Porus said:
"Dai is not like a US President, where it can be claimed that a particular person is not fit for office. God decides who the Dai is."
BS! and that's NOT Kothari Bhai Saheb (BS). What's Nuss! Appointment by a living Dai - NOT God.
Muqaddas Moula willed in writing to his son the current Aqua Moula that he should do the Nuss to the current Mazoon Khuzeima BS when he passes away. That was not God. The present Dai's sons - all seven of them do not wish their dad to comply with their grand dad's expressed wishes in writing and that's why all the fuss over the succession. Dad is reluctant to do any Nuss yet!
Reformist Activities - Defining Success
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
Mumineen is not keeping up with current doctrinaire developments of the Daawat. While the actual 'nuss' may be in writing, that is only the physical part required to keep the semblance of 'constituionality' for those less privy to divine injunctions. 'nuss' is by divine decree decided in 'psychic' world. Dai 'talks' to God through imam.
Only the current dai has authority to pronounce the divine decree of 'nuss'. Anything written by a previous Dai has no effect. God, this sounds too much like Prophet being commanded by God to nominate Ali etc. And, in truth, that is exactly what it so in current thinking.
You may disagree but then you and no body except the Dai is the authority in these matters.
Only the current dai has authority to pronounce the divine decree of 'nuss'. Anything written by a previous Dai has no effect. God, this sounds too much like Prophet being commanded by God to nominate Ali etc. And, in truth, that is exactly what it so in current thinking.
You may disagree but then you and no body except the Dai is the authority in these matters.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
Mineral water companies are selling their product by advertising. Till date we were (in India) ignorant and believing that for health we must consume only filtered or mineral water, but Ms.Sunita Rao has exposed the claim and proved that it contains pesticide and it is hazardous to health. The companies had tried their level best to impose in our mind that because to acquire some publicity Ms. Sunita Rao has put falls allegation.
There are many sections in the society. Some believes the mineral water companies and some to Ms. Sunita Rao. Few thinks to drink mineral water is a status symbol they ignore the fact of health hazards. Few think that if good water is not available to drink mineral water may be safe and few believe that the good tapped water is the best.
Now in these sections we cannot say that the educated believe one way and uneducated are the other way.
I know you all must be irritating that what rubbish I doing here!
Now I am coming to the point.
By advertising and continuous projecting a product one establish its effect on the minds of consumer. Some time they become edict and believe religiously even if it is hazardous. The status factor also makes many effects.
Our Sayedna is a saleable commodity. Every day and night he has been projected by the salespersons graduated from the Surat business school. There are so many products associated with Sayedna and all are hammered every day on our head like Nazrul-Mukam, Zakat, Minnat (That is Galla), titles like Mulla and Shaiks and Ziyafat etc.
There are sections in our society some believes these products religiously where some believes it moderately and some do not believes at all.
Those who believes moderately and does not believes at all falls in the category of Ms. Sunita Rao and they are in majority but since the religious believers are in minority but more in power and can not think beyond what they believe, they impose their beliefs to the others religiously and force the product to them whether they want it or not.
Like Ms. Sunita there are very few who dares to bring the fact to the notice of masses. There may be any reason what so ever to bring the facts to the masses but it really helps to the masses, like in the case of pesticides it forced the government to make some law to curb the contents of pesticides. The reformist groups in our society are doing the same work with intention that one day it will defiantly be noticed and a law will be made. In this process I do not deny that Ms. Sunita or the reformists are doing without any self less motives. They may be doing it for their own benefits but it also helps the masses that fact is not to be ignored.
There are many sections in the society. Some believes the mineral water companies and some to Ms. Sunita Rao. Few thinks to drink mineral water is a status symbol they ignore the fact of health hazards. Few think that if good water is not available to drink mineral water may be safe and few believe that the good tapped water is the best.
Now in these sections we cannot say that the educated believe one way and uneducated are the other way.
I know you all must be irritating that what rubbish I doing here!
Now I am coming to the point.
By advertising and continuous projecting a product one establish its effect on the minds of consumer. Some time they become edict and believe religiously even if it is hazardous. The status factor also makes many effects.
Our Sayedna is a saleable commodity. Every day and night he has been projected by the salespersons graduated from the Surat business school. There are so many products associated with Sayedna and all are hammered every day on our head like Nazrul-Mukam, Zakat, Minnat (That is Galla), titles like Mulla and Shaiks and Ziyafat etc.
There are sections in our society some believes these products religiously where some believes it moderately and some do not believes at all.
Those who believes moderately and does not believes at all falls in the category of Ms. Sunita Rao and they are in majority but since the religious believers are in minority but more in power and can not think beyond what they believe, they impose their beliefs to the others religiously and force the product to them whether they want it or not.
Like Ms. Sunita there are very few who dares to bring the fact to the notice of masses. There may be any reason what so ever to bring the facts to the masses but it really helps to the masses, like in the case of pesticides it forced the government to make some law to curb the contents of pesticides. The reformist groups in our society are doing the same work with intention that one day it will defiantly be noticed and a law will be made. In this process I do not deny that Ms. Sunita or the reformists are doing without any self less motives. They may be doing it for their own benefits but it also helps the masses that fact is not to be ignored.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
Porus,
You're right, for all practical purposes that Dai is God to Bohras. And that's what matters. The finer points of theological distinctions - that Dai does not have the stature and authority of the Imam etc. - are only academic. It is sensible for reformists to stay clear of this can of worms.
One is not surprised that the vulgar priesthood should find "reference" of dais in the Quran. But then, they would even quote (and even be friends with) the devil to justify themselves. E.g. Narendra Modi.
Spot,
Oh, how you tie yourself in knots. Doctrine is not the same thing as practice. Any act of a past dai/imam does not become a doctrine.
you can't say the dai is "corrupt" in your opinion, if he is doing what the past dais or imams did.
Do your realise how incredibly stupid you sound. What in effect you're saying is that if dais/imams were corrupt in the past then it's okay for them to be corrupt now! Thank god our dais/imams were not monkeys, otherwise you would insist that they be monkeys today too. If this is your idea of "true" belief then God help you, and us reformists.
You're right, for all practical purposes that Dai is God to Bohras. And that's what matters. The finer points of theological distinctions - that Dai does not have the stature and authority of the Imam etc. - are only academic. It is sensible for reformists to stay clear of this can of worms.
One is not surprised that the vulgar priesthood should find "reference" of dais in the Quran. But then, they would even quote (and even be friends with) the devil to justify themselves. E.g. Narendra Modi.
Spot,
Oh, how you tie yourself in knots. Doctrine is not the same thing as practice. Any act of a past dai/imam does not become a doctrine.
you can't say the dai is "corrupt" in your opinion, if he is doing what the past dais or imams did.
Do your realise how incredibly stupid you sound. What in effect you're saying is that if dais/imams were corrupt in the past then it's okay for them to be corrupt now! Thank god our dais/imams were not monkeys, otherwise you would insist that they be monkeys today too. If this is your idea of "true" belief then God help you, and us reformists.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
humsafar,
no doctrine is not the same as practice, but the practice or tradition related to doctrine is doctrine itself. this only applies to the prophet/imams/dais, not just any believer. the practice of the prophet (ie sunnah) is considered prophetic doctrine. the practice of the imam/dai is considered in the same relation.
i am not sure where my logic is "stupid". the basis for what the imams and dais did was based on the action of their predessors back to the Prophet himself. each imam did not just invent things along the way, they referenced the Prophetic action in each case (ie the sunnah).
so for your analogy, if the Prophet was corrupt before (nazubillah), then the imams followed his path, and would be acting corruptly as well. the fact that they were or weren't corrupt is the gauge.
no doctrine is not the same as practice, but the practice or tradition related to doctrine is doctrine itself. this only applies to the prophet/imams/dais, not just any believer. the practice of the prophet (ie sunnah) is considered prophetic doctrine. the practice of the imam/dai is considered in the same relation.
i am not sure where my logic is "stupid". the basis for what the imams and dais did was based on the action of their predessors back to the Prophet himself. each imam did not just invent things along the way, they referenced the Prophetic action in each case (ie the sunnah).
so for your analogy, if the Prophet was corrupt before (nazubillah), then the imams followed his path, and would be acting corruptly as well. the fact that they were or weren't corrupt is the gauge.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
The practice of the imams (and much less that of dais) cannot be equated in importance and stature to that of the Prophet's. You're stretching the point in your doctrinaire zeal.
Even so, not all of Prophet's sunna has become doctrine. The prophet married eleven wives, lived a simple, frugal lives. Not all the Imams (and much less today's dais) emulate his example. It's a good thing that they did not marry eleven wives. But they did/do not live simple, frugal lives either.
The point being, even prophetic sunnah does not become doctrine.
so for your analogy, if the Prophet was corrupt before (nazubillah), then the imams followed his path, and would be acting corruptly as well.
The analogy was just to illustrate your stupid logic. What you're advocating is blind following. And what I'm saying is let's use our heads: it doesn't matter if past dais were corrupt or not. What matters is that the current dai is corrupt - and that's the reality. And if you need proof of that, then I don't know what cuckoo world are you living in, and on what basis you claim to be a reformist.
Even so, not all of Prophet's sunna has become doctrine. The prophet married eleven wives, lived a simple, frugal lives. Not all the Imams (and much less today's dais) emulate his example. It's a good thing that they did not marry eleven wives. But they did/do not live simple, frugal lives either.
The point being, even prophetic sunnah does not become doctrine.
so for your analogy, if the Prophet was corrupt before (nazubillah), then the imams followed his path, and would be acting corruptly as well.
The analogy was just to illustrate your stupid logic. What you're advocating is blind following. And what I'm saying is let's use our heads: it doesn't matter if past dais were corrupt or not. What matters is that the current dai is corrupt - and that's the reality. And if you need proof of that, then I don't know what cuckoo world are you living in, and on what basis you claim to be a reformist.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
humsafar,
the prophet was firstly an imam, then a nabi, then a rasul. majority of the references of the practices of the prophet come from the imams (like imam jaffer sadiq). the imams practiced what the prophet practiced. they did nothing that was more or less. so this is the entire culture/history that the bohras stem from.
using your head doesn't mean you degrade the knowledge and position of the imams/dai. i am not advocating blind following, but i am also not advocating blind ignorance of the facts.
the prophet's action are all sunnah. the prophet specified his marriages were specific reasons by God and not for any other muslim. the prophet lead a simple life, but he didn't make it a requirement for anyone.
what i am trying to determine is the basis of the corruption, not just my opinion of what is corrupt and what is not. an example is to the alcoholic, where having is glass of scotch at 10 am is perfectly understandable. to JC, homosexuality is perfectly fine and not a sin to any regard. yet to me, it is clearly a sin according to my understanding of islamic doctrines. so JC gauge is different from my gauge. so all i can refer to is the islamic doctrines we both agree on and limit the reference of what is right and wrong to that.
so when you say "use your head", your saying define islam by what i think is right or not, and i have no right to do this, only the imam does. i am advocating justified following, not blind following.
if we base our argument on what we think, then you have nothing but your opinion to stand on. this is not the reformist agenda (that you seem to be forgeting), because it defies the bohra traditions and history, which it is clearly not against.
the prophet was firstly an imam, then a nabi, then a rasul. majority of the references of the practices of the prophet come from the imams (like imam jaffer sadiq). the imams practiced what the prophet practiced. they did nothing that was more or less. so this is the entire culture/history that the bohras stem from.
using your head doesn't mean you degrade the knowledge and position of the imams/dai. i am not advocating blind following, but i am also not advocating blind ignorance of the facts.
the prophet's action are all sunnah. the prophet specified his marriages were specific reasons by God and not for any other muslim. the prophet lead a simple life, but he didn't make it a requirement for anyone.
what i am trying to determine is the basis of the corruption, not just my opinion of what is corrupt and what is not. an example is to the alcoholic, where having is glass of scotch at 10 am is perfectly understandable. to JC, homosexuality is perfectly fine and not a sin to any regard. yet to me, it is clearly a sin according to my understanding of islamic doctrines. so JC gauge is different from my gauge. so all i can refer to is the islamic doctrines we both agree on and limit the reference of what is right and wrong to that.
so when you say "use your head", your saying define islam by what i think is right or not, and i have no right to do this, only the imam does. i am advocating justified following, not blind following.
if we base our argument on what we think, then you have nothing but your opinion to stand on. this is not the reformist agenda (that you seem to be forgeting), because it defies the bohra traditions and history, which it is clearly not against.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
Spot,
You're beginning to become very tiresome. No wonder JC gave up on you.
First you say the prophet's sunnah is doctrine. When I point out examples of the prophet's lifestyle that nobody follows, you change tack and say those things were not prescribed. In that sense, I say, even misaaq/razaa/baraat are not prescribed. And the burden of proof is on those who insist that these things are legitimate wajib and necessary.
the prophet's action are all sunnah. the prophet specified his marriages were specific reasons by God and not for any other muslim.
What were the specific reasons, please explain? You mean to say God wanted the prophet to marry his adopted son Zaid's wife Zainab. Marrying adopted son's wife was not permitted under tribal norms of those times. But then there is a verse in the quran which overturns this sensible tribal custom:
033.037 : Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled. - Yusuf Ali
Further, can you explain what was god's specific reasons behind the Prophet's marriage to 6-year-old Ayesha (the marriage was probably consummated when she was 9)?
I do not wish to digress from the issue under discussion, but this is just to show that you're talking nonsense - and indulging in "blind ignorance of facts".
what i am trying to determine is the basis of the corruption, not just my opinion of what is corrupt and what is not.
This again is grandiose nonsense. Determine the basis of corruption? Just answer one simple question: do you think the current dai and the system he has set up is corrupt or not?
And that begs another question, since you claim to be a reformist, why do you think you are a reformist? I would really like to know.
You're beginning to become very tiresome. No wonder JC gave up on you.
First you say the prophet's sunnah is doctrine. When I point out examples of the prophet's lifestyle that nobody follows, you change tack and say those things were not prescribed. In that sense, I say, even misaaq/razaa/baraat are not prescribed. And the burden of proof is on those who insist that these things are legitimate wajib and necessary.
the prophet's action are all sunnah. the prophet specified his marriages were specific reasons by God and not for any other muslim.
What were the specific reasons, please explain? You mean to say God wanted the prophet to marry his adopted son Zaid's wife Zainab. Marrying adopted son's wife was not permitted under tribal norms of those times. But then there is a verse in the quran which overturns this sensible tribal custom:
033.037 : Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled. - Yusuf Ali
Further, can you explain what was god's specific reasons behind the Prophet's marriage to 6-year-old Ayesha (the marriage was probably consummated when she was 9)?
I do not wish to digress from the issue under discussion, but this is just to show that you're talking nonsense - and indulging in "blind ignorance of facts".
what i am trying to determine is the basis of the corruption, not just my opinion of what is corrupt and what is not.
This again is grandiose nonsense. Determine the basis of corruption? Just answer one simple question: do you think the current dai and the system he has set up is corrupt or not?
And that begs another question, since you claim to be a reformist, why do you think you are a reformist? I would really like to know.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
salaams
_____________________________________________________________________
What were the specific reasons, please explain? You mean to say God wanted the prophet to marry his adopted son Zaid's wife Zainab. Marrying adopted son's wife was not permitted under tribal norms of those times. But then there is a verse in the quran which overturns this sensible tribal custom:
_____________________________________________________________________
The Custom was not SENSIBLE and that's why it was overturned by an Ayat.
Adopted Son is not a blood relative and hence do not fall in the category of those of forbidden marriage list.
To explicitly make understand this point that the Prophet married his adopted Son (Zaid's) wife after the formalities.
____________________________________________________
Further, can you explain what was god's specific reasons behind the Prophet's marriage to 6-year-old Ayesha (the marriage was probably consummated when she was 9)?
____________________________________________________
This is discussed already in detail in the earlier post
http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com/cgibin/UB ... 001274;p=1
was salaam
_____________________________________________________________________
What were the specific reasons, please explain? You mean to say God wanted the prophet to marry his adopted son Zaid's wife Zainab. Marrying adopted son's wife was not permitted under tribal norms of those times. But then there is a verse in the quran which overturns this sensible tribal custom:
_____________________________________________________________________
The Custom was not SENSIBLE and that's why it was overturned by an Ayat.
Adopted Son is not a blood relative and hence do not fall in the category of those of forbidden marriage list.
To explicitly make understand this point that the Prophet married his adopted Son (Zaid's) wife after the formalities.
____________________________________________________
Further, can you explain what was god's specific reasons behind the Prophet's marriage to 6-year-old Ayesha (the marriage was probably consummated when she was 9)?
____________________________________________________
This is discussed already in detail in the earlier post
http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com/cgibin/UB ... 001274;p=1
was salaam
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
We are digressing from the topic here...
But please explain, why should marrying an adopted son's wife should be so important in the Islamic scheme of things? So much so that an ayat had to be sent down and the prophet had to actually put into practice to prove a point.
As for being sensible, an adopted son's wife is your daughter-in-law - like your daughter. And many then or since DO NOT consider it sensible to marry one's daughter in law.
As for Ayesha, suffice is to say that it was/is not common or proper then or since for a 53-year-old man to marry a 9-year-old.
I do not wish to delve deeper into this sensitive subject. I only brought it up because Spot claimed that Allah had specific purpose about prophet's 11 marriages, and I wanted to know what that divine purpose was.
But please explain, why should marrying an adopted son's wife should be so important in the Islamic scheme of things? So much so that an ayat had to be sent down and the prophet had to actually put into practice to prove a point.
As for being sensible, an adopted son's wife is your daughter-in-law - like your daughter. And many then or since DO NOT consider it sensible to marry one's daughter in law.
As for Ayesha, suffice is to say that it was/is not common or proper then or since for a 53-year-old man to marry a 9-year-old.
I do not wish to delve deeper into this sensitive subject. I only brought it up because Spot claimed that Allah had specific purpose about prophet's 11 marriages, and I wanted to know what that divine purpose was.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
After this, if the debate on reform is not resumed, then someone should start a new thread.
Re Prophet marrying the divorced wife of his "adopted" son, I paste the following from http://www.al-islam.org/quran/
"In the market of Akkaz Zayd bin Harith was being sold as a slave. The Holy Prophet purchased him and adopted him as his son. The father of Zayd was a man of means. When he came to know that his kidnapped son was sold as a slave, he approached Abu Talib to obtain the freedom of Zayd from his nephew. The Holy Prophet at once set him free and gave him permission to go with his father, but Zayd decided to remain with the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet asked the people to bear witness that from that day Zayd was his son and he was his father. Then he married his cousin Zaynab, a very beautiful young woman, to Zayd. It so happened that they could not live happily together. Zayd divorced Zaynab. To save Zaynab from the misery of a divorcee Allah commanded the Holy Prophet to marry Zaynab. According to pagan formula when a man wanted to get rid of his wife without making her free to remarry, he simply said to her: "You are to me as the back of my mother." Likewise an adopted son was treated as a natural son. It was this crudity of the pagan morals that, upon the Holy Prophet's marrying the divorced wife of his freed man Zayd, who was also his adopted son, gave rise to a great deal of hostile criticism. Islam abolished these widespread foolish customs. In Islam, according to verse 23 of Nisa, those who have been "wives of your sons proceeding from your loins" are within the prohibited degrees of marriage, and this does not apply to adopted sons. Adoption in the technical sense is not allowed in Muslim law."
It would be presumptuous to know God's mind but the reason why the ayat was necessary was that this was an episode in the life of the Prophet, who is supposed to be an example. So, although this type of marriage would not be acceptable these days, it is to prevent calumny against the prophet that the ayat was revealed. I think this is what Muslims might say.
If you do not or cannot believe Quran to be God's word, then it would be very difficult to justify the ayat.
Re Prophet marrying the divorced wife of his "adopted" son, I paste the following from http://www.al-islam.org/quran/
"In the market of Akkaz Zayd bin Harith was being sold as a slave. The Holy Prophet purchased him and adopted him as his son. The father of Zayd was a man of means. When he came to know that his kidnapped son was sold as a slave, he approached Abu Talib to obtain the freedom of Zayd from his nephew. The Holy Prophet at once set him free and gave him permission to go with his father, but Zayd decided to remain with the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet asked the people to bear witness that from that day Zayd was his son and he was his father. Then he married his cousin Zaynab, a very beautiful young woman, to Zayd. It so happened that they could not live happily together. Zayd divorced Zaynab. To save Zaynab from the misery of a divorcee Allah commanded the Holy Prophet to marry Zaynab. According to pagan formula when a man wanted to get rid of his wife without making her free to remarry, he simply said to her: "You are to me as the back of my mother." Likewise an adopted son was treated as a natural son. It was this crudity of the pagan morals that, upon the Holy Prophet's marrying the divorced wife of his freed man Zayd, who was also his adopted son, gave rise to a great deal of hostile criticism. Islam abolished these widespread foolish customs. In Islam, according to verse 23 of Nisa, those who have been "wives of your sons proceeding from your loins" are within the prohibited degrees of marriage, and this does not apply to adopted sons. Adoption in the technical sense is not allowed in Muslim law."
It would be presumptuous to know God's mind but the reason why the ayat was necessary was that this was an episode in the life of the Prophet, who is supposed to be an example. So, although this type of marriage would not be acceptable these days, it is to prevent calumny against the prophet that the ayat was revealed. I think this is what Muslims might say.
If you do not or cannot believe Quran to be God's word, then it would be very difficult to justify the ayat.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
The prophets wives and some details. A lot more can be found if searched.
KHADIJAH: She was 40 years old when she proposed to marry the Prophet when he was 25 years old. After 15years of their marriage he became a prophet. She had been married twice before she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Her first husband was Aby Haleh Al Tamemy and her second husband was Oteaq Almakzomy. They had both died leaving Khadijah a widower. Khadijah died in 621A.D. This was the same year the Prophet ascended into heaven (Meraj).
SAWDA BINT ZAM'A: Her first husband was Al Sakran Ibn Omro Ibn Abed Shamz. He died within a few days after his return from Ethiopia. She was 65 years old, poor, and had no one to care for her. This was why Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) married her.
AISHA SIDDIQA: A woman named Kholeah Bint Hakeem suggested that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) marry Aishah, the daughter of Aby Bakr, to form a close relationship with Aby Bakr's family. She was already engaged to Jober Ibn Al Moteam Ibn Oday. At this time Jober was not yet a Muslim. The people of Makkah did not object to Aishah becoming married because although she was young, she was mature enough to understand the responsibility of marriage. Prophet Muhammad (bpuh) was engaged to Aishah for 2 years before he married her. Aby Bakr was the first leader after Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) death.
HAFSAH BINT U'MAR: She was the daughter of Omar, the second Calipha. Omar asked Othman to marry Hafsah. Othman refused because his wife had recently died and Othman did not want to remarry. Omar then went to Aby Bakr but he also refused to marry Hafsah. Aby Bakr knew that the Prophet had already considered marrying Hafsah. Omar then went to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and complained that Othman and Aby Bakr did not want to marry his daughter. The Prophet told Omar that his daughter will marry and Othman will also remarry. Othman married the daughter of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Om Kolthoom, and Hafsah married the Prophet. This made Omar and Othman both happy.
ZAYNAB BINT KHUZAYMA: Her husband died in the battle of Uhud, leaving her poor and with several children. She was old when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) married her. She died 3 months after she married the Prophet 625 A.D.
SALAMA BINT UMAYYA: Her husband, Abud Allah Abud Al Assad Ibn Al Mogherah, died leaving Hend poor and with many children. Hend was at least 65 years old at the time. Aby Bakr and several others asked her to marry them, but because she loved her husband very much, she refused the marriage's offers. But finally she accepted Prophet mohammad's offer to marry her and take care of her children.
ZAYNAB BINT JAHSH: She was the daughter of Prophet Muhammad's aunt, Omameh Bint Abud Almutaleb. The Prophet arranged for Zaynab to marry Zayed Ibn Hareathah Al Kalby. This marriage did not last and the Prophet received a verse in the Quran which stated that if they became divorced, then the Prophet must marry Zaynab (Sura 33:37).
JUWAYRIYA BINT AL-HARITH: Her first husband's name was Masafeah Ibn Safuan. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) wanted Juayreah's tribe (Beni Al Mostalag)to convert to Islam. Juayreah became a prisoner after the Muslims won the Battle of Al Mostalaq. Juayreah's father came to the Prophet and offered a payment for her return. The Prophet asked her father to give her a choice. When she was given a choice she said she accepted Islam and Prophet Muhammad as the last God's Messenger. The Prophet then married her. Her tribe of Beni Almostalag accepted Islam.
SAFIYYA BINT HUYAYY: She was from the tribe of Beni Nadir, who were from the children of Levi (Israel). She was married twice before, then she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Her first husband Salam Ibn Moshkem, and her second husband was Kenanah Ibn Al Rabeeah.
UMMU HABIBA BINT SUFYAN: Her first husband was Aubed Allah Jahish. He was the son of the aunt of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Aubed Allah died in Ethiopia. The king of Ethiopia arranged the marriage of Ramelah to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
MAYAMUNA BINT AL-HARITH: She was 26years old when she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Her first husband was Abu Rahma Ibn Abed Alzey. When the Prophet opened Makkah in 630 AD , she came to the Prophet, accepted Islam and proposed to marry him. Her actions encouraged Many Makkahans to accept Islam and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
MARIA AL-QABTIYYA: She was sent to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a hand maid servant from the king of Egypt. Maria had a son from the Prophet. His name was Ibrahim.
KHADIJAH: She was 40 years old when she proposed to marry the Prophet when he was 25 years old. After 15years of their marriage he became a prophet. She had been married twice before she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Her first husband was Aby Haleh Al Tamemy and her second husband was Oteaq Almakzomy. They had both died leaving Khadijah a widower. Khadijah died in 621A.D. This was the same year the Prophet ascended into heaven (Meraj).
SAWDA BINT ZAM'A: Her first husband was Al Sakran Ibn Omro Ibn Abed Shamz. He died within a few days after his return from Ethiopia. She was 65 years old, poor, and had no one to care for her. This was why Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) married her.
AISHA SIDDIQA: A woman named Kholeah Bint Hakeem suggested that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) marry Aishah, the daughter of Aby Bakr, to form a close relationship with Aby Bakr's family. She was already engaged to Jober Ibn Al Moteam Ibn Oday. At this time Jober was not yet a Muslim. The people of Makkah did not object to Aishah becoming married because although she was young, she was mature enough to understand the responsibility of marriage. Prophet Muhammad (bpuh) was engaged to Aishah for 2 years before he married her. Aby Bakr was the first leader after Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) death.
HAFSAH BINT U'MAR: She was the daughter of Omar, the second Calipha. Omar asked Othman to marry Hafsah. Othman refused because his wife had recently died and Othman did not want to remarry. Omar then went to Aby Bakr but he also refused to marry Hafsah. Aby Bakr knew that the Prophet had already considered marrying Hafsah. Omar then went to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and complained that Othman and Aby Bakr did not want to marry his daughter. The Prophet told Omar that his daughter will marry and Othman will also remarry. Othman married the daughter of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Om Kolthoom, and Hafsah married the Prophet. This made Omar and Othman both happy.
ZAYNAB BINT KHUZAYMA: Her husband died in the battle of Uhud, leaving her poor and with several children. She was old when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) married her. She died 3 months after she married the Prophet 625 A.D.
SALAMA BINT UMAYYA: Her husband, Abud Allah Abud Al Assad Ibn Al Mogherah, died leaving Hend poor and with many children. Hend was at least 65 years old at the time. Aby Bakr and several others asked her to marry them, but because she loved her husband very much, she refused the marriage's offers. But finally she accepted Prophet mohammad's offer to marry her and take care of her children.
ZAYNAB BINT JAHSH: She was the daughter of Prophet Muhammad's aunt, Omameh Bint Abud Almutaleb. The Prophet arranged for Zaynab to marry Zayed Ibn Hareathah Al Kalby. This marriage did not last and the Prophet received a verse in the Quran which stated that if they became divorced, then the Prophet must marry Zaynab (Sura 33:37).
JUWAYRIYA BINT AL-HARITH: Her first husband's name was Masafeah Ibn Safuan. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) wanted Juayreah's tribe (Beni Al Mostalag)to convert to Islam. Juayreah became a prisoner after the Muslims won the Battle of Al Mostalaq. Juayreah's father came to the Prophet and offered a payment for her return. The Prophet asked her father to give her a choice. When she was given a choice she said she accepted Islam and Prophet Muhammad as the last God's Messenger. The Prophet then married her. Her tribe of Beni Almostalag accepted Islam.
SAFIYYA BINT HUYAYY: She was from the tribe of Beni Nadir, who were from the children of Levi (Israel). She was married twice before, then she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Her first husband Salam Ibn Moshkem, and her second husband was Kenanah Ibn Al Rabeeah.
UMMU HABIBA BINT SUFYAN: Her first husband was Aubed Allah Jahish. He was the son of the aunt of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Aubed Allah died in Ethiopia. The king of Ethiopia arranged the marriage of Ramelah to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
MAYAMUNA BINT AL-HARITH: She was 26years old when she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Her first husband was Abu Rahma Ibn Abed Alzey. When the Prophet opened Makkah in 630 AD , she came to the Prophet, accepted Islam and proposed to marry him. Her actions encouraged Many Makkahans to accept Islam and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
MARIA AL-QABTIYYA: She was sent to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a hand maid servant from the king of Egypt. Maria had a son from the Prophet. His name was Ibrahim.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
Of course as porus said this would make sense only to the believers.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
humsafar,
the reason why my argumentation to you, as well to JC, was tiresome is that neither of you like accountablity, which is something reformist are pushing for. if you don't want to preach or practice the reformist agenda, don't speak as though you represent it, which on a number of occassion you seem to.
you want me to question our scholars and at the same time accept everything anyone has to say at face value.
therefore, we need justification of why the dai is corrupt, beyond our opinions. the reformist scholars have stated that the dai is misuseing items of the faith (ie misaq, raza,etc) based on the way his predessors used them. they say the past imams/dais didn't use raza for what is defined as secular things or that barat as a terms of full excommunication, for example. great, this i agree with and is proper justification. now where is the documentation for the precedents, that we claim to exist?
now in all of this, my opinion is what attaches me to the reformist cause. however, what i don't have is the scholarly background to research the evidence i think is there.
the reason why my argumentation to you, as well to JC, was tiresome is that neither of you like accountablity, which is something reformist are pushing for. if you don't want to preach or practice the reformist agenda, don't speak as though you represent it, which on a number of occassion you seem to.
you want me to question our scholars and at the same time accept everything anyone has to say at face value.
the prophet's actions are sunnah. however, when you point out something with ONLY half the story you must be corrected. the sunnah is the whole story, which includes the negation of others marrying more than four.First you say the prophet's sunnah is doctrine. When I point out examples of the prophet's lifestyle that nobody follows, you change tack and say those things were not prescribed.
see this is where things start falling apart, the burden of proof. typically, the burden of proof falls on the plantiff (to use court terms) which is the reformist party. if the proof is legimate, then the defendant (kothar) must disprove the evidence brought forward by the plantiff (the reformist). remember, it is us claiming the dai is corrupt.In that sense, I say, even misaaq/razaa/baraat are not prescribed. And the burden of proof is on those who insist that these things are legitimate wajib and necessary.
my opinion is the dai is corrupt basis on my upbringing and ethos. now if you accept that as a reason for calling the dai corrupt, than you are an idiot. this is not how scholars and debaters speak about topics. they don't base an entire agenda on one person's or even two people's opinions, especially when related to religion and faith. they justify their opinion with evidence and precedents.This again is grandiose nonsense. Determine the basis of corruption? Just answer one simple question: do you think the current dai and the system he has set up is corrupt or not?
therefore, we need justification of why the dai is corrupt, beyond our opinions. the reformist scholars have stated that the dai is misuseing items of the faith (ie misaq, raza,etc) based on the way his predessors used them. they say the past imams/dais didn't use raza for what is defined as secular things or that barat as a terms of full excommunication, for example. great, this i agree with and is proper justification. now where is the documentation for the precedents, that we claim to exist?
now in all of this, my opinion is what attaches me to the reformist cause. however, what i don't have is the scholarly background to research the evidence i think is there.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
porus/anajmi
But then ANYTHING will make sense to the believers. If we want to have this discussion then I think we need to move beyond that point.
The Quran must be viewed and understood in human terms. Apart from its general moral commandments which can be said to be eternal, the Quran for the most part is rooted in historical specificity. It reflects social and political issues of the 6th/7th century Arabia, and the difficulties that the Prophet faced in bringing a new religion to pagan Arabs. Its content is by no means COMPLETE (as in covering every aspect of the human condition) but rather episodic: responding to lived experiences of the time.
The prophet's marriage to Zainab (ex daughter-in-law) was an episode which was quite unusual at the time and that is why it finds a mention in the Quran by way of justification. There was no divine purpose to it as has been claimed.
But then ANYTHING will make sense to the believers. If we want to have this discussion then I think we need to move beyond that point.
The Quran must be viewed and understood in human terms. Apart from its general moral commandments which can be said to be eternal, the Quran for the most part is rooted in historical specificity. It reflects social and political issues of the 6th/7th century Arabia, and the difficulties that the Prophet faced in bringing a new religion to pagan Arabs. Its content is by no means COMPLETE (as in covering every aspect of the human condition) but rather episodic: responding to lived experiences of the time.
The prophet's marriage to Zainab (ex daughter-in-law) was an episode which was quite unusual at the time and that is why it finds a mention in the Quran by way of justification. There was no divine purpose to it as has been claimed.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
Spot,
I think before you start talking about accountability, you ought to prove your claim: "the prophet specified his marriages were specific reasons by God and not for any other muslim"
my opinion is the dai is corrupt basis on my upbringing and ethos. now if you accept that as a reason for calling the dai corrupt, than you are an idiot.
If my upbringing and ethos tell me the dai is corrupt then I'll not deny and insult my upbringing and ethos by saying that the dai is NOT corrupt. Besides, look at the history of the reform movement, it is not just a few individuals saying this - many scholars and commissions have documented this: Asghar Ali Engineer, Ismail Poonawala, Abbas Hamdani and others plus the Nathwani and Tewatia commission reports.
the reformist scholars have stated that the dai is misuseing items of the faith (ie misaq, raza,etc) based on the way his predessors used them. they say the past imams/dais didn't use raza for what is defined as secular things or that barat as a terms of full excommunication, for example. great, this i agree with and is proper justification. now where is the documentation for the precedents, that we claim to exist?
See above. Also, what you terms as "items of faith" are not items of faith. They are mentioned no where in the Bohra source books - primarily Daim ul Islam - as items of faith.
now in all of this, my opinion is what attaches me to the reformist cause. however, what i don't have is the scholarly background to research the evidence i think is there.
See above. There's enough evidence to support your sensible opinion. If you are still not satisfied then you're just being finicky and difficult.
I think before you start talking about accountability, you ought to prove your claim: "the prophet specified his marriages were specific reasons by God and not for any other muslim"
my opinion is the dai is corrupt basis on my upbringing and ethos. now if you accept that as a reason for calling the dai corrupt, than you are an idiot.
If my upbringing and ethos tell me the dai is corrupt then I'll not deny and insult my upbringing and ethos by saying that the dai is NOT corrupt. Besides, look at the history of the reform movement, it is not just a few individuals saying this - many scholars and commissions have documented this: Asghar Ali Engineer, Ismail Poonawala, Abbas Hamdani and others plus the Nathwani and Tewatia commission reports.
the reformist scholars have stated that the dai is misuseing items of the faith (ie misaq, raza,etc) based on the way his predessors used them. they say the past imams/dais didn't use raza for what is defined as secular things or that barat as a terms of full excommunication, for example. great, this i agree with and is proper justification. now where is the documentation for the precedents, that we claim to exist?
See above. Also, what you terms as "items of faith" are not items of faith. They are mentioned no where in the Bohra source books - primarily Daim ul Islam - as items of faith.
now in all of this, my opinion is what attaches me to the reformist cause. however, what i don't have is the scholarly background to research the evidence i think is there.
See above. There's enough evidence to support your sensible opinion. If you are still not satisfied then you're just being finicky and difficult.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
humsafar,
actually it was you who brought the claim regarding the account that prophet had 11 wives. my point was that he did, but he was allowed and all other muslims are limited per the quran to not beyond four. the prophet didn't allow anyone else to marry beyond four, and this is the part you forgot to mention.
so when you point to the court cases and schloastic articles written by our scholars, of what i have read, no quoted references were made to imams/dais precedents actions of doing this or not doing that. yes, many scholars refer to books for the actions of the dai, but none quoted the words written.
so for the reformist cause, we must use the bohra doctrines established during the time of the imams/dai against what the previous and current dai is doing as a reference gauge.
used these terms versus how the current dai does.
and if wanting to know this makes me finiky and difficult, than your very gulliable.
actually it was you who brought the claim regarding the account that prophet had 11 wives. my point was that he did, but he was allowed and all other muslims are limited per the quran to not beyond four. the prophet didn't allow anyone else to marry beyond four, and this is the part you forgot to mention.
i am not saying you should deny or insult your upbringing, but you cannot use it as a judgement or evidence against someone, let alone for corruption. if i was raised in south africa, i may have the opinion that the black man is an animal only good for work like an ox. this is the upbringing and ethos of many people in south africa, and this was used as justification for slavery in south africa.If my upbringing and ethos tell me the dai is corrupt then I'll not deny and insult my upbringing and ethos by saying that the dai is NOT corrupt.
so when you point to the court cases and schloastic articles written by our scholars, of what i have read, no quoted references were made to imams/dais precedents actions of doing this or not doing that. yes, many scholars refer to books for the actions of the dai, but none quoted the words written.
so for the reformist cause, we must use the bohra doctrines established during the time of the imams/dai against what the previous and current dai is doing as a reference gauge.
see this is what i mean, you make blanket statements with looking into what even our scholars have written. misaq and barat was practiced by dai hatim. raza was practiced by the imams. the difference is how they"items of faith" are not items of faith. They are mentioned no where in the Bohra source books - primarily Daim ul Islam
used these terms versus how the current dai does.
and if wanting to know this makes me finiky and difficult, than your very gulliable.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
my point was that he did, but he was allowed and all other muslims are limited per the quran to not beyond four. the prophet didn't allow anyone else to marry beyond four, and this is the part you forgot to mention.
You said the prophet "specified his marriages were specific reasons by God". I'm merely asking, where did he say this and what were the specific reasons.
If misaaq and raza are articles of faith they would be mentioned in daim ul islam. Since they are not mentioned I would not consider them as articles of faith. These are not part of the doctrine because they are not mentioned in the books of doctrine.
You say Sayedna Hatim practiced them: can you show the source of your information and explain in what form and context he practiced them. Besides, just because one dai practiced these things, they do not become doctrine. If it were part of doctrine- it would be mentioned in all the source books and practiced consistently by all imams/dais without exception. An occasional and sporadic practice does not make it doctrine. (One swallow does not a summer make.)
Now read the text of the present-day misaaq that one currently gives (http://dawoodi-bohras.com/issues/misaq.htm). It is a charter of slavery. There is no evidence that earlier imams/dais used the exact same text.
But my point is that I don't care even if they did - I would not accept it on moral and human rights grounds. What is wrong and unconscionable is wrong and unconscionable - no matter what. Even if God decreed it, that would not make it right.
You said the prophet "specified his marriages were specific reasons by God". I'm merely asking, where did he say this and what were the specific reasons.
If misaaq and raza are articles of faith they would be mentioned in daim ul islam. Since they are not mentioned I would not consider them as articles of faith. These are not part of the doctrine because they are not mentioned in the books of doctrine.
You say Sayedna Hatim practiced them: can you show the source of your information and explain in what form and context he practiced them. Besides, just because one dai practiced these things, they do not become doctrine. If it were part of doctrine- it would be mentioned in all the source books and practiced consistently by all imams/dais without exception. An occasional and sporadic practice does not make it doctrine. (One swallow does not a summer make.)
Now read the text of the present-day misaaq that one currently gives (http://dawoodi-bohras.com/issues/misaq.htm). It is a charter of slavery. There is no evidence that earlier imams/dais used the exact same text.
But my point is that I don't care even if they did - I would not accept it on moral and human rights grounds. What is wrong and unconscionable is wrong and unconscionable - no matter what. Even if God decreed it, that would not make it right.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
humsafar,
what seems odd in your response is you are looking for reasons (evidence) as to why the prophet did this or not. but not when it comes to justification of corruption.
regarding misaq and barat, it is not me saying dai hatim or an imam practices did or did not allow the practice, it is our scholars writing in article that the imam/dai did this and that regarding misaq and barat. did you actually read the article written by dr. engineer or dr. hamdani?
what seems odd in your response is you are looking for reasons (evidence) as to why the prophet did this or not. but not when it comes to justification of corruption.
regarding misaq and barat, it is not me saying dai hatim or an imam practices did or did not allow the practice, it is our scholars writing in article that the imam/dai did this and that regarding misaq and barat. did you actually read the article written by dr. engineer or dr. hamdani?
the last line of the text says that writer is the slave of Sayidna Zakiudin. this is the 45th dai. so it was used by at least 8 dais to the present in the format from the article.There is no evidence that earlier imams/dais used the exact same text.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
what seems odd in your response is you are looking for reasons (evidence) as to why the prophet did this or not.
My purpose is to hold you up to your own standard of finding doctrinal evidence. Because nothing less will do for you. So, support your belief about prophet's marriages and its "reasons" with evidence. I personally don't care.
but not when it comes to justification of corruption.
I've enough justification to be satisfied with. You are looking for doctrinal evidence where none exists.
My purpose is to hold you up to your own standard of finding doctrinal evidence. Because nothing less will do for you. So, support your belief about prophet's marriages and its "reasons" with evidence. I personally don't care.
but not when it comes to justification of corruption.
I've enough justification to be satisfied with. You are looking for doctrinal evidence where none exists.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
humsafar,
in verse as follows:
O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you: your wives to whom you have paid their dowers; and those whom your right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allâh has assigned to you; and daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts and daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts who migrated (from Makkah) with you; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her. This is only for you and not for the Believers (at large). We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess in order that there should be no difficulty for you. And Allâh is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful. (33:50)
scholars have regarded this as the reason why the prophet had more than one wife. each wife was shown as examples of wives one could marry in honor: be they jew, christian, slave, rich, daughters of your emenies, daughters of your companions, or your employer.
and if your stance is that you don't care, than your just as blindly following the teaching of our scholars as the ortho bohras for blindly following their scholars.
in verse as follows:
O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you: your wives to whom you have paid their dowers; and those whom your right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allâh has assigned to you; and daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts and daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts who migrated (from Makkah) with you; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her. This is only for you and not for the Believers (at large). We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess in order that there should be no difficulty for you. And Allâh is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful. (33:50)
scholars have regarded this as the reason why the prophet had more than one wife. each wife was shown as examples of wives one could marry in honor: be they jew, christian, slave, rich, daughters of your emenies, daughters of your companions, or your employer.
the problem with your statement is that our scholars say there is doctrinal evidence to prove what the dai is doing is corrupt and misuse of these terms or doctrines. this is all i am looking for.You are looking for doctrinal evidence where none exists
and if your stance is that you don't care, than your just as blindly following the teaching of our scholars as the ortho bohras for blindly following their scholars.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
Humsafar,
You said "The prophet's marriage to Zainab (ex daughter-in-law) was an episode which was quite unusual at the time and that is why it finds a mention in the Quran by way of justification. There was no divine purpose to it as has been claimed. "
Now if you had been a believer in the quran to be a word of God, we could've discussed this but since you are not, obviously for you there is no divine purpose for anything that is there in the quran!!
You said "The prophet's marriage to Zainab (ex daughter-in-law) was an episode which was quite unusual at the time and that is why it finds a mention in the Quran by way of justification. There was no divine purpose to it as has been claimed. "
Now if you had been a believer in the quran to be a word of God, we could've discussed this but since you are not, obviously for you there is no divine purpose for anything that is there in the quran!!
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
And no ANYTHING does not make sense to the believers, only that which deserves mention in the quran makes sense to the believers. And why is that you may ask. Because.. they are believers!!
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
Spot,
Thank you for the quote. I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but I'm not sure how you can accept this verse as god's "specific reasons" for the prophet's marriages. The verse merely declares what women are lawful to the prophet - it does not pretend to give any "specific reasons" as to why they were made lawful. And it further begs the question, why would not Allah grant the same privilege to ordinary believers? Why this discrimination?
You don't have to answer these questions. My point is just to show - in all modesty - that you do believe and accept things without sufficient doctrinal evidence. And that you're being just difficult when it comes to the dai's perversion of religious practices - especially when it is evident that the dai is doing things which are not even prescribed in the scriptures.
the problem with your statement is that our scholars say there is doctrinal evidence to prove what the dai is doing is corrupt and misuse of these terms or doctrines. this is all i am looking for.
If "our" scholars say that then ask them. The clear evidence is that these things are not mentioned in the books. Nil. Nada. Zilch. What more evidence are you looking for.
and if your stance is that you don't care, than your just as blindly following the teaching of our scholars as the ortho bohras for blindly following their scholars.
First of all, as I have repeatedly mentioned, that the "items of faith" are not items of faith because they are not mentioned in the doctrinal books. Second, even if they were mentioned, I would not accept them on moral and human rights grounds. Third, this is the reason I don't accept them and it has nothing to do with me "blindly following the teachings of scholars". Fourth, as I said before, even if God had prescribed these "items of faith" I would not accept them. But then, God is wise and merciful.
Thank you for the quote. I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but I'm not sure how you can accept this verse as god's "specific reasons" for the prophet's marriages. The verse merely declares what women are lawful to the prophet - it does not pretend to give any "specific reasons" as to why they were made lawful. And it further begs the question, why would not Allah grant the same privilege to ordinary believers? Why this discrimination?
You don't have to answer these questions. My point is just to show - in all modesty - that you do believe and accept things without sufficient doctrinal evidence. And that you're being just difficult when it comes to the dai's perversion of religious practices - especially when it is evident that the dai is doing things which are not even prescribed in the scriptures.
the problem with your statement is that our scholars say there is doctrinal evidence to prove what the dai is doing is corrupt and misuse of these terms or doctrines. this is all i am looking for.
If "our" scholars say that then ask them. The clear evidence is that these things are not mentioned in the books. Nil. Nada. Zilch. What more evidence are you looking for.
and if your stance is that you don't care, than your just as blindly following the teaching of our scholars as the ortho bohras for blindly following their scholars.
First of all, as I have repeatedly mentioned, that the "items of faith" are not items of faith because they are not mentioned in the doctrinal books. Second, even if they were mentioned, I would not accept them on moral and human rights grounds. Third, this is the reason I don't accept them and it has nothing to do with me "blindly following the teachings of scholars". Fourth, as I said before, even if God had prescribed these "items of faith" I would not accept them. But then, God is wise and merciful.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
humsafar,
at the point of this verse, the prophet had more than four wives already. and it is related that every wife after his first was for a reasons, either old age, husbands killed in battle, they were gifts to stregthen communial bonds, etc.
in the verse itself, God says this is for the prophet and not any of the other believers, thus it is why the prophet was allowed to have more than four wives. the verse "specificies" all the different types of marrriages the prophet had and that all are lawful. that pretty clear.
regarding the evidence of the dai corruption, i have asked the scholars, i am waiting for a response. but it is miraclous that after all these years, i was only one to ask, i find that hard to believe.
the idea that because YOU have found no evidence is a feeble reason. our scholars have stated that there is evidence in the article on this site. and unless you are a scholar, i fail to see that you have done any research to begin with. so please stop writing "because they are not mentioned in the doctrinal books".
at the point of this verse, the prophet had more than four wives already. and it is related that every wife after his first was for a reasons, either old age, husbands killed in battle, they were gifts to stregthen communial bonds, etc.
in the verse itself, God says this is for the prophet and not any of the other believers, thus it is why the prophet was allowed to have more than four wives. the verse "specificies" all the different types of marrriages the prophet had and that all are lawful. that pretty clear.
regarding the evidence of the dai corruption, i have asked the scholars, i am waiting for a response. but it is miraclous that after all these years, i was only one to ask, i find that hard to believe.
the idea that because YOU have found no evidence is a feeble reason. our scholars have stated that there is evidence in the article on this site. and unless you are a scholar, i fail to see that you have done any research to begin with. so please stop writing "because they are not mentioned in the doctrinal books".
i have little point in discussing this topic with you than. you consider your ethos and understanding higher than God's.I would not accept them on moral and human rights grounds....even if God had prescribed these "items of faith" I would not accept them
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
Specifying how many and which women one can marry is not the same thing as providing "specific reasons" for these marriages. But I'll not press this point any further.
but it is miraclous that after all these years, i was only one to ask, i find that hard to believe.
That's quite a feat. Yes, it can be hard to believe in one's own miracles!! Or is it possible that you fail to see the obvious.
the idea that because YOU have found no evidence is a feeble reason.
Misaq, razaa, baraat have not been prescribed in the Quran, Daim ul Islam or Tuhufut ul Qulub. This is THE evidence.
i have little point in discussing this topic with you than.
That's your prerogative.
you consider your ethos and understanding higher than God's.
My ethos are enshrined in the UN charter of human rights. And I think a just God would approve of it.
but it is miraclous that after all these years, i was only one to ask, i find that hard to believe.
That's quite a feat. Yes, it can be hard to believe in one's own miracles!! Or is it possible that you fail to see the obvious.
the idea that because YOU have found no evidence is a feeble reason.
Misaq, razaa, baraat have not been prescribed in the Quran, Daim ul Islam or Tuhufut ul Qulub. This is THE evidence.
i have little point in discussing this topic with you than.
That's your prerogative.
you consider your ethos and understanding higher than God's.
My ethos are enshrined in the UN charter of human rights. And I think a just God would approve of it.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
Perhaps, the word ‘corruption’ should be defined first to agree on what is being discussed.
In one sense, it means the use of position for dishonest gain. It is clear that lots of money is given to the Dai by the faithful both as gifts and taxes.
Are gifts voluntary? Is coercion involved? You can only coerce people if you have power over them arising out of ‘position’. If there is a whiff of coercion, then corruption is involved.
Are taxes determined by a well-known published formula whether divine, or not, in origin? If taxes are collected, is there accountability? If no, then there is a strong suspicion of corruption.
In another sense, corruption refers to a change of interpretation of doctrine and scripture for personal gain by those charged to defend the faith.
Have we seen a change in interpretation of doctrine? How does it benefit the community? Among Bohras, only the Dai is the Defender of Faith. There are no checks and balances. In absence of the latter, there is definitely a suspicion of corruption. For example, various ayats are now interpreted to apply personally to the current Dai and his father. Was this done for the previous Dais?
Another case is maatam. This is now considered de rigueur. Even to the extent that you are not a true mumin unless you shed a tear or two for Imam Hussain. Personally, I do not remember this to be a case in my childhood. All types of incidents are fabricated to justify the Dai’s practises. One example, a clearly anti-Islamic practice of Qadam Bosi, is justified by fabricating instances of Ali doing Qadam Bosi to prophet etc. These are corruptions of faith.
Unfortunately, just as prophet’s actions are sacrosanct, even if they rebel against one’s current morals, the Dai’s actions are also held to be sacrosanct by the faithful.
So who is the judge?
In one sense, it means the use of position for dishonest gain. It is clear that lots of money is given to the Dai by the faithful both as gifts and taxes.
Are gifts voluntary? Is coercion involved? You can only coerce people if you have power over them arising out of ‘position’. If there is a whiff of coercion, then corruption is involved.
Are taxes determined by a well-known published formula whether divine, or not, in origin? If taxes are collected, is there accountability? If no, then there is a strong suspicion of corruption.
In another sense, corruption refers to a change of interpretation of doctrine and scripture for personal gain by those charged to defend the faith.
Have we seen a change in interpretation of doctrine? How does it benefit the community? Among Bohras, only the Dai is the Defender of Faith. There are no checks and balances. In absence of the latter, there is definitely a suspicion of corruption. For example, various ayats are now interpreted to apply personally to the current Dai and his father. Was this done for the previous Dais?
Another case is maatam. This is now considered de rigueur. Even to the extent that you are not a true mumin unless you shed a tear or two for Imam Hussain. Personally, I do not remember this to be a case in my childhood. All types of incidents are fabricated to justify the Dai’s practises. One example, a clearly anti-Islamic practice of Qadam Bosi, is justified by fabricating instances of Ali doing Qadam Bosi to prophet etc. These are corruptions of faith.
Unfortunately, just as prophet’s actions are sacrosanct, even if they rebel against one’s current morals, the Dai’s actions are also held to be sacrosanct by the faithful.
So who is the judge?
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
Salams,
It seems that Humsafar and I agree.
The main point is 'Believers beleive' that is the starting point for them. They say 'believe first' 'have faith first' and then move on. If you AGREE on something upfront, you will not be objective. We have to start by thinking on right or wrong of every thing. Today 'believers' want to consider ground realities till the time it suits their frame and state of minds. if something contradicts with what they 'think' is right, they will argue. What I have been saying is that 'think outside the box'. Orthodix or Reformists, I donot care much, as long as we 'review' the policies. there are tons of questionable things in all three big religions. We have to address those and let people speak. See what makes sense and what not. God (or whatever or whoseover that supreme power is) has given us minds to think, we are sipposed to move on, move forward as history has proved to us. Once we use to live in caves, today we are trying to reach skies and stars. That would not have been possible if we would not have thought outside the box. Why religion is an exemption, so much for Muslims? Why any one who leaves Islam is termed 'Murtid' and becomes 'Wajib-ul-Qatal'? And why anyone turning to Islam is welcome. You can say he or she has left the good thing for bad, but that extreme to kill?? Prophets were human beings, so why can't be judge them? imam and dai come so much late. No one should be above law. To me, there is nothing as 'divine'.
It seems that Humsafar and I agree.
The main point is 'Believers beleive' that is the starting point for them. They say 'believe first' 'have faith first' and then move on. If you AGREE on something upfront, you will not be objective. We have to start by thinking on right or wrong of every thing. Today 'believers' want to consider ground realities till the time it suits their frame and state of minds. if something contradicts with what they 'think' is right, they will argue. What I have been saying is that 'think outside the box'. Orthodix or Reformists, I donot care much, as long as we 'review' the policies. there are tons of questionable things in all three big religions. We have to address those and let people speak. See what makes sense and what not. God (or whatever or whoseover that supreme power is) has given us minds to think, we are sipposed to move on, move forward as history has proved to us. Once we use to live in caves, today we are trying to reach skies and stars. That would not have been possible if we would not have thought outside the box. Why religion is an exemption, so much for Muslims? Why any one who leaves Islam is termed 'Murtid' and becomes 'Wajib-ul-Qatal'? And why anyone turning to Islam is welcome. You can say he or she has left the good thing for bad, but that extreme to kill?? Prophets were human beings, so why can't be judge them? imam and dai come so much late. No one should be above law. To me, there is nothing as 'divine'.
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
The last post of Porus is thought provoking.
So there are changes and Orthodox or reformists, or Muslims or Others, every body agrees that changes are bound to come.
the things Porus mentioned, were not there earlier, they are there now, so changes have been made and accepted. And even though Orthodox claim there are no change and there cannot be any change in Shariat.
On top of it Definition of Islam, Shairat and Religion is in the hands of WHOM?
So what one is asking believe in one man - Pope, Dai, Imam, Prophet and DO NOT question. Be Reform, the only thing we are asking is 'right to ask', 'sight to seek', right to speak', 'right to think' and as Porus has very rightly put - UN Charter of Human Rights (though it may not be complete and accurate - as perfection doesnot exist TODAY)
So there are changes and Orthodox or reformists, or Muslims or Others, every body agrees that changes are bound to come.
the things Porus mentioned, were not there earlier, they are there now, so changes have been made and accepted. And even though Orthodox claim there are no change and there cannot be any change in Shariat.
On top of it Definition of Islam, Shairat and Religion is in the hands of WHOM?
So what one is asking believe in one man - Pope, Dai, Imam, Prophet and DO NOT question. Be Reform, the only thing we are asking is 'right to ask', 'sight to seek', right to speak', 'right to think' and as Porus has very rightly put - UN Charter of Human Rights (though it may not be complete and accurate - as perfection doesnot exist TODAY)
Re: Reformist Activities - Defining Success
Thanks porus for your post. As always you bring fresh clarity to the subject.
On both counts of corruption - financial and religious - the dai is guilty. This is as clear as day to anyone who can think 5 minutes through. Of course, the faithful don't, won't see any wrong. But asking the faithful to judge is akin to asking a blind man to see.
On both counts of corruption - financial and religious - the dai is guilty. This is as clear as day to anyone who can think 5 minutes through. Of course, the faithful don't, won't see any wrong. But asking the faithful to judge is akin to asking a blind man to see.