Reformist Activities - Defining Success

[spot]

the odd thing in all of this, is that none of you are qualified to judge. your faith are based on your opinion of what is right or wrong not the precepts of the religion itself.

JC believes what he wants with his own interpretation of what is correct and not, whether the religion has established doctrine in regards to it.

Humsafar believes his understanding and ethos more than God's and now is deny what is clearly written even by reformist scholars.

Porus, while eluciating the topics, doesn't confirm or deny a concept. maybe he does that purposefully. your analysis of what is corruption, coercion or just change in doctrine is very good yet a little misleading. while i may agree with you in the collection of taxes, it is hard for me to use the same analysis for matam. matam, while practiced in a strange form than what we are use to, is very much similar if not less than to that of itna'shari shiah. i find it hard to believe bohras are practicing a fabrication of matam belief, while the itna'ashari are practicing the same but more ferverently.

Humsafar and JC, it is wrong of both of you to make unproven and opinionated statements without researching if what you write has any substance.

maybe the reason you guys have not found anything to disprove you is that you were only looking for the things that supported your opinion.

in any case none of your methods are in line with the reformist agenda as defined by articles on this site and common belief of the bohra.

[JC]

Spot,

What I am saying is that nothing should be above review and thinking.

You all say that 'beleive first' and then sought the answers. So it is same with you too. You are looking for things which corroborate your point of view not ours and therefore you did not find anything different.

I am not of the opinion that what Reformists or Liberals are doing is ALL right, no, they MAY be wrong on many counts, but atleast they agree on disagreement. They allow questioning.

I have never said I will stick to my opinion, what i m saying is that we should be allowed to judge everything based on ground realities and age and knowledge.

You all think BELIEF or FAITH is 'absolute' - i m saying it is 'relative'.

Regarding Mataam, if Ithanaa' Asheeres do this, does this make it right..??? NO, they are also wrong, Matam to such an extent is not logical. What are you trying to achieve by that??? Matam has not even prescribed by Prophet neither he did that, so based on your yardsticks only where did this came from. IF it is not in Quran and Sunnah, then atleast it should be debatable and you should open to thought that it MAY be wrong. Like Shias and Bohras do not agree on Taraweeh just because it is with Imamat. So what, people are praying - though it is open for debate atleast for me - i m willing to consider it may be wrong. Likewise Washeeq and other prayers bohras pray on 23rd of Ramadhan. They may not be required but as i have been saying, if one elects to PRAY, that should be OK as it should be left to individual. We cannot compare concept of Mataam with concept of Praying. Though today I am even open to challange the concept of Praying too.

[Humsafar]

Spot,

Since you're such a stickler for doctrines - and that they are valid for all time, here's a hypothetical question for you:

Let's suppose that the current Bohra misaaq - its full text, word for word - was prescribed in the Quran, Daim ul Islam and all other Islamic scriptures, Hadiths and sunnah etc. In other words, it was truly and completely part of doctrine and practiced from the Prophet down to the last dai. The question is, would you accept it? Just answer in yes or no.

[anajmi]

Humsafar,

That's like asking "if the quran asked you to worship Ram and Krishna, would you?" A stupid question I would say.

Or say for eg asking "if the quran allowed you to fornicate, would you?"

Or say for eg asking "if the quran allowed you to steal, would you?"

Or....... well, you get the point right?

[anajmi]

You know, I love it when people ask questions and then ask you to answer in a yes or no only. It's like head I win and tails you loose.

[Average Bohra]

I agree, kinda like asking ....“ If the Quran allowed you to marry 4 times would you ?” Or, “If the Quran asked you to kill would you” ? Or "if the Quran asked you to stone a woman to death for adultery, would you ? "

Well, would you ?

In all fairness, no different than asking "if the Quran asks you to "pray x times, why wouldn't you ? "

[anajmi]

Well, considering the fact that all Bush and Sharon worshipping americans like you are ok with lying, raping, murdering, torturing, abusing, cheating and stealing that which belongs to others, of course there is no difference.

[anajmi]

However, let me wxplain it to you in a different way, like explaining to a "special" child.

Does the quran allow you to marry 4 times - Yes

Does the quran allow you to kill - Yes.
Of course people like yourself will always quote this piece out of context cause otherwise it just proves that people like yourself are full of shit.

Does the quran ask you to pray x number of times - Yes specifically 5

Does the quran ask you to worship Ram and Krishna? - No

Does the quran ask you to fornicate? - No

Does the quran ask you to steal? - No

Does the quran ask you to do what Humsafar indicated? - No

I am sure you do not see the difference considering the lying, cheating, raping and stealing thing I mentioned before. But I will have to keep trying.

[anajmi]

Humsafar,

Sorry for the interruption. I will just repost what I had posted before for you.

You had asked

Let's suppose that the current Bohra misaaq - its full text, word for word - was prescribed in the Quran, Daim ul Islam and all other Islamic scriptures, Hadiths and sunnah etc. In other words, it was truly and completely part of doctrine and practiced from the Prophet down to the last dai. The question is, would you accept it? Just answer in yes or no.

And my reply was

That's like asking "if the quran asked you to worship Ram and Krishna, would you?" A stupid question I would say.

Or say for eg asking "if the quran allowed you to fornicate, would you?"

Or say for eg asking "if the quran allowed you to steal, would you?"

Or....... well, you get the point right?

You know, I love it when people ask questions and then ask you to answer in a yes or no only. It's like head I win and tails you loose.

[spot]

JC,
nothing is above review and thinking by those who are capable and are authoritize to do so. this would be the hidden imam and in his place is the dai.

You all say that 'beleive first' and then sought the answers. So it is same with you too. You are looking for things which corroborate your point of view not ours and therefore you did not find anything different.

i am believe first regarding the overall faith because to a degree, i may never be intellgent enough to absorb the metaphysics of God or this world. i try to learn as much as i can. but what is the point of learning everything i possibly can first about islam, something i may never be able to do, and then accepting it.

regarding your second point, no it is not the same, i am basing what i am looking for on the fact that reformist scholars have said it exists in comparision to what is being do now, i am looking for the established doctrine. it is just my limited access and ability to gather that info that holds me back. you're looking to change something base on your opinion, you're looking to change an established doctrine.

my basis for comparing bohra matam to itna ashari is that if what we do is wrong, and the dai is wrong in promoting it, wouldn't the larger population of shiahs be different. they are, but they practice matam more than bohras.

[porus]

Originally posted by spot:
JC,
nothing is above review and thinking by those who are capable and are authoritize to do so. this would be the hidden imam and in his place is the dai.

Since Imam is hidden, his review and thinking are also hidden. Whether he is authorized or not is therefore moot and we may quickly dispatch him to his hideout and not bother with him forever and ever.

That leaves the Dai, who claims Quran refers personally to him in places. He claims he will personally visit a mumin in his grave and escort him to paradise. How did he get the capability and authority to make such claims? Would other Shia, like Aga Khanis and Ithna=asharis accept this claim?

The claims for 'knowledge and authority' are based on one specific 'hadith' where prophet reportedly asked his followers to stick by Quran and his family. Most Muslims do not accept the hadith.

The only criterion of truth is that a statement is verifiable by anybody on earth. These statements are not verifiable and are therefore not truth.

Religions are notorious for defending 'truth', a real pie in the sky. And they dont' care how many people get killed in the process.

Following the Dai is just a personal preference or opinion. Look into your motivations for following him? What are you really getting?

[JC]

Spot,

You are trying to sought answers 'within the box' only. You are not willing to see 'outside'. There is an ocean, come out of well.

Yes, I agree, I am challanging an 'established doctrine' - why not? ALL established doctrines were not established doctrines once upon a time. These doctrines have come to this point after review and evolution today. the last doctrine of Islam came 1400 years ago, I want to know what are the things which have changed since then. Quran allowed to marry 4 wives and there were reasons for that during that time and period, they are not valid today, so Mulsim majority do not marry 4. Praying was to be 5 times a day, should we be thinking, it MAY be changed to 1 or 2 or 3, depending on the circumstances today.

Mataam is wrong and doesnot make sense. Even if Shias do it more than Bohras it doesnot change a thing. It is wrong unless proven otherwise. What good it is bringing to you? You are hirting yourself and it is insane. If you are so mad in love of Hussain, you may still want to hurt yourself for him, go ahead, but it will change the core facts that it is wrong, Hussain is dead, he was a human being, a great one though and he cannot help you in any way, not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

Anajmi,

Again, your point is we should stick to Quran and Sunnah and its generally accepted interpretations and explanations. Whatever it says, it has to be right. Had Missaq been in Quran, you would accept it, but it is not (fortunately) so you donot care. What we are saying is - we should be open to change - forget our opinion, by prbciple, people should be allowed to think and speak whatever they feel outside the box. That is Reform. The Reforms are not only required in Bohras but in all religions and societies.

[JC]

Spot,

Porus has said it.

Why do u want to place your faith and belief in one human being, may it be Imam or Dai or may he be Prophet. After all they were human beings. I may agree that they were far genuis than others and taught us so many things but we should be allowed to take note of what they are teaching and asking us to believe. If Dai says he will come to our graves and take us to Paradise, that is just non-sense. How can you believe that?

So it is your own opinion, prerogative to believe in or not. We have a right to ours.

[Humsafar]

anajmi,

First, the question was not addressed to you.

Two, my question is not as absurd and outlandish as you seem to suggest: "if the quran allowed you to fornicate, would you?" (Although the Quran sort of hints at it with "what your right hand possesses" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukum - but let's not go down that road.)

I'm talking about the Bohra misaaq - something which is in the realm of the possible and is strictly implemented by the dai and his crew - who claim it to be part of fatimid-mustalian doctrine.

Now if the Bohra Dai claims misaaq to be perfectly Islamic then it just might be possible that it could have been prescribed in the Quran too (after all, aren't slaves and concubines tolerated in the Quran? But let's not go down that road either.)

My contention is that even if the misaq were ordained by god, I would not accept it because it violates my dignity and human rights.

Spot - and others like him - insist that contemporary morality cannot be above God's decree. If so, then would they accept and submit to the misaaq if it were sanctioned by God, i.e. prescribed in the Quran? After all orthos accept it as such. So my question is not so far-fetched.

Those who abide by doctrinal purity - and seek doctrinal justification for everything - the answer has to be "yes".

The moment you hesitate or say "no", your faith goes for a toss.

[Humsafar]

Spot,

Given your statement:

nothing is above review and thinking by those who are capable and are authoritize to do so. this would be the hidden imam and in his place is the dai.

this whole discussion should not even have taken place.

If you accept the dai as the only legitimate authority in such matters then why not accept everything he says and does? Why not accept all "items of faith" without question? Why seek doctrinal justification? Why pretend to be a reformist?

[anajmi]

Humsafar,

I know, but my question was certainly for you.

Obviously you do not know what it means when the quran says "what your right hand possesses". Trying telling the girl you fornicate with that your right hand possesses her and see it across your face!!

[anajmi]

I meant, see the girl's right hand across your face. Provided she's not like you and knows what it actually means.

[spot]

i will this topic base the fact that the participants base there understanding of religion on their own justification of that religion. with that you can create your own cult and live happily.

for the rest of us who wish to adhere to the principle of islam, we struggle.

but ask you at the least not to call yourselves reformists. you neither practices their beliefs or what they are trying to do. you guys have your own motives and your own agenda.

[porus]

Whose understanding and justification of your religion are you following? Not yours?

Why is adherence to the principles of Islam a struggle? You have doubts? Is the threat external to you? Struggle to believe in God? Hardly likely!

If you are unable to make you own mind up, then it will always be struggle. You will always blame outsiders for your struggle? That is a symptom of irresponsibility to oneself. An adult who cannot stand the white heat of rational enquiry into his own beliefs is necessarily irresponsible and an unwitting pawn for religious fanatics and cultists.

As Humsafar pointed out, Reform movement subsumes a wide variety of opinion freely expressed, unlike the cult of Dai-ism, where you would express your opinion at your peril, unless it is to glorify the Dai and his family.

Officially, reformists are concerned with both financial and religious corruption. That is a narrow focus. However, this is an uphill struggle for believers neither see financial nor religious corruption. To paraphrase the Quran, “Summon, buqmun, ummyun”.

[Average Bohra]

you guys have your own motives and your own agenda

Spot,

I would hope that the reformist movement, or any movement, would have a motive and an agenda, else it would cease to be a movement.

[spot]

AB,
no, i am not looking at my own motives and agenda, my objective is to verify the substance that the agenda already established by the reformist leaders is based on. Nothing big or complicated.

Porus,
no, it is not my understanding or justification. i don't trust my own, nor do i trust as a basis for my faith the opinions of humsafar or jc.

i do trust the recorded opinions of the imams/dais and cross referencing those to the actions of the current dai. this is not uncommon. the imams themselves referenced the actions of the past imams back to the prophet for the things they did or didn't do. this is only true form of justification according to the edicts of being a shiah muslim.

your comments are of those a secular muslim, one who only practices islam the moment he enters a mosque.

the reformist movement has wide opinion, but a very defined agenda. do not confuse the two. the agenda is established on joint conclusion of scholars and leaders who have said that the agenda is basis on religious grounds. the argument is that the current dai is not basing his actions on religious actions. as you mentioned financial and religious accountability.

but the difference from what your saying and the reformist agenda is that the agenda is based solely and firmly on islamic principles, not just opinions.

it is these principles and their references that i am looking for.

[porus]

You know Spot, an elementary education in logic would be most useful to you as you violate even the most basic law of contradiction.

1. I do not trust my understanding.
2. I trust my understanding of Imam/Dai’s understanding.

If you do not trust your understanding, how can you trust your understanding of “the understanding of others”?

Now, let us take your couplet above. This is music to the ears of the Dai. He will say, “This is the food of love, give me excess of it.” His fondest wish is that you do not think for yourselves but to trust him to do your thinking for you.

Where does that leave you in relation to God, who, if you read the Quran <u>by and for yourself</u>, commands you to use your reason, the greatest gift he has given to mankind? This is another example of corruption of scripture to which, unfortunately, you, like other Bohras, have succumbed.

When you cannot or will not engage in rational debate, the next the thing to do is to mount an offensive by labeling your opponents as secular, munafiqs, kafirs etc. This is a well-known ploy of irrationalists. You do this by not shining a light of reason on your opponent and falsely imputing them roles which you have no way of knowing are accurate.

What are Islamic principles? Are they Ismaili Daaimul Islam or some others? Oh, I forgot, they are what the Dai says they are, right?

“Let me do your thinking for you.”

[anajmi]

Let me see if I understand the problem and someone please correct me if my understanding is ununderstandable.

The dia claims that he is doing what he is doing because that is a part of Islamic priciples mentioned in some book somewhere.

The reformists are saying that the Dai is wrong in doing what he is doing.

Spot wants the reformists to defend their stand against the dai by looking at these Islamic books and proving that what the dai is saying is not from these books but out of his own uh-hmmm.

Have I understood the problem correctly so far?

[porus]

Problem already solved for Spot.

He will only trust/accept the Dai's understanding of the books on Islamic principles; even though he does not trust/accept his understanding of "the dai's understanding".

Go figure.

[Humsafar]

porus/anajmi

Better leave Spot to his blissful non-understanding. Those who do not “trust their own understanding” will understand nothing. So, one might as well bang one’s head against a brick wall.

[spot]

Anajmi,
nice post, i have only said that about 10 times.

Porus,
no, i have not said that at all. i am asking the reformists scholars to provide the evidence they have told me exists.

it is because i think the dai is incorrect that i am looking for this. no bohra i have read anything from distrusts that writting of our past imams and dais, excluding 51 and 52.

Humsafar,
as odd as a concept as this might be, my own understanding as a non-scholar is limited to my understanding of the topics to begin with. the concept of meta-physics as described by dais such as shirazi, kirmani, etc. is something i cannot understand. does it mean that it is not correct by the mere fact that i don't understand it. is the understanding of a concept that criteria for something being correct? if you think this is logical, then so help you.

[anajmi]

spot,

Let me try and explain to you why it is not possible for porus or humsafar to understand the
point you are trying to make.

Neither porus nor humsafar believe that the quran is divine in origin. It is just another "Historical Document".

Now, for the believers every document other than the quran is a historical document, so we can easily say what is right and what is wrong based upon what is there in the quran.

If the quran is just another historical document then what makes it a preferred document over others? Nothing. Unlike the other historical documents, the quran does not even have an author associated with it!! And considering things mentioned in the quran like the splitting of the red sea and Jesus Christ speaking at birth, it could easily be historical fiction.

So the dai chooses to refer to some other historical document for what he thinks is right, there is no way porus or humsafar can say that what he is doing is wrong based upon a better document, so they have to rely on their "understanding" of these books or other peoples understandings of these books. So it will be impossible for you to get the answer to your questions unless you believe in the divinity of the quran, then you will believe that the Muhammed (saw) was the prophet of god and then you will believe in his traditions and then you can easily figure out that there is nothing in the traditions which imitates the doings of the dai.

[anajmi]

So as porus said, the greatest gift of Allah to mankind was his ability to reason, but that is not all, he gave us a book to figure out if our reasoning is screwed up or not.

So I use my understanding and the help of divine revelation to figure out that what the dai is doing is wrong, porus and humsafar use their understanding, and just their understanding to figure out that what the dai is wrong.

So there is no point in you asking porus or humsafar to prove to you their understanding based upon books that are considered by those they are trying to prove wrong, religious in nature.

[kalim]

Dear Spot,

Why do you consider that you are not a "scholar" and can't understand
doctrine or metaphysics of Kirmani et. al.? Is it because you do not
have sufficient motivation or are not intellectually up to the task?
Or is it because you think that doctrine/metaphysics is
incomprehensible by ordinary humans? Please illuminate. You will do
all of us a great favor by spending time on answering your questions
yourself and telling us the results of your research. Maybe it is time
to grow out of the school-boy attitude of expecting "leaders" or
"teachers" to supply all answers.

If you are really interested and motivated you can obtain a sufficient
understanding of any subject you choose. The metaphysics of the great
Da'is can be understood by anyone with some philosophical
preparation. Further, basic (zahir) religious doctrine is supposed to
be simple to understand. Otherwise religion would be of little use in
our day to day life.

It may be true that all actions of Kothar may be doctrinally
justifiable. If pressed hard enough your local Amil may come up with
some book reference or hadith (of Rasul-allah, Imams or Du'ats) for
all he does, including actions which are atrocious by normal human
standards. However you should keep in mind that even those who want to
malign Islam do so using the exact same Qu'ran and hadith.

I agree with Porus that we must use our reason to decide
everything. We are humans first and all our actions must reflect
this. Respect for all must come first. Beating someone up or
separating him from his family just because he expresses an opinion
contrary to what the clergy wants to hear is not human behavior. Maybe
the Misaq is very old. Some people have concluded that it might
predate even the Fatimid Empire. Does this mean that the Misaq can be
justifiably used as an instrument of terror?

I personally respect Anajmi and Muslim First more than most Bohras. At
least they have taken the time and effort to understand their religion
better themselves. Most Bohras, even though they repeat it after every
Namaz, will be hard pressed to name, for example, the "mustakar"
(hidden) Imams or even basic tenets of the faith even though they
appear desperate to attend all of Sayedna's vaeez.

You or someone else mentioned that the Ismailis are not a social
club. Can you elaborate on this? In my experience, in both India and
the West Bohras come to markaz/masjid so that they can meet their
friends and catch up with them on latest happenings. Maybe in theory
religion is a very serious business, but in practice it provides a
sense of community and friendship more than anything else.

If old interpretations of doctrine are not useful anymore it is time
to look for new ones more suited to the times. Dr. Engineer has an
excellent article on modern interpretations of the Qur'an on this very
website. ("Modern Muslim intellectuals and the Qur'an"). Today there
is an urgent need for people to respect the life and property of all,
irrespective of religious belief. If we continue to
beat up/excommunicate our own co-religionists how can we hope to live
in peace with others who do not share our beliefs?

[spot]

Kalim,
i appreciate what you are saying, but anajmi himself has stated he is not a scholar.

we must understand what it takes to be considered a scholar and the variation therein. just because you read some books doesn't mean you are a scholar or even are correct in understanding.

i have a book written on Dai Kirmani by paul walker. he goes on to the understanding of dai kirmani thoughts and background. great. so i have an understanding of dai kirmani based on the understanding of paul walker (and those he referenced). what if paul walker is an idiot? what if he is close, but off in some parts? your knowledge of things is only as good as your teacher, be it a person or a writer of a book.

this is what the dilemnas are. your learning and how you use your aql is based on the information you learn and process. some of the bright minds in the world believe in hitler's, stalin's, etc cause. where was their aql? how come they couldn't figure it out? it's because they were taught this is correct interpretation of life and its uses. think about it, pharoah was considered a god by the same men who created the pyramids.

the prophet and imams were put on this earth as guides to understand the quran. they are the teachers and we are the student. the aql is needed to comprehend their teaching.

If old interpretations of doctrine are not useful anymore it is time to look for new ones more suited to the times.

this is true, but what is asked by some is the elimination of the doctrine completely, not just the interpretation.

as i said, reformist are bohras and hold to the religious traditions of dawat. we believe the interpretation of dai or kothar are skewed and i was looking for the background references (quoted)to show other bohras.