of namaz, so why is there a change in the azaan because bohras add Mola Ali's (a.s.) name in it ? I will not compare it with the sunni way but is there any evidence to prove that Prophet (s.a.w.) recited it the bohra way ? The answer is NO. Now you will say that bohras do it because of their love for Mola Ali (a.s.) so did Mola Ali's sons, Imam Hussain (a.s.) or Imam Hassan (a.s.) incorporate the word Ali ? Did Imam Zainul Abedin (a.s.) or Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s.) do it ? Again the answer is NO. Does it mean that by not incorporating the word 'Ali' they didnt love or believe in Mola Ali (a.s.) ?

Why is there 2 rakat namaz for the 51st and 52nd Dai ? Did any of the Imams pray 2 rakats for their predessors or for Mola Ali (a.s.) ? Or for that matter did any of the past dais pray for their predessors ?

Did any of the Imams resort to maatam-e-Hussain immediately after namaz ? Or for that matter did they ever do maatam ?

Did Rasul Allah (s.a.w.), Panjatan Pak (a.s.) or any of the Imams prayed 'gaal lotawi ne' namaz in Lailat ul qadr ?

Were there 2 different timings of saying the azaan during Prophet (s.a.w.) or Panjatan Pak (a.s.) period like how today the bohra azan is said a few minutes prior to the one said by the majority of muslims ?