Dawoodi Bohra Forum

Prophet Mohamed was a reformist. He reformed the pagan Middle Arab Middle East into One-God believing/fearing followers. Only one example out of numerous reforms - women's rights:

In Islam, the process of abolishing tribal casteism went hand in hand with the process of removing the discrepancies in the rights and duties of men and women in order to put women and men on the same level as humans.

Women's rights in Islam have resulted in social and political changes that distinguished the Islamic era from the pre-Islamic period.

These changes were demonstrated by granting women their rights, abolishing class divisions and working towards a sustainable development formula, especially after the failure of compulsory and hasty development plans.

This fact cannot be denied even after the rise of selfish theocrats during the reign of the Umayyads, whose rule was marked with self-seeking and politically motivated fatwas (religious rulings). These un-Isamic fatwas are still continuing as we know.

The persistence of a reformist approach makes Islam a religion for all times.

Islamway:

fruits ,
You may want to browse through the illustrous language used by all the abde sayednas on this forum - babu, mumu, mumin mukhlish, moomin052 to name a few. I wonder how does it reflect upon ur dai whom u rever so much.

heavenonheaven,
Plz recite the burhani national anthem "laanat laanat laanat... jahannum ma jalso" 51 times for a sawab of 1000 kadambossis. Somehow, your creed looks incomplete without it...

Fruits,

You say at one stage you were inclined towards reformists, then you were put off by them because of their "bad practices" (provide examples, please). You say they were demanding money for building a clinic. Nothing wrong with that, it's a noble cause. Even so, as far as I'm aware all such donations are absolutely voluntary, nobody is forced to pay. (Contrast this with forced payment - for this and for that - that you've to make to the Kothar to whose philosophy you now seem to be inclined.)

I don't now which Sheikh are you talking about. If it is Shiekh Ahmed Ali, you must remember that ultimately he is the product of Jamia Saifia, he has spent his most productive life in the service of the Sayedna's establishment and it should not be surprising that he displays the characteristics of a typical mulla: arrogant, stubborn, abusive. His reformist credentials consist only in the fact he rebelled against his former masters. Reformists in Udaipur do not look up to him for reformist vision. He is nothing more than an icon, a relic from the past - an old-school purveyor of religious succor. Some would even say, a troublemaker. Anyhow, he abuses not only the Sayedna but also many other reformists who do not see an eye-to-eye with him. (Contrast this with the abuse of amils against their detractors.)

If because of these reasons you were disillusioned by reformists then it is really sad. Fruits, it might really prove fruitful if you actually thought things through. Consider the issues and principles on which the reform movement is based. That's what counts. Reformists too are people and have all the flaws and faults of the human race. Some are more bad than the others. But this no reason to ditch the reform movement. Think about it.

salam tahir,
theres no need to waster "Lanaat Lanaat Lanaat" on you n Dr. Engineer.. you all know wht u deserve??

kh wasalam n dua ma yaad.

way2heaven

.
Br. Saif wrote

This fact cannot be denied even after the rise of selfish theocrats during the reign of the Umayyads, whose rule was marked with self-seeking and politically motivated fatwas (religious rulings). These un-Isamic fatwas are still continuing as we know.

A broad sweeping statement.

I hope brother Saif will provide couple of example of " self-seeking and politically motivated fatwas (religious rulings)".

Wasalaam
.

Saif's post is not actually his own, but was written by Tojan al-Faisal, a former Jordanian MP:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... 8A4DDF.htm

Muslim:

I did not know about the Al-Jazeera article but some of my quotes came from the "Islamway" website and I have acknowledged that at the end of my response.

Nevertheless, its useful to acknowledge the author.

.
Br. saif wrote

I did not know about the Al-Jazeera article but some of my quotes came from the "Islamway" website and I have acknowledged that at the end of my response.

So you do not have couple of examples of Umayyads self-seeking and politically motivated fatwas, but threw in the paragraph to make it look like thoughtfull post.

I think 'selfish theocrats' abound in both Shia and Sunni Islam.

Wasalaam
.

This is not a Sunni-Shia issue. The author of the above is a former Jordanian MP as I stated and therefore most likely a Sunni. However, What she has explained, in the context of reform, is a fact of history.

First of all, the rise of the Ummayads was itself as a result of political opportunism. One legacy of Ummayad rule is the concept of total obedience to a ruler even if they be corrupt. This has somehow crept into the corpus of Muslim bin Hallaj. As a result today you find the fatalist attitude of Muslims and their unwillingness to overthrow or even criticise their corrupt leaders.

Another example of a politically-motivated edict was the ritual cursing of Ali instituted by Muawiya. This edict was later abolished by Umar bin Abdul Aziz.

Yet another classic politically-motivated edict was made during the time of the caliph Abdul Malik. Abdullah bin Zubayr was in control of the holy places in Makkah and Madina. Scared that the pilgrimages to Hijaz from his base in Syria would give Ibn Zubayr a political advantage, he got the theologian Al-Zuhri to justify that pilgrimage to Jerusalem is equal to that to Mecca.

Apart from savage butchery and manufactured tradition, the Ummayads contributed little to Islam. The greatest advances for Muslim thought, the "golden age of Islam" - advances from philosophy to mystics to theology, all took place after the Umayyads were overthrown by the Abbasids.