OPEN LETTER TO PROGRESSIVE DAWOODI BOHRAS

[anajmi]

When Salman Farsi set out to search for the prophet, he was given three signs of a true prophet. The first sign was that that his followers would be from the poorest and the weakest sections of society. Look at all the true prophets and their followers. Consider Prophet Moses and his followers, then consider Jesus Christ and his followers and the finally Prophet Muhammad (saw) and his followers. Whatever the prophet of Islam had to teach was available for free to his followers. Then consider the $195 ticket for an Abraham - Hicks show and consider the DVD costs or book cost for Neale Donald Walsch products. You can get his 11 teleclasses for $99 at a discount of $25. If you take them individually they cost from $9.95 to $12.95. Ofcourse, you can get his books from amazon for free shipping if you buy $25 worth.

[Fatwa Banker]

You are right "milk is secreted from abdomen of cows from between their shit and blood' cannot be taken literally as he may have been talking about the production of semen and got the Ayahs confused. Actually Sarah Palin's followers are mostly poor and from the weakest section of society, and she claims God's will too. Not sure how much her book costs or what the shipping is.

[Mustansir]

Aarif,

The notion that because Islam brought dramatic change in whole of Arabia in face of strong opposition by majority of people, but then was eventually victorious is pretty much the cliche story of many other religions and is not limited to only Islam. That itself doesn't prove the religion is true...it might show that the religion was at one point helpful, but it doesn't show in anyway that it is also true. Otherwise, you will then have to accept all the other religions, which originated in similar manner to be true too. A great example of this would be the 'Supreme Buddha' who is considered to be the founder of Buddhism. He was born into a royal family as a prince and lived a self-indulgent life for the first three decades, after which he completely changed his worldview & chose to live an ascetic life. From there on, numerous people have chosen to live life the way Buddha preached & today, there are about 350 million people who accept Buddhism as their religion. Based on the dramatic change brought by Buddha, are you going to switch from Islam to Buddhism? Most likely not.

As for the difference between Syedna & Mohammed..I repeat for the third & the last time that I am not comparing them. I am comparing the belief system of their followers. I am comparing how both, followers of Syedna & Mohammed choose to accept the extraordinary claims made by their leaders on face value, without asking for any sort of proof or evidence. The differences between Mohammed & Syedna, that you keep providing has nothing to do with the comparison I am making. I am more interested in the difference of how each group of followers develop their belief system, without any skepticism or inquiry.

What I asked in simple language was The Best evidence (just one) according to YOU that makes you think that Quran is not work of mere mortals but of some kind of celestial being. I did not ask for any evidence to convince me. Yes, because of my bias towards facts, evidence and rational thinking, my standard of evidence would be at a different level than that of yours or the likes of anajmi. But I was clearly asking for some sort of proof that is credible in Your mind. Porous repeatedly and clearly pointed out this distinction to his credit. As Fatwa mentioned...a reasonable request by any stretch of imagination. Unfortunately, the response comes in the form of name calling, nonsensical arguments and red herrings & nothing more. It is obvious to any person with intellect that this is usually done when the argument being made is unarguably weak and lacks any true merit.

From what you have written, it seems you are unaware of the number of people who take the Bible as the inspired word of their god and not work of any human... it is close to 2 Billion... and wait for it... no body has found a human author for that book either. Surely if a few humans were originally behind this all time best selling book, they would have come forward by now (your logic)... Personally, I think they died about a couple of thousand years ago! Now if I tell you that this itself is a logical argument to take Christianity as the true religion, will you be convinced?

Another problem with holy books is that they lure many believers into a bizarre loop of Circular Reasoning.. this is how it goes... -

1. How do I know Allah is real?
2. Because the Quran says Allah is real.
3. How do I know the Quran is true?
4. Because its words were inspired by Allah.
5. How do I know the Quran contains the inspired word of Allah?
6. Because it says it does.

This is literally the summary of how people with arrogance, ignorance & blind faith (the likes of anajmi) respond when the authenticity of their god & holy book is challenged. I know this is a site primarily dedicated to bringing social reforms in the Dawoodi Bohra community and my open letter is a little of out place here. It has nothing to do with the real work progressive people have done over many years against all odds. Hamsafar & Al Zulfiqar corrected me on this after my very first post, for which I then apologized. I would not even bother to raise the questions I have here, to a typical 'Abde Syedna' because I realize that many of them want to be willfully ignorant and I don't want to waste my time on such characters. However, I thought the case would be different with the progressives because some of you clearly identify the flaws of indoctrination and blind faith and I simply wanted to see what reasons you give in accepting Mohammed as a true prophet or the Quran as the true holy book.

In saying that no matter what concrete evidence you provide, I will dismiss it right away, without considering or thinking over it is false & a type of projection in my opinion. People forget but I too was a believer at one point in my life. It is not that I reached the conclusion first - that most likely, there is no celestial being taking personal interest in 6 billion human lives. I saw the available facts, evidence & literature available and then reached a provisional conclusion. With a fundi like anajmi, it is exactly the other way round... the horse is put before the cart. The conclusion is reached first, and then the the world around is distorted accordingly to keep that conclusion intact in the mind... trying to square all the circles all the time. That's why the strong hostility towards the Scientific enterprise despite its tremendous successful and usefulness over the past centuries. Well people can believe in anything they want, as long as they don't cause any harm to anyone else. I have no interest in converting anyone here but just wanted to raise a few questions for the true progressives. Now I know on what grounds your personal beliefs stand..

[laloo]

Another problem with science books is that they lure many believers into a bizarre loop of Circular Reasoning.. this is how it goes... -

1. How do I know scientific laws/theories are real?
2. Because the scientists say so(otherwise we all may go to sit near apple trees to see apples falling down or looking for stars every night)
3. How do I know these laws are true?
4. Because its words were inspired by human intelligence(again not visible).
5. How do I know that books containing scientific lawas are correct?
6. Because it says it does.

This is literally the summary of how people with arrogance, ignorance & blind faith (the likes of anajmi) respond when the authenticity of their ............god & holy book is challenged.

[anajmi]

no body has found a human author for that book either.

Now that is what true ignorance is all about. The bible clearly says that it is a compilation by multiple authors. The Gospel according to Mathew, The Gospel according to Mark, The Gospel according to Luke and The Gospel according to John. There are your authors.

Unfortunately, the response comes in the form of name calling, nonsensical arguments and red herrings & nothing more.

This is an example of a scientist behaving like a bigot. Reading only what he wants to and ignoring the rest. I clearly mentioned two ayahs of the quran. No name calling (bigot is just an attribute, otherwise porus is guilty of the same). Let me repeat them

1st ayah of surah baqara - Alif Laam Meem
2nd ayah of surah baqara - This is a book in which there is no doubt.

Let me repeat, since you obviously cannot read

1st ayah of surah baqara - Alif Laam Meem
2nd ayah of surah baqara - This is a book in which there is no doubt.

With a fundi like anajmi, it is exactly the other way round... the horse is put before the cart.

You got that one mixed up, I think. The horse is always put before the cart.

Now coming to circular logic. This is a logic that was created by scientists by ignoring the real answers and creating straw men as I had previously indicated. Let me explain.

1. How do I know Allah is real?
2. Because the Quran says Allah is real.
3. How do I know the Quran is true?
4. anajmi's answer - Read it you moron. See if you can find any factual inaccuracy. Then point them out to me. See if you find any contradiction. See if you can tell that no human could even attempt to tell how milk is secreted from the cows how humans are born from excretions.

Now I know scientists turn into the biggest cowards and run as soon as confronted. They have nothing neither the backbone, the ribs nor anything in between. The only thing they can fight is straw men. The only thing they have is rhetoric. Nothing of substance.

I also apologize for leaving a fart after my previous post.

[anajmi]

fart,

If the ayahs were the other way around, then I could safely say that only a fart could be the author since only a fart could get a cow to create sperm. As far as Palin is concerned, you better start worshipping her book as she is definitely going to take you to hell.

[porus]

"milk is secreted from abdomen of cows from between their shit and blood"(16:66).

anajmi,

Is this statement from the Quran scientifically accurate? Do you think that scientists have got it wrong? Are we to accept as truth that a cow's mammary glands are located in its abdomen? How about a human female? Do you think her mammary glands are also located in her abdomen and her milk is also secreted from between her shit and blood?

As the world's greatest expert on Quran, please enlighten us.

[Aarif]

Mustansir,

I have already told you in my last post that I have no problems with bohras believing Syedna as their Allah. It is their own personal faith. I have told you my reasons for criticizing them. I don't think it merits any further discussion. I don't have any problem with hindus or jews or christians... To each his own. But honestly except Quran all religious books are man made... As far as Bible goes it has always been considered as work of men as Anajmi rightly pointed out. Do you know that it is on the list of largest sold books in the world? My point was not the number of copies sold or number of people reading it. My point is Muslims claim that Quran was revealed to prophet by Allah. You are saying its a work of men. You are asking for one proof that will convince you that it is work of God. I am asking you what proof will convince you that it is work of Allah? Basically we are going in circles...

[Mustansir]

First of all one correction from my previous post...I actually meant that fundis like anajmi "put the cart before the horse".. as in, they decide on the conclusion first, and then desperately look for confirming evidence and arguments.

As for the Bible, there is way more to it than just the four gospels. It is not who physically and literally wrote the words on the piece of paper but where those words come from is the real argument. Jewish people believe that the words in the Torah originally came from Yahweh, Christians believe the same plus more words from Jesus and Muslims believe that words in the Quran came from Allah through Mohammed. Jewish people, Christians & Mormons, each assert with the same passion & intensity that their holy book is the only true word of a celestial sky god & rest all are fake. Don't know about others but I do not see any difference when that same claim is made by you. It is only assertions and personal beliefs and no sorts of evidence that would conclusively prove one book to be right and all the rest as fraudulent. If that was the case, there would be only one religion in the world. Obviously, the reality is that there are literally thousands of religions at present and there were a lot more in in the past. It is meaningless to ask me what ayah would convince me as I have read the book and was thoroughly underwhelmed & unimpressed. However, if the book impresses you, I was only asking for the best evidence there is according to you in Quran.. regardless of the fact that it would convince me or not. The question is...what did convince You?.

Now if this seems too circular to you, then lets leave it at that and end the discussion here. My question is obviously not only raised to you but anyone who believes that the Quran is The inspired word of the one true god. Ask yourself what actually convinced you and you will be able to judge how high or low your own standard of evidence is to differentiate between sense and nonsense.

[anajmi]

porus,

You are taking it literally. The taawili version of this ayah is - "The milk in cows is secreted exactly as per the science you are following in the century you are living in".

If you want the explanation of the literal version then please do a google search on explanation of ayah 16:66. We might want to check out what Neale Donald Walsch has to say in his books about this ayah since God has changed his mind and his books are a model of clarity.

[anajmi]

Mustansir,

You have been told time and again that the original bible and the torah were from God. So if that is what the christians and Jews say, then they are right. The copies that they have now are old and corrupted. Whether they believe that or not is immaterial. The jews have the old testament, the christians have the new testament and the Muslims have the Final Testament. There are a lot of muslims who have misrepresented the quran too.

Besides, why don't we just stick to the quran? Do you have anything to say or are you going to keep talking about the bible and the torah? What happened to those numerous factual inaccuracies? Those contradictory verses?

In my case. what made my beliefs even firm were discussions with people like yourself, porus, humsafar and fart.

Aarif, If you stop responding to Mustansir, he will stop responding to me. He is too much of a coward to talk directly to me. I would appreciate it if you stop responding to him. That way, we won't have to hear his tired crap anymore.

[porus]

porus,

You are taking it literally. The taawili version of this ayah is - "The milk in cows is secreted exactly as per the science you are following in the century you are living in".

If you want the explanation of the literal version then please do a google search on explanation of ayah 16:66. We might want to check out what Neale Donald Walsch has to say in his books about this ayah since God has changed his mind and his books are a model of clarity.

That is fascinating. anajmi is actually instructing us on taawil.

Walsch's books are conversations with God. He asks and God answers. God does not say that any part of it is muhakamat or mutashabihat. He does not say any part is ghayb. God is very clear. Now, if Muhammad had also asked God questions and Quran was the sessions of questions and answers, Quran would have been completely clear. No endless debates about zaahir, baatin and taawil. God has grown up and clearly educated himself. Damn, God does not say that only Walsch is God's messenger. God now says that all humans are his messengers.

[Aarif]

Mustansir,

In Quran the entire credit for creation of this universe and lifeform in it goes to a supernatural being called Allah. That itself is the convincing proof for me. If it was a man made fiction than definitely the person who wrote it would try to glorify himself in one way or another. E.g. Christ called himself son of god. Quran clearly states that Allah does not have any kith or kin. You only pray to him and no one else. Thus it completely eliminates a human element. It describes Muhammad as just a messenger who will spread his message on earth and nothing more. It also acknowledges past prophets. A man made work would avoid that as it will harm his interest. Why would the prophet give credit to an unknown entity called Allah for his work?

PS: Please do not mix up our dicussion with that of Anajmi. Also, Anajmi has brought forward some very good points about Islam and Quran in this thread. I would request you give him credit for that and not post common replies to his and mine posts...

[porus]

As I understand it, he is asking you to produce at least one ayat from the Quran which is a convincing proof that the Quran is not the words of a human being, Muhammad, but are in fact the words of God.

Sure there is one ayah. The very first ayah of the 2nd surah Al-Baqara. Alif Laam Meem. This is not the work of a human. If it were, then humans would've understood what it stands for.

Then the second ayah which says that this is a book in which there is no doubt.

alif laam, meem

So, all writing that humans have not understood so far 'is not the work of a human'.

There are plenty of such writings in ancient hieroglyphs which, so far, are beyond the ken of humans to decipher and understand. They obviously are from God. There is a book written about it . You can read about it here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Languages- ... 0500514534

the second ayah of al-baqarat states: "dhalika al-kitabu la rayba fihi hudan lil muttaqeen".

Let us literally translate it: " that book no doubt in(about) it (is) guidance for the muttaqeen"

I will leave muttaqeen untarnslated. But it means those who have taqwa. Taqwa means God-consciousness or constant awareness of God.

Note that there are no punctuations marks in the sentence. When Quran was first transcribed, there were none. Later punctuations were added and, where they are put, is subject to interpretation, which is not from God.

So let us put punctuations as inserted by humans, not God.

" that book no doubt about it, (is) guidance for the muttaqeen"

This means that without doubt, that book is guidance for the muttaqeen. The ayat tells us about that book. Which book? Most say it refers to Quran itself as a book. But, when the ayat was revealed, Quran was not yet a book as we know it today.

'dahalika al-kitabu' does not mean 'that is the book'. It is not a sentence. It is a phrase meaning 'that book'.

To convert it into a sentence you would insert huwa in the middle. Thus 'dhalika huwa al-kitab'. This then means 'That is the book'.

anajmi, how are your arabic classes coming along?

[anajmi]

There are plenty of such writings in ancient hieroglyphs which, so far, are beyond the ken of humans to decipher and understand. They obviously are from God. There is a book written about it . You can read about it here:

You've got the whole thing in reverse. If you accept my explanation that since Alif Laam Meem cannot be understood, the quran is the word of God, then obviously the hieroglyphs also end up as words of God for you. So you should worship them and pray that God sends you a copy of those glyphs in a language that you can understand. In my case, I believed in the quran to be the word of God, before I realized that the meaning of Alif Laam Meem is hidden. So I do not have an issue with the hieroglyphs. You are welcome to consider them as word of God and kiss them wherever you find them.

Oh I have so much to write, but no time. I will get to it as time permits. Expect a few more posts from me.

[Mustansir]

Aarif,

I asked you what was the best argument or evidence written in the Quran that convinced you that the book is not man made, but in fact the spoken word of a supernatural celestial being... and you gave a few points so thank you! I have come across these arguments before, from Muslims and people from other religions too including Jehovah's witnesses and now I know on what grounds you base your belief in the Quran and overall, Islam. And since this thread is open for all to read, any believer can reflect on the questions I have raised, the answers that are given here & judge for themselves.. Thanks for your time!

[porus]

Thanks for your time!

That ought to be the last word here and we can put this thread to sleep. Fun was had by all since anajmi brought the thread to its ridiculous level. I hope all were aware of the placement of my tongue when writing in the last few days. My facial anatomy still shows its marks.

[anajmi]

That is fascinating. anajmi is actually instructing us on taawil.

See, I am not a wahhabi. I can instruct the best on what they know best!!

God now says that all humans are his messengers.

Good, then that God shouldn't have any problems talking to me in a booming voice through Angelina Jolie. Quran isn't completely clear because it is not a work of humans. The understanding of the quran is beyond human capabilities. So, take my advise and stop talking about the quran. Keep your discussions limited to Hicks' Abraham and Neale's conversations since that is the limit of what you will understand.

Quran would have been completely clear.

Earliler you said 99% of the muslims haven't understood the quran. That would mean 1% have. That would mean the quran is clear. That would basically mean that you are neither here nor there.

More later.

[anajmi]

That ought to be the last word here

Scared already? I have a lot more to say. You guys can run along, but my word will be the last word here.

[seeker110]

If a man was introduced to no religion, than at the age of 21 sent to a book store. He would find all the religious books to be most boring of them all.Just my perception.

[Humsafar]

porus, give your tongue a rest now, I'm tired of grinning. anajmi, give your faith a rest now, I'm tired of believing. Mustansir, give your fingers a rest now, I'm tired of reading.

[anajmi]

Humsafar,

As you might've noticed, my tongue was also firmly in my cheeks in a lot of my posts. I will give my faith a rest, but my tongue will continue for the next few posts.

seeker,

Your perception is wrong. Talk to a scientist about science and he will run. He will, however, show up in a discussion about religion.

[anajmi]

Let us literally translate it: " that book no doubt in(about) it (is) guidance for the muttaqeen"

Ok. So this is porus' literal translation of the ayah. Then he puts in punctuations and translates it as per his own understanding. This is my punctuations. I will use porus' literal translation.

That book no doubt in it, guidance for the muttaqeen.

Now if you look closely the word "about" is an addition which is not there in the original text.

That book no doubt in it and That book no doubt about it have different meanings.

porus discards the "in" which is the quran, and inserts the "about" which gives it the twist that he is looking for.

Now Dhalika means That and when Allah is talking about the quran, HE is correct. When we translate it we convert it to "This" because of the human context. Allah has sent it to us and we have it. So for Allah it is "That book" and for us it is "This book". But even if we do not worry about "That" and "This", we can easily see the translation

That book no doubt in it, guidance for the mattaqeen.
So the translation is "that book has no doubt in it and is a guidance for the muttaqeen".

Now, if we look at it from a different point of view, why would anyone doubt that this is a guide for the muttaqeen? The disbelievers aren't going to say that this is a guide for the disbelievers would they? If they do, then they automatically become believers. So it doesn't make any sense to say that there is no doubt that this book is for the muttaqeen.

porus doesn't understand the Arabic language. You do not need to add the corresponding "the" in Arabic to create an arabic sentence. That word is added only in the English translation so that the english translation makes sense.

But, when the ayat was revealed, Quran was not yet a book as we know it today.

Is porus agreeing that the Quran was revealed to the Prophet? End of the discussion.

[Humsafar]

anajmi, your wit has not escaped me. Please you too give your tongue a rest, I'm doubly tired of grinning.

[anajmi]

Humsafar,

I won't stop till you accept that you are more tired (of grinning) because of me than porus.

[Aarif]

Mustansir, you are welcome. The discussion was quite exciting.

[Fatwa Banker]

So you are not operating at your peak intellectual capacity ???? You are good at keeping a secret !

[anajmi]

I don't think you are smart enough to match wits with me. That last comeback was pretty laboured and dull. I think it is time to relieve people of your pain. You have this thread all to yourself.

[Al Zulfiqar]

However, I thought the case would be different with the progressives because some of you clearly identify the flaws of indoctrination and blind faith and I simply wanted to see what reasons you give in accepting Mohammed as a true prophet or the Quran as the true holy book.

mustansir,

you opened up a very interesting but rather controversial debate and at the end of it all, i dont know what exactly are the conclusions you came to about the progressive's beliefs and the beliefs of all those denizens of various colors who inhabit this forum. i dare say, i can guess what your final opinions are.

you threw up some really thought provoking questions in all intellectual sincerity, and most of those with a modicum of introspective honesty tried their best to answer them here. but if i may venture to say so, you would get vastly different and much more candid opinions if you were to carry on this discussion privately in chat rooms or in more personal settings. you see, this forum and the reformists are under intense public scutiny from the bohras at large, not many of whom have the requisite broad mindedness, wide reading, spiritual education and maturity to handle topics like yours. as it is progressives are being accused of being muddai's and nastiks, just because of the poisonous crap being deliberately spread by the kothar because of the progressives' refusal to blindly obey the diktats of the so-called divine dai. no real progressive in his right mind will want to come here and show the remotest form of support for your logic or line of thinking. as it was made abundantly clear to you right at the outset, this site exists solely to promote and disseminate the progressives' agenda of social reform and to prevent and expose the financial exploitation and manipulation of our community by the clergy. going beyond those boundaries is to undermine and damage the excellent work which this site and the reformists are doing.

your question in its essence was an eminently sound one and opened up many possibilities for sensible discussion, as it logically assumed the basic premise that anyone with a progressive inquiring mind who wishes for 'reform' not just in the narrow sphere of the bohra community but at large, would definitely have much to say on questioning anything which is a 'given'. there should be no holy cows and beliefs set out in stone, no matter how sacrilegeous and upsetting they may be. after all, the prophet muhammad himself was one such outrageous lone rebel who dared to oppose and upset the long held beliefs and traditions of his forefathers and society.

alas, i think you may have realised that this is the end of the road atleast on this forum for this topic. this forum has its public limitations but that does not limit us from continuing our debates on other forums. it was excellent while it lasted and i learnt a lot from it. thanks.

[Fatwa Banker]

AZ,

You are reading too much into this; Mustansir's question was a basic one and hence effective in that no believer could come up with a single piece of evidence that convinced them (not others) that the book was not man made.