AS for omadonkey the bohra food loving hypocrate stop your crying to admin when beaten by logic,its your boss the snake who spews garbage all over his posts by inconsistency,
in one post our moula is syedna saheb to him and in another post he calls the three hazrats and abuses the syedna
Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
-
Al Zulfiqar
- Posts: 4618
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:01 am
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
frog,
before u start cursing and using rude and abusive language asking anyone whether they are shia or not, first ask yrself and yr syedna to follow atleast 5% of the example of Ali, whose shias you and yr syedna claim to be.
if you read about the life of ali, how he lived a life of simplicity, austerity, honesty and hard work, how he denied himself the pleasures of this world, how he scrupulously maintained accounts and kept them open for any one to walk in and check or ask questions, how he did not allow sajdas to him. how he never allowed his sons and daughters to be treated like princes and princesses, how although being the vasi and chosen of the prophet, he never considered himself infallible and above criticism or questioning, how he earned his own income from farming, how he never let the hungry, or poor or suffering go from his door without solving their problems, how he spread love, unity and understanding among all men..
and then look at the life of the last 2 syednas who are doing everything opposite,
now tell us, who is the real hypocrite? someone who claims to be a shia of ali only in name and does everything against his example or someone who is a reformist and pointing out the cowardice of the syedna who had to submit an apology so humiliatingly on national tv for having uttered derogatory words against the first 3 companions and thus causing loss of lives and properties of bohras?
ali who stood by his word and fought the enemies of islam or yr syedna who ran away under police escort in a police jeep, leaving his abdes to suffer the anger of the muslims?
the reformists who defended their honour and dignity or the syedna who sat and watched silently while the bohra women of udaipur were being raped, molested and beaten up by the syedna's goondas?
the very mention of the great ali from yr unholy lips is a blasphemy and travesty in itself when u follow a cowardly and deceiving syedna who is exploiting us in the name of ali and hussein. its like the rascal politicians talking of mahatma gandhi...!
keep yr false anger and show of faith for those whom u can fool, no use trying it here.
before u start cursing and using rude and abusive language asking anyone whether they are shia or not, first ask yrself and yr syedna to follow atleast 5% of the example of Ali, whose shias you and yr syedna claim to be.
if you read about the life of ali, how he lived a life of simplicity, austerity, honesty and hard work, how he denied himself the pleasures of this world, how he scrupulously maintained accounts and kept them open for any one to walk in and check or ask questions, how he did not allow sajdas to him. how he never allowed his sons and daughters to be treated like princes and princesses, how although being the vasi and chosen of the prophet, he never considered himself infallible and above criticism or questioning, how he earned his own income from farming, how he never let the hungry, or poor or suffering go from his door without solving their problems, how he spread love, unity and understanding among all men..
and then look at the life of the last 2 syednas who are doing everything opposite,
now tell us, who is the real hypocrite? someone who claims to be a shia of ali only in name and does everything against his example or someone who is a reformist and pointing out the cowardice of the syedna who had to submit an apology so humiliatingly on national tv for having uttered derogatory words against the first 3 companions and thus causing loss of lives and properties of bohras?
ali who stood by his word and fought the enemies of islam or yr syedna who ran away under police escort in a police jeep, leaving his abdes to suffer the anger of the muslims?
the reformists who defended their honour and dignity or the syedna who sat and watched silently while the bohra women of udaipur were being raped, molested and beaten up by the syedna's goondas?
the very mention of the great ali from yr unholy lips is a blasphemy and travesty in itself when u follow a cowardly and deceiving syedna who is exploiting us in the name of ali and hussein. its like the rascal politicians talking of mahatma gandhi...!
keep yr false anger and show of faith for those whom u can fool, no use trying it here.
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
Profrog:
And by the way how do you know that the nass has not been done its non of your bussiness since you are a part of group which disowned the nass of gadhire khum on moulana ali by rasullah
Profrog:
Now finally we have it from the horses oh sorry snakes mouth that he believes moula ali sa was the fourth khalifa after the three,what happened about ghadire khum,what about saqifa,what about zulms on ahle bayt by this three.let alone a dawoodi bohra you are not fit to be even a reformist bohra,do the reformists support you?
Mubarak:
Dear Brother Profrog,
Though being a Mumin, what name u chose 4 ur self? = Pro + Frog!!! It is the Haram species.
On matter of ‘Nass’ a brief is there in thread “Dawoodi Bohras”, may be that interests you. In the same tread, you will also learn twenty different points – how actions of Sayyedina Burhannuddin mismatches with Allah’s orders in Quran.
Bhai Saifuddin Insaf sahib posts are his personal opinion and not the faith of Dawoodi Bohra Youth. Reformist Bohras have firm faith that Molana Ali (a.s.) is the sole and only nominated successor of Prophet Mohammed (s.a.). For your information, in all the mosque of Udaipur that are managed by Bohra Youth/Reformist Bohras i.e. Vazihpura Mosque, Rasoolpura Mosque, Chamanpura, Choti-Boharwadi/Khanpura, Khanji Pheer area mosque, Kharol Colonly mosque, etc – on 10th Moharram every year all reformist categorically and vociferously send ‘Lanat” on: Awwal, Sani , Salis, Maviya, Yazeed, and their coterie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saifuddin Insaf:
Secondly because today except celebrating the birthday of Imam Tayyeb and collecting salaam for Imamuz-Zaman there is no mention of him anywhere.
Mubarak:
In every place where namaz is lead by Dawoodi Bohra Youth pesh Imam, unambiguously, categorically and vociferously - minimum five times everyday the name of Molana va Sayyedina va Aaka Imam Tayyib (a.s.) is taken besides taking name of all the names of known twenty one Imams.
Bhai Insaf sahib, in the fact of the above statement kindly take your words back, will you?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saifuddin Insaf:
We do not want further divisions in the Dawoodi Bohra community. We are very much a part of Dawoodi Bohra community though pushed aside by illegal, inhuman and un-Islamic "Baraat".
Mubarak:
“Baraat” is so important that it comes before ‘Bismillah”!!! And that is why Sura Baraat is not beginning with Bismillah as Baraat is coming first and cannot be placed after Bismillah!
Aaoozo billah … minash Shaitan nir razeem, Bismillah Hir Rahman ni Raheem…
First Baraat with Satan and then Bismillah…
Baraat with Awwal, Sani and Salis…
Please note: The ‘Barat’ as per Fatimi Dawat is issue based and not social based i.e. we are boycotting the Sunni Leader Yazeed and acknowledges the Imam Hussain (a.s.) school of thought. Likewise we boycott (Baraat) Suleman (of Sulemani Bohras) and acknowledges Molana Dawood Bin Ajab Shah (r.a.) school of thought and that doesn not mean to severe all social ties with the followers of Sulemani Bohras.
Shri Burhannuddin has abused the tool of Baraat. To pressurize people who were seeking accounts of community money which he is hungry for, he asked our community ‘bhola-bhala’ mumineen to cut social ties with that person. Humans are social animals and cannot flock without society. Social boycotting is not the Islamic ‘Baraat’ indeed it is against the spirit and rules of Fatimi Dawat. So to cover Shri Burhanuddin personal weapon of Social Boycott (that is against the Fatimi Dawat) he labeled it as ‘Baraat’. It is sad that Shri Burhannuddin has played mischief to label his personal weapon of ‘Social Boycotting’ as ‘Baraat’.
In book ‘Mosam-a-Bahar’, Molana Abd-a-Ali Saifuddin categorically said that only Matam (meaning to cry and grieve) is allowed and not the chest beating (‘Ladam’) or head beating (‘Sadam’). But Shri Burhanuddin went against the expressed orders of Molana va Aaka Abd-a-Ali Saifuddin and orders ‘Bhola-bhala’ mumineen to do chest beating. As Chest beating is personal tool of Shri Burhanuddin so to hide that he has labeled it as ‘Matam’.
Conclusion: ‘Baraat’ is integral part of true Islam and is issue based and is not social boycotting. Social Boycotting is a personal weapon of Shri Burhanuddin which he labeled as ‘Baraat’ like chest beating is against the order of Molana Abd-a-Ali Saifuddin (r.a.) but Shri Burhanuddin labeled his personal tool of chest beating as ‘Matam’.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profrog:
Do not compare today with time of moula ali sa only instead why dont you compare it also with times of fatimid imams who lived also in palaces and lived oppulent lives,and for that matter he is our emperor and our leader and if we give him our money, why are you burning,...
Mubarak:
The issue is that when we give our money to Burhanuddin sahib, it becomes community money and not the business income for him and his family to Cruise on Elizabeth II and enjoys materialistic pleasures or likewise!
Like Dai-al-Mutlaq Sayyedina Ismail Badruddin (r.a.) or like Molana Khanji Pheer (r.a.) – Shri Burhanuddin must also present the account books to public audit to verify that the Zakat money has been awarded as per Daim-ul-Islam and not siphoned by Shri Burhannuddin and his family members as their business income.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saifuddin Insaf:
There was no Shia Sunni division during Hazrat Mohammad and Hazrat Ali's time. If you have gone through the Islamic history you would know that the word "Shia" was coined first time by Amir Maowiyah when he wanted oppose Hazrat Ali under the pretext of taking revenge (Qisas) of Hazrat Usman and formed a body "Shiane-Usman".
Mubarak:
The word ‘Shia’ was coined by Prophet Mohammed (s.a.) himself and when a lover (muhib) of Mola Ali (a.s.) met them then Prophet Mohammed (s.a.) will use words “Shia” of Ali
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ghulam Mohammed:
This useless blah blah about shias and sunnis...... tell me who was our Prophet s.a.w. and Moula Ali a.s. ? Which religion did they follow ? Did they at any point of time identify themselves as shias or sunnis ? Were they bohras or shias ? Did Rasul Allah s.a.w. give Fatimid daawat to the world or did He give daawat of Islam ? Why did Imam Hussain a.s. gave his life for ? Was the battle of karbala for shias/bohras or for Islam ? Is the deen of Allah swt shiasm or Islam ?
Ghulam Mohammed:
The stand of Shias was based on the conduct and sayings of Hazrat Ali himself. According to Nahjul Balaghah (the most authentic and revered book after Qur’an, in the eyes of Shias), when the leader of Bani Umaiyya, Abu Sufian made an offer of his support to Hazrat Ali for the Caliphate, he answered, “You had always been the enemy of Islam and Muslims but this could not harm Islam and the Muslims. WE CONSIDER ABU BAKR, WORTHY OF CALIPHATE. You ONLY WANT TO CREATE SEDITION”. (P.30, Nahajul Balaghah Vol. 3, quoted in Ashshi’atu Wattashih by Dr. Musa Musavi)
On Hazrat Umar’s demise he expressed his praise in these words: “He straightened the disorders, treated the disease, left behind the sedition, established the Sunnah, passed away from the world with unblemished clothing and less evil, caught hold of virtues (of the world) and surpassed its evil. He abided by Allah and feared Him too...” (Nahajul Balaghah ; Sermon No. 225, published by Tublighate Imani Hind, Bombay)
About Caliphate, Bai’at and the opinion of majority of Ansaar and Muhajirin, his stand was: “Shura (membership of the advisory council) is the right of Ansaar and Muhajirin. If they agree over a person and name him Imam, therein lies the Will of Allah. If now a person withdraws from it (allegiance to Imam named by Ansaar and Muhajirin) for a blame or Bid’at, he will be brought back to its fold. If he refuses to join back then war shall be declared against him for going against the way of Muslims”. (Nahajul Balaghah, Vol.3, letter no. 6 written to Ameer Mu’awia Bin Abu Sufian.)
It is clear from the above sayings of Hazrat Ali that he did not consider Imamat, a direct divine appointment as present day Shias believe. On his personal relations with Hazrat Abu Bakar and Umar and Usman, it is sufficient to mention that he gave one of his daughters Umme Kulsoom in marriage to Hazrat Umar and named three of his sons, Abu Bakar, Umar and Usman.
Mubarak:
Bhai Ghulam Mohammed ‘Basi kadi me ubaal kyon?’, in the thread “Mola Ali (a.s.), you were unable to answer any of my facts and I made all you contentions null and void. Before advocating for your three netas re-read all the posts of Mola Ali (a.s.) thread.
Nahjul Balagha was compiled by Hazrat Sharif Al Radi over one thousand plus years back.
In the original text, your Sunni neta Abu Sufiyan who killed our leader Molana Hamza (r.a.), came to Mola Ali (a.s.) as he has not got any cut in the Saqifa deal pie where your three netas plotted coup to become king after Prophet Mohammed martyrdom and eat Mola Ali (a.s.) right, and said to Mola Ali (a.s.) that Prophet successor is your true right as willed by Prophet Mohammed (a.s.) and if Ali (a.s.) wish then he can help him in defeating Shri Abubaker out of throne. On it Mola Ali (a.s.) replied that since when you became the well wisher of Islam?
Ghulam Mohammed bhai, you have at least twice acknowledged happening of Ghadeer-a-Khum instance, which means your Sunni Neta King Abubaker, King Umar and King Usman have given oath of allegiance to Mola Ali (a.s.) as true and sole successor of Prophet Mohammed (s.a.) thus by quoting the Dr. Musa Musavi interpretation or likewise cannot change history. Like your three Sunni Netas are liar in the same way interpretation of your new Neta Dr. Musa Musavi is subjective and lie.
On personal relations your Neta Umar always said that if it was not Ali (a.s.) then this Umar have much earlier gone ‘halak’!
Reread thread Mola Ali (a.s.) on your contention of naming of Mola Ali (a.s.) sons and your false contention of Mola Ali (a.s.) marrying his daughter to your Netas.
Khench di baatil (awwal, sani and salis) ke che’hare se nakab Islam ki.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saifuddin Insaf:
Islamic history confirms that Hazrat Ali had given oath to all three Khalifas before him and Imam Hasan and Imam Husain had given oath to Amir Maoviyah. This is a historical fact not any one's addition. Because then the whole fight was about right and wrong in Islam.
Islam came as a democratic revolution but it is unfortunate that during Umayyed's rule both Sunni and Shia Islam turned into hereditary establishment, son succeeding father both as ruler and as Imam.
It was due to political compulsion and had nothing to do with Islam as a religion.
Both Imam Hasan and Imam Husain had given Bay’at to Amir Moaviyah that is though shocking but the historical fact testified by the unbiased researchers, like Taha Husain and AAA Faizee.
Mubarak:
Bhai Insaf sahib, kindly announce disclaimer that these are your personal opinions and has nothing to do with the faith of Dawoodi Bohra Youth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humble_Servant:
Br. Insaf , to justify your arguments against the wrongs of present dai and his activities please do not distort the history
Mubarak:
I am in unison with you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saifuddin Insaf:
I request my friends on the other side of the fence to once again read the text of apology written by non other than the Ad-Dai-ul-Fatimi, Sayedna Mohammed Burhanuddin Saheb to general Sunni Muslims:-
In the name of Allah the beneficial the merciful
Alhamdu-lillahe rabbil-aalemeen. Va sallallahe ala Muhammed Sayedul Mursaleen va Khatimin Nabieen. va aala Hazrata va Sahebul ajmaeen.
This is in keeping the prestige of Islam and the unity, brotherhood and traditions of Islamic nation in mind, for which our virtuous predecessors had made constant efforts. The few words that I uttered on 22, August 1988 have hurt the religious feeling and faith of Sunni Muslims; I express my apology for the same.
I have always tried that in spite of differences in belief and faith the mutual relations and love with each other should prevail. It is because we have faith that the Muslims are united on the basis of the kalma that “There is no god but there is Allah".
Last evening (due to my hurting utterances) the displeasing situation that has been created, has weaken the mutual relations in Islamic nation. It is in benefit of all of us that we forget this bitterness and as usual embrace each other with trust and love.
I pray to God, the honour-Giver that may He lead us on right path and enhance the image of religion of Islam.
Ad-Dai-ul-Fatimi
Mohammed Burhanuddin Saturday - 3 Sept. 1988
Please note the words “unity, brotherhood and traditions of Islamic nation in mind, for which our virtuous predecessors had made constant efforts” and “I have always tried that in spite of differences in belief and faith the mutual relations and love with each other should prevail” and “It is in benefit of all of us that we forget this bitterness and as usual embrace each other with trust and love.”
Trust and Love are the most important elements in any relationship and where trust and love prevails there is no place for hatred.
Sayedna Saheb has said that “we have faith that the Muslims are united on the basis of the kalma that “There is no god but there is Allah". That is Islam as Religion based on Quranic teachings. The “differences in belief and faith” is due to Historical situations.
Again as Goethe has pointed out that “Every thing that history offers us has not actually happened. What has happened is not presented the way it has happened. The historians can have no more information about the past events than what has been handed down. There is no means to penetrate to original source. If historical truth could be demonstrated like mathematical truth, all differences would disappear. As long as that can not be done the differences will remain. “Religion belongs to basically Spiritual and Moral spheres of life but the history is an outcome of interplay of several factors, human ambitions, personal interests, political aspirations and individual belief and convictions.
Today if a historian would try to pen down the history of our last two Dais just imagine the confusion he would face as a lot has been written for and against them.
I am sorry to say that from that unpleasant incident of showering curses the leaders of community have learnt a lesson but their followers have not.
Mubarak:
Aur’on ki buri baat to bhati nahi tumko,
Magar khud apni burai nazar aati nahi tumko.
How by citing the wrong of Shri Burhanuddin make your wrong as right?
You are a post holder in Bohra Youth and you are tied by the faith/regulations of Bohra Youth. Firstly, kindly announce disclaimer that all what you wrote is your personal opinion and has nothing to do with the faith/regulations of Bohra Youth.
The religious faith of Dawoodi Bohra Youth is to do Baraat with Awwal, Sani and Salis. And to consider Mola Ali (a.s.) as the sole and only right successor as per nominated by Prophet Mohammed (s.a.)
Bhai Insaf sahib, my personal suggestion: the strength of Shri Burhanuddin is religion. And you are fighting with him because he is acting against the regulations of Fatimi Dawat, now if you yourself will go against the Fatimi Dawat then on what moral are you fighting with him? Then create your own sect and impose whatever doctrine you wish in it. But should you want to be part of Dawoodi Bohras Ismailiya Shia and then want to fight with Shri Burhanuddin wrong doing then it is justified.
Because of yours and your likeminded people being our Bohra Youth leader the result is:
Karwan sagar bhar chala tha janib-a-manzil magar,
Insaf and likeminded ki leadership me reformist saath chhod’te (leaving) rahe, ab gagar bhar bach gaye!!!
Have first and only loyalty with Dawoodi Bohra Ismailiya Shia faith and that is how anyone can defeat Shri Burhanuddin or anyone who acts against the Fatimi Dawat (the only right sect and pristine Islam).
Wa aakhiro dawana anil hamdo lillah-a-Rabbil aalameen
Mubarak
And by the way how do you know that the nass has not been done its non of your bussiness since you are a part of group which disowned the nass of gadhire khum on moulana ali by rasullah
Profrog:
Now finally we have it from the horses oh sorry snakes mouth that he believes moula ali sa was the fourth khalifa after the three,what happened about ghadire khum,what about saqifa,what about zulms on ahle bayt by this three.let alone a dawoodi bohra you are not fit to be even a reformist bohra,do the reformists support you?
Mubarak:
Dear Brother Profrog,
Though being a Mumin, what name u chose 4 ur self? = Pro + Frog!!! It is the Haram species.
On matter of ‘Nass’ a brief is there in thread “Dawoodi Bohras”, may be that interests you. In the same tread, you will also learn twenty different points – how actions of Sayyedina Burhannuddin mismatches with Allah’s orders in Quran.
Bhai Saifuddin Insaf sahib posts are his personal opinion and not the faith of Dawoodi Bohra Youth. Reformist Bohras have firm faith that Molana Ali (a.s.) is the sole and only nominated successor of Prophet Mohammed (s.a.). For your information, in all the mosque of Udaipur that are managed by Bohra Youth/Reformist Bohras i.e. Vazihpura Mosque, Rasoolpura Mosque, Chamanpura, Choti-Boharwadi/Khanpura, Khanji Pheer area mosque, Kharol Colonly mosque, etc – on 10th Moharram every year all reformist categorically and vociferously send ‘Lanat” on: Awwal, Sani , Salis, Maviya, Yazeed, and their coterie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saifuddin Insaf:
Secondly because today except celebrating the birthday of Imam Tayyeb and collecting salaam for Imamuz-Zaman there is no mention of him anywhere.
Mubarak:
In every place where namaz is lead by Dawoodi Bohra Youth pesh Imam, unambiguously, categorically and vociferously - minimum five times everyday the name of Molana va Sayyedina va Aaka Imam Tayyib (a.s.) is taken besides taking name of all the names of known twenty one Imams.
Bhai Insaf sahib, in the fact of the above statement kindly take your words back, will you?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saifuddin Insaf:
We do not want further divisions in the Dawoodi Bohra community. We are very much a part of Dawoodi Bohra community though pushed aside by illegal, inhuman and un-Islamic "Baraat".
Mubarak:
“Baraat” is so important that it comes before ‘Bismillah”!!! And that is why Sura Baraat is not beginning with Bismillah as Baraat is coming first and cannot be placed after Bismillah!
Aaoozo billah … minash Shaitan nir razeem, Bismillah Hir Rahman ni Raheem…
First Baraat with Satan and then Bismillah…
Baraat with Awwal, Sani and Salis…
Please note: The ‘Barat’ as per Fatimi Dawat is issue based and not social based i.e. we are boycotting the Sunni Leader Yazeed and acknowledges the Imam Hussain (a.s.) school of thought. Likewise we boycott (Baraat) Suleman (of Sulemani Bohras) and acknowledges Molana Dawood Bin Ajab Shah (r.a.) school of thought and that doesn not mean to severe all social ties with the followers of Sulemani Bohras.
Shri Burhannuddin has abused the tool of Baraat. To pressurize people who were seeking accounts of community money which he is hungry for, he asked our community ‘bhola-bhala’ mumineen to cut social ties with that person. Humans are social animals and cannot flock without society. Social boycotting is not the Islamic ‘Baraat’ indeed it is against the spirit and rules of Fatimi Dawat. So to cover Shri Burhanuddin personal weapon of Social Boycott (that is against the Fatimi Dawat) he labeled it as ‘Baraat’. It is sad that Shri Burhannuddin has played mischief to label his personal weapon of ‘Social Boycotting’ as ‘Baraat’.
In book ‘Mosam-a-Bahar’, Molana Abd-a-Ali Saifuddin categorically said that only Matam (meaning to cry and grieve) is allowed and not the chest beating (‘Ladam’) or head beating (‘Sadam’). But Shri Burhanuddin went against the expressed orders of Molana va Aaka Abd-a-Ali Saifuddin and orders ‘Bhola-bhala’ mumineen to do chest beating. As Chest beating is personal tool of Shri Burhanuddin so to hide that he has labeled it as ‘Matam’.
Conclusion: ‘Baraat’ is integral part of true Islam and is issue based and is not social boycotting. Social Boycotting is a personal weapon of Shri Burhanuddin which he labeled as ‘Baraat’ like chest beating is against the order of Molana Abd-a-Ali Saifuddin (r.a.) but Shri Burhanuddin labeled his personal tool of chest beating as ‘Matam’.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profrog:
Do not compare today with time of moula ali sa only instead why dont you compare it also with times of fatimid imams who lived also in palaces and lived oppulent lives,and for that matter he is our emperor and our leader and if we give him our money, why are you burning,...
Mubarak:
The issue is that when we give our money to Burhanuddin sahib, it becomes community money and not the business income for him and his family to Cruise on Elizabeth II and enjoys materialistic pleasures or likewise!
Like Dai-al-Mutlaq Sayyedina Ismail Badruddin (r.a.) or like Molana Khanji Pheer (r.a.) – Shri Burhanuddin must also present the account books to public audit to verify that the Zakat money has been awarded as per Daim-ul-Islam and not siphoned by Shri Burhannuddin and his family members as their business income.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saifuddin Insaf:
There was no Shia Sunni division during Hazrat Mohammad and Hazrat Ali's time. If you have gone through the Islamic history you would know that the word "Shia" was coined first time by Amir Maowiyah when he wanted oppose Hazrat Ali under the pretext of taking revenge (Qisas) of Hazrat Usman and formed a body "Shiane-Usman".
Mubarak:
The word ‘Shia’ was coined by Prophet Mohammed (s.a.) himself and when a lover (muhib) of Mola Ali (a.s.) met them then Prophet Mohammed (s.a.) will use words “Shia” of Ali
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ghulam Mohammed:
This useless blah blah about shias and sunnis...... tell me who was our Prophet s.a.w. and Moula Ali a.s. ? Which religion did they follow ? Did they at any point of time identify themselves as shias or sunnis ? Were they bohras or shias ? Did Rasul Allah s.a.w. give Fatimid daawat to the world or did He give daawat of Islam ? Why did Imam Hussain a.s. gave his life for ? Was the battle of karbala for shias/bohras or for Islam ? Is the deen of Allah swt shiasm or Islam ?
Ghulam Mohammed:
The stand of Shias was based on the conduct and sayings of Hazrat Ali himself. According to Nahjul Balaghah (the most authentic and revered book after Qur’an, in the eyes of Shias), when the leader of Bani Umaiyya, Abu Sufian made an offer of his support to Hazrat Ali for the Caliphate, he answered, “You had always been the enemy of Islam and Muslims but this could not harm Islam and the Muslims. WE CONSIDER ABU BAKR, WORTHY OF CALIPHATE. You ONLY WANT TO CREATE SEDITION”. (P.30, Nahajul Balaghah Vol. 3, quoted in Ashshi’atu Wattashih by Dr. Musa Musavi)
On Hazrat Umar’s demise he expressed his praise in these words: “He straightened the disorders, treated the disease, left behind the sedition, established the Sunnah, passed away from the world with unblemished clothing and less evil, caught hold of virtues (of the world) and surpassed its evil. He abided by Allah and feared Him too...” (Nahajul Balaghah ; Sermon No. 225, published by Tublighate Imani Hind, Bombay)
About Caliphate, Bai’at and the opinion of majority of Ansaar and Muhajirin, his stand was: “Shura (membership of the advisory council) is the right of Ansaar and Muhajirin. If they agree over a person and name him Imam, therein lies the Will of Allah. If now a person withdraws from it (allegiance to Imam named by Ansaar and Muhajirin) for a blame or Bid’at, he will be brought back to its fold. If he refuses to join back then war shall be declared against him for going against the way of Muslims”. (Nahajul Balaghah, Vol.3, letter no. 6 written to Ameer Mu’awia Bin Abu Sufian.)
It is clear from the above sayings of Hazrat Ali that he did not consider Imamat, a direct divine appointment as present day Shias believe. On his personal relations with Hazrat Abu Bakar and Umar and Usman, it is sufficient to mention that he gave one of his daughters Umme Kulsoom in marriage to Hazrat Umar and named three of his sons, Abu Bakar, Umar and Usman.
Mubarak:
Bhai Ghulam Mohammed ‘Basi kadi me ubaal kyon?’, in the thread “Mola Ali (a.s.), you were unable to answer any of my facts and I made all you contentions null and void. Before advocating for your three netas re-read all the posts of Mola Ali (a.s.) thread.
Nahjul Balagha was compiled by Hazrat Sharif Al Radi over one thousand plus years back.
In the original text, your Sunni neta Abu Sufiyan who killed our leader Molana Hamza (r.a.), came to Mola Ali (a.s.) as he has not got any cut in the Saqifa deal pie where your three netas plotted coup to become king after Prophet Mohammed martyrdom and eat Mola Ali (a.s.) right, and said to Mola Ali (a.s.) that Prophet successor is your true right as willed by Prophet Mohammed (a.s.) and if Ali (a.s.) wish then he can help him in defeating Shri Abubaker out of throne. On it Mola Ali (a.s.) replied that since when you became the well wisher of Islam?
Ghulam Mohammed bhai, you have at least twice acknowledged happening of Ghadeer-a-Khum instance, which means your Sunni Neta King Abubaker, King Umar and King Usman have given oath of allegiance to Mola Ali (a.s.) as true and sole successor of Prophet Mohammed (s.a.) thus by quoting the Dr. Musa Musavi interpretation or likewise cannot change history. Like your three Sunni Netas are liar in the same way interpretation of your new Neta Dr. Musa Musavi is subjective and lie.
On personal relations your Neta Umar always said that if it was not Ali (a.s.) then this Umar have much earlier gone ‘halak’!
Reread thread Mola Ali (a.s.) on your contention of naming of Mola Ali (a.s.) sons and your false contention of Mola Ali (a.s.) marrying his daughter to your Netas.
Khench di baatil (awwal, sani and salis) ke che’hare se nakab Islam ki.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saifuddin Insaf:
Islamic history confirms that Hazrat Ali had given oath to all three Khalifas before him and Imam Hasan and Imam Husain had given oath to Amir Maoviyah. This is a historical fact not any one's addition. Because then the whole fight was about right and wrong in Islam.
Islam came as a democratic revolution but it is unfortunate that during Umayyed's rule both Sunni and Shia Islam turned into hereditary establishment, son succeeding father both as ruler and as Imam.
It was due to political compulsion and had nothing to do with Islam as a religion.
Both Imam Hasan and Imam Husain had given Bay’at to Amir Moaviyah that is though shocking but the historical fact testified by the unbiased researchers, like Taha Husain and AAA Faizee.
Mubarak:
Bhai Insaf sahib, kindly announce disclaimer that these are your personal opinions and has nothing to do with the faith of Dawoodi Bohra Youth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humble_Servant:
Br. Insaf , to justify your arguments against the wrongs of present dai and his activities please do not distort the history
Mubarak:
I am in unison with you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saifuddin Insaf:
I request my friends on the other side of the fence to once again read the text of apology written by non other than the Ad-Dai-ul-Fatimi, Sayedna Mohammed Burhanuddin Saheb to general Sunni Muslims:-
In the name of Allah the beneficial the merciful
Alhamdu-lillahe rabbil-aalemeen. Va sallallahe ala Muhammed Sayedul Mursaleen va Khatimin Nabieen. va aala Hazrata va Sahebul ajmaeen.
This is in keeping the prestige of Islam and the unity, brotherhood and traditions of Islamic nation in mind, for which our virtuous predecessors had made constant efforts. The few words that I uttered on 22, August 1988 have hurt the religious feeling and faith of Sunni Muslims; I express my apology for the same.
I have always tried that in spite of differences in belief and faith the mutual relations and love with each other should prevail. It is because we have faith that the Muslims are united on the basis of the kalma that “There is no god but there is Allah".
Last evening (due to my hurting utterances) the displeasing situation that has been created, has weaken the mutual relations in Islamic nation. It is in benefit of all of us that we forget this bitterness and as usual embrace each other with trust and love.
I pray to God, the honour-Giver that may He lead us on right path and enhance the image of religion of Islam.
Ad-Dai-ul-Fatimi
Mohammed Burhanuddin Saturday - 3 Sept. 1988
Please note the words “unity, brotherhood and traditions of Islamic nation in mind, for which our virtuous predecessors had made constant efforts” and “I have always tried that in spite of differences in belief and faith the mutual relations and love with each other should prevail” and “It is in benefit of all of us that we forget this bitterness and as usual embrace each other with trust and love.”
Trust and Love are the most important elements in any relationship and where trust and love prevails there is no place for hatred.
Sayedna Saheb has said that “we have faith that the Muslims are united on the basis of the kalma that “There is no god but there is Allah". That is Islam as Religion based on Quranic teachings. The “differences in belief and faith” is due to Historical situations.
Again as Goethe has pointed out that “Every thing that history offers us has not actually happened. What has happened is not presented the way it has happened. The historians can have no more information about the past events than what has been handed down. There is no means to penetrate to original source. If historical truth could be demonstrated like mathematical truth, all differences would disappear. As long as that can not be done the differences will remain. “Religion belongs to basically Spiritual and Moral spheres of life but the history is an outcome of interplay of several factors, human ambitions, personal interests, political aspirations and individual belief and convictions.
Today if a historian would try to pen down the history of our last two Dais just imagine the confusion he would face as a lot has been written for and against them.
I am sorry to say that from that unpleasant incident of showering curses the leaders of community have learnt a lesson but their followers have not.
Mubarak:
Aur’on ki buri baat to bhati nahi tumko,
Magar khud apni burai nazar aati nahi tumko.
How by citing the wrong of Shri Burhanuddin make your wrong as right?
You are a post holder in Bohra Youth and you are tied by the faith/regulations of Bohra Youth. Firstly, kindly announce disclaimer that all what you wrote is your personal opinion and has nothing to do with the faith/regulations of Bohra Youth.
The religious faith of Dawoodi Bohra Youth is to do Baraat with Awwal, Sani and Salis. And to consider Mola Ali (a.s.) as the sole and only right successor as per nominated by Prophet Mohammed (s.a.)
Bhai Insaf sahib, my personal suggestion: the strength of Shri Burhanuddin is religion. And you are fighting with him because he is acting against the regulations of Fatimi Dawat, now if you yourself will go against the Fatimi Dawat then on what moral are you fighting with him? Then create your own sect and impose whatever doctrine you wish in it. But should you want to be part of Dawoodi Bohras Ismailiya Shia and then want to fight with Shri Burhanuddin wrong doing then it is justified.
Because of yours and your likeminded people being our Bohra Youth leader the result is:
Karwan sagar bhar chala tha janib-a-manzil magar,
Insaf and likeminded ki leadership me reformist saath chhod’te (leaving) rahe, ab gagar bhar bach gaye!!!
Have first and only loyalty with Dawoodi Bohra Ismailiya Shia faith and that is how anyone can defeat Shri Burhanuddin or anyone who acts against the Fatimi Dawat (the only right sect and pristine Islam).
Wa aakhiro dawana anil hamdo lillah-a-Rabbil aalameen
Mubarak
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
It proves whaty i have been saying all along that insaap and engineer are shaitans leading people astray they will say anything when it suits them even to extent of betraying moula ali sa,one of their own has disowned insaaps views,
where do they stand now?
where do they stand now?
-
Al Zulfiqar
- Posts: 4618
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:01 am
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
frog, yr syedna and his father have betrayed ali by living a life of luxury like emperors on our money, their sons and daughters are called shezaadas and zaadis, he hunts and kills animals for sport, he refuses to give accounts and calls himself the veritable kaaba and bolta quran.. none of which ali ever did, he exploits ali's name and gives titles of sheikhs to goondas and criminals who have earned their money by haraam, what do u have to say about that??????profrog wrote:they will say anything when it suits them even to extent of betraying moula ali sa,?
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
@Al Zulfiqar,
What you say above makes sense to rational human beings.
How can you expects frogs and other denizens of the fauna to understand that?
What you say above makes sense to rational human beings.
How can you expects frogs and other denizens of the fauna to understand that?
-
East Africawalla
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:01 am
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
Interesting concept- Zulfikar and Smart beng rational
-
Al Zulfiqar
- Posts: 4618
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:01 am
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
an even more interesting concept, a brainwashed abde able to write some few, even if nonsensical, words in broken english.. an oxymoron in itself!!!East Africawalla wrote:Interesting concept- Zulfikar and Smart beng rational
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
if mr gm and mr insaf believe that the first 3 ussurpers had the consent of amir ul mumeneen[sa] then it wud imply ghadir e khum never happened?
when sani expired and the search was on for the 3rd the shura approached both amirul mumeneen and salis and asked both to pledge that they wud follow the practices of rasul e khuda as well as his 2 so called successoors-amir ul mumeneen [sa]replied that he wud follow only rasul e khuda[refer the book heroes of islam vol-2] salis had no problems with accepting anything that shura wanted
this proves that caliphate was rightly the sole haq of amir ul mumeneen[sa] and that moula ali[sa] never recogonised the first 3 as the rightful successors
believing that imamat is no sole right of the house of ali[sa] is jettisoning the whole concept of mustaqar imams
when sani expired and the search was on for the 3rd the shura approached both amirul mumeneen and salis and asked both to pledge that they wud follow the practices of rasul e khuda as well as his 2 so called successoors-amir ul mumeneen [sa]replied that he wud follow only rasul e khuda[refer the book heroes of islam vol-2] salis had no problems with accepting anything that shura wanted
this proves that caliphate was rightly the sole haq of amir ul mumeneen[sa] and that moula ali[sa] never recogonised the first 3 as the rightful successors
believing that imamat is no sole right of the house of ali[sa] is jettisoning the whole concept of mustaqar imams
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
You may noticed that insaap has not refuted claims of calling the hazrats or saying that the name of imam tayyeb does not exist in todays world,this means first that he is not a shia and second not a bohra ,what does that make him maybe a wahabbi,what should reformists do with this hypocrate?
-
Al Zulfiqar
- Posts: 4618
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:01 am
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
frog, taher saifuddin himself has sworn in front a judge during the burhanpur dargah case that the concept of a hidden imam is an imaginary one and not a reality. why dont u go and protest in front of rozat tahera and saifee mahal? go give some hearty sabak trained gaalis over there.profrog wrote:You may noticed that insaap has not refuted claims of calling the hazrats or saying that the name of imam tayyeb does not exist in todays world,this means first that he is not a shia and second not a bohra ,what does that make him maybe a wahabbi,what should reformists do with this hypocrate?
why do u worry about what the reformists will do? \
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
Bro Mutmaeen,mutmaeen wrote:if mr gm and mr insaf believe that the first 3 ussurpers had the consent of amir ul mumeneen[sa] then it wud imply ghadir e khum never happened?
It is evident that you and some others on this forum rely heavily on the literatures which are centuries old and are very likely to be distorted by vested interests. In doing so you question the wisdom of not only Moula Ali a.s. but even Rasul Allah s.a.w. I reproduce one of the article which I downloaded from the net just for your reference:-
You would believe that Ali accepted to himself what the low Bedouins of the Arabs would not accept for themselves and he is from the Prophet's family? And I repeat the question to you, if Umar's shortcomings are like what you describe then how would Ali accept him as a husband to his daughter? So do the Shia put Ali in a class that's lower than the Bedouins (since Bedouins won't accept this shame for themselves)? And would Al-Hussain accept this? Or would Al-Hasan accept this?
And if you accept that, then they are less class than the Bedouin of Arabs! and that is not acceptable to us. The issue is that you make up accusations against Umar bin Al-Khattab and then you want us to accept an excuse which is worse than the sin itself. And your excuse is Taqiyya. So was it for Taqiyya that Ali married his daughter off to Umar? You curse Umar, make up bad things about him, and allege that he was an apostate, then after all that you want to claim that Ali was a coward too? This is not acceptable to us for Umar nor for Ali. And if Umar in your opinion is an Infidel and you claim that Ali knew that, then why did he marry him off to his daughter?!
The whole thing is illogical completely. If the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet) were really apostates, as you claim, then did Ali use Taqiyyah instead of fighting them? If using Taqiyyah is the right thing to do, then why did Ali fight the infidels during the time of the Prophet instead of using Taqiyyah to end the matter? If the Kuffar's land was a land of war (Dar Harb), then the Muslim land -under Abu Bakr and Umar- is for sure a land of war as well. In the land of the Kuffar, the infidels used to be fought and calls for war were called. And in the Muslim land under Abu Bakr and Umar, as you claim it to be a land of war, you consider the Rightly Guided Khalifas infidels just like you consider Yazeed and even worse. Don't you consider them Murtadeen (apostates)? Then what is Ali's duty? To get along with this one and be submissive to others? Would the Imam Ali submit to an infidel (as you claim) who took the mother of Mohammad bin Al-Hanafiyah (the son of Imam Ali bin Abi Talib) as a woman prisoner during the time of Abu Bakr (who in your opinion is an unfair oppressor)? According to Shia Fiqh, everything that an oppressor does and all his rulings are invalid. So why did Imam Ali take that woman and have a child from her? This is an insult to the Imam form your side.
If you compare Ali with Ammar, then you should remember that Ali's class is much higher than Ammar's since Ali's position to the Prophet was like the status of Haroon to Musa, isn't that what you say? Then how do you compare this to that? And despite all that, it was an exception for Ammar to be used only in times of necessity. But for you, it is a religion and a creed. It is a profession rather than a hobby. Doesn't one of your sayings say "Taqiyya is my religion and the religion of my fathers and grandfathers"? Then it is a religion and not an exception. It is a creed and a root and not a special case. So would Ali submit to the infidels? and would he marry his daughter off to an infidel? and would Ali accept to himself what the lowest of Arabs would never accept? And is there an insult worse than submitting to the infidels? And is there is any more humiliation than marrying his daughter off to a pervert who allegedly hit and caused his wife, Fatimah, to miscarriage? Wouldn't you declare war against him? And you also claim that Umar used to drink Alcohol? And you curse him and accuse him of more insults than that but you still expect Ali to submit to him?
Then why did Imam Ali go to war against the Kuffar if he was going to submit to the alleged apostates? Then who is supposed to fight against the oppressors and the apostates? And you say that Ammar was given an excuse by the messenger? There were no Ayahs from the Quran about Ammar's leadership as you claim for Ali. And he will not be considered an Imam by you at any case. And he does not carry a responsibly like the responsibility of Ali as you say. This is because Ammar was led but did not lead. And Ali lead, but you claim that he cannot be lead. He was a leader, not a follower. However, he submitted once to Abu Bakr, once to Umar, and once to Uthman and they were all apostates as you claim! Your Taqiyya is a rubber that extends here and shrinks there! You give it to Ammar when he was under torture while it was an exception for one time only. And for Imam Ali, the free man and the brave war hero, you used it to justify his submission to Abu Bakr and then his submission to Umar. Then you used it again to explain his submission to Uthman. Then once again, it was used as a justification for him marrying his daughter Umm Kulthoom to Umar. And again it was used to justify Ali taking Umm Mohammad bin Al-Hanafyeh even though she was a war prisoner and the ruler was an oppressor. This is not allowed in Shia Jurisprudence at all. So it is actually an admittance of the leadership of Abu Bakr. Then what was Ali's duty in the first place if he did not fight oppression and injustice? This is basically the truth of your words.
Shia References: 1- Ya'qooby's History, Volume 2, page 149-150
2- Al-Forroh min Al-Kafy, the book of Al-Nikah, Chapter of The Marriage of Umm Kulthoom. Volume 5, Page 346.
3- Tahzeeb Al-Ahkam, the book of inheritance, the chapter of inheritance from the drowned and the ones who die under collapsed buildings. Volume 9, Page 115-116.
4- Al-Shafi by Mr. Murtada Alam Al-Huda, Page 116 and his book "Tanzeeh Al-Anbya" page 141, Tahran Issue.
5- Ibn Shaher Ashob in his book "Manaqeb Aal Ali bin Abi Talib" volume 3 page 162.
6- Ibn Aby Al-Hadeed in his commentary on "Nahj Albalagha" volume 3 page 124
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
So when did Shi'ism evolve as a political party?East Africawalla wrote:Its a simple yes or no, does Insafbhai think himself as a shia or sunni, thats a top level question, forget about asking him if he believes if he is a bohra?
"Actually, neither the Shi'ah historians nor the Shi'ah clergymen have a consensus on the evolution of Shi'ism".
"It is no wonder that Ibn Abil-Hadeed, an extremist Shi'i clergyman, admitingly writes in his Sharh Nahjul-Balaghah:
"The origin of lies in Ahadith of virtues, started with the Shi'ah who fabricated various Ahadith in the virtues of their Aimmah. It was the enmity they held against their adversaries that drove them to fabricate them" [Sharh Nahujul-Balaghah, vol.1, p.783 (Quoting from ash-Shi'a wat-Tashayyu', p.19)]"
Furthermore, Moula Ali a.s. instructed his men as follows:
"I dislike you starting to abuse them, but if you describe their deeds and recount their situations that would be a better mode of speaking and a more convincing way of arguing. Instead of abusing them you should say, "O' Allah! save our blood and their blood, produce reconciliation between us and them, and lead them out of their misguidance so that he who is ignorant of the truth may know it, and he who inclines towards rebellion and revolt may turn away from it."
Nahjul-Balaghah, Sermon 205
Are the Shi'ah in anyway, form or manner following the instructions of the one whom they hold dearest to them, Moula Ali a.s. ? Most certainly not. All we hear from them is slandering and cursing to the best men honored and chosen by Allah Ta'ala to be the Companions of His Holy Last Messenger, Sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa Sallam".
"During the conflict between Moula Ali a.s. and Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan, both groups were referred to as Shi'atu Ali and Shi'atu Muawiyah. Hence, its early usage in the conflict between the two great companions Ali a.s. & Muawiyah was to denote who "sided" with who in its political context".
-
Al Zulfiqar
- Posts: 4618
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:01 am
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
bhai ghulam,
u are wasting yr time trying to reason with frogs and pigs? and with cheap, low-class retards whose intention was never to learn and use their intellect or logic??
they have repeated these same questions a thousand times and been answered a 1000 times too.
utilise yr energies in something else, these are jaahils whose sole aim in life is to defend the criminals they sleep with.
u are wasting yr time trying to reason with frogs and pigs? and with cheap, low-class retards whose intention was never to learn and use their intellect or logic??
they have repeated these same questions a thousand times and been answered a 1000 times too.
utilise yr energies in something else, these are jaahils whose sole aim in life is to defend the criminals they sleep with.
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
vro gm-u contend that i draw from shia records which r biassed-but then u too draw from sunni annals which too r biassed-a vast majority of shias believe that the caliphate was the right of ali-can u please enlighten me whether ghadir e khum happened or not
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
Our thoughts and actions are determined by our Niyyat (intention or aim).
What is my intention or aim? Do I want to increase differences, create disputes and widen divisions? Or am I striving to find common grounds between different religions and between different faiths and sections in the same religion for the sack of harmony and peaceful co-existence?
I may think that I am a reformist because I am against the atrocities meted out by Sayedna’s establishment. But my birth and brought up in the orthodox background may still come in my way of free thinking.
I was not present when certain incidents took place in the past history. Even those who were present and had witnessed them with their own eyes have differed from each other due to their perceptions, self-interests, situations and the way of description. Then how should I form my opinion about right and wrong in the past history?
As for as the incidents in Islamic history goes I have one yard stick to judge them, that is Qur’an. What is correct as per the spirit of Qur’an is true for me. Qur’an talks of Islam. Qur'an does not talk about Shia Islam or Sunni Islam. Qur’an does not talk about Khilafat or Imamat. Qur’an wants to establish a “Just Society” and nowhere has it talked of norms of forming a state, religious or political. Islam never claimed a worldly government; this was left to the free consideration of the believers.
I have already stated in my article “Understanding Bohra Faith” that “I have come to the conclusion that we, Dawoodi Bohras are Muslims first and then Shia-Ismaili-Mustalian-Tayyebi. Islam is our fundamental faith. All our Shia-Ismaili-Mustalian-Tayyebi doctrines are based on Islamic teachings and Quranic injunctions and whatever is against Islam and Quran can not be the part of our faith.
And again explaining the dispute about Hazrat Ali being the “successor” of the holy prophet I had explained:
The Shias were mostly of non-Arab stock, slaves captured by Arabs during the wars. The half of the population of Kufa consisted of non-Arab slaves, who considered the Arabs inferior culturally and intellectually and resented them as their exploiting masters. Their resentment was further aggravated when Umayyad rulers adopted highly repressive policies giving rise to vested interests, power politics and a class system in Islamic society. The new converts, mostly non-Arab Persians, did not obtain the equal rights which they expected according to Islam. Their aristocratic patrons treated them with contempt and compelled them to submit to every kind of social degradation. This exploited non-Arab lot was looking for a leader who could liberate them from the clutches of their exploitative rulers.
1. Hazrat Ali was known for his simplicity, piety, justice and scrupulous conduct.
2. He and his family members were also seen as the victims of Umayyad’s repressive regime. (Untimely death of Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Fatema, Imam Hasan and then Imam Husain and killing of hundreds of their supporters).
3. He never discriminated between Arabs and non-Arabs in keeping with the true spirit of Islam. He paid non-Arabs their share from Baitul-mal which was denied to them. So Hazrat Ali’s personality found ready appeal among the exploited lot of Persian origin.
Again the Arabs and the Persians had different inborn traditions. Arabs loved liberty and the principle of election. Persians being the subjects of the age-old monarchy were accustomed to slavish submission to their rulers.
Therefore for the Persians the electing the Prophet’s successor was not acceptable. The only principle acceptable to them was of inheritance. Since the Prophet Mohammad had not left any son, for Shias his son-in-law Hazrat Ali should have succeeded him. For them all the caliphs except Ali i.e. Abu Bakar, Umar, Usman and also Umayyads were usurpers. The incident of Gadire-Khum became very important for them and was quoted again and again. As far as Hazrat Ali is concerned he on one hand participated in the day-to-day affairs of the caliphate with Hazat Abu Bakar, Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Usman without any reservation. On the other hand he dealt very strongly with the Arabs and the Arab army officers who tried to persecute and dishounor war-prisoners of non-Arab origin. This further created sympathy for Hazrat Ali and his family members among the persecuted lot.
Again I, like majority Muslims believe that Hazrat Ali was a true and most sincere Muslim so he avoided reducing Islam to a mere rhetoric and instead practiced its teachings and values as he was a great visionary. Hazrat Ali has always been recognized as a divine scholar by the Muslim majority including Sunni and Shia Muslims. It was because he acted most wisely in most difficult times rather than appealing his supporters using mere rhetoric. Rhetoric alienates majority population. One rises to highest status only when one commands respect not only of one's community or supporters but of the general masses (umma) as a whole.
As per the history of Islam as understood by me there was no division of Muslims during Prophet Mohammad's time or during Hazrat Ali's Khilafat. It was a product of later situations after the tragedy of Karbala. (Remember that when Imam Husain had reached Kufa even the soldiers in Zadid’s army offered prayers led by Imam Husain.)
Earlier the Dawoodi Bohras were the true followers of Islam. They were known as much more practicing Muslims than the other Muslim sects. They were Religious but there was no trace of Fanatism in Dawoodi Bohra community. Pronouncing "Tabarra" was never practiced by our earlier Dais, at least openly. But Sayedna Taher Saifuddin and then Sayedna Burhanuddin adopted a double standard policy of projecting themselves as great leaders of Muslim masses, (umma) openly associating with Sunni and Shia Muslims and on the other hand instigating Bohras against both Sunni and Shia Muslims calling them "Sookoo ane Geelu Goo". Taher Saifuddin wrote a book "Noour-Haqqul Mubeen" declaring all the Muslims who do not recognize him as Dai "Jahannami". They inculcated the worst kind of religious fanatism in Bohras which then became a part of Jamiyah's education which influenced even Jamiyah teachers.
Doctrines of Shia Islam have further complicated the history.
When I met Shaikh Ahmed Ali Raj Saheb for the first time at Mr. Ismail bhai Attarwala’s resident at Marline Road – Bombay he was describing to us the “unethical, napaak activities” going on in Saifee Mahal (which he later described in his book “Inkishaf”) I asked him a very disturbing question; “Shaikh Saheb you being a learned man well-versed in Tawil and Tafseer, was it not your duty to expose these things when you were still in services of Sayedna Saheb and come out more honourably?”
It was then that he explained to us about the Shia doctrine of “taqiyya” (secrecy). He said Moula Ali remained silent on his claim of Khilafat after Rasulullah Saheb and co-operated with Awwal, Saani and Saalis, Imam Jafaras Sadiq also adopted the policy of taqiyya as a wise move in the hostile political atmosphere during powerful Abbasid establishment. So though we (four Ustads of Jamiyah) new the truth but we followed the tradition of them and adopted “taqiyyah” and never said a word against these tagoots openly.
As I have said earlier Religion belongs to basically spiritual and moral sphere of life. But the history is an outcome of interplay of several factors, human ambitions, personal interests, political aspirations and individual beliefs and convictions. I am sure if things had not gone wrong after the holy Prophet and the Umayyad rulers had adopted a fair policy of equality and justice and had not done mass killing the division of Islam had not taken place.
Similarly during 48th, 49th and 50th Dais’ time the issue whether proper “Nass” was done on 47th Dai or not was never a matter of dispute and separation. But when 51st Dai adopted a repressive and exploitative policy the issue got momentum and Dawoodi Bohras were further divided in to different sub-sects.
My orthodox and the reformist friends from orthodox back ground may criticize me for my understanding of the past history for which I have honestly burnt many candles. But I request them to understand my Niyyat (aim) to find a common ground to unite Muslims of different shades and not to create enmity among ourselves as Muslims. After all the holy Qur’an, the words of Allah and Suleh-Adibiyah, the agreement signed between the holy prophet and other warring tribes of Medina, both are revolutionary documents to unite people of different religions and different faiths.
What is my intention or aim? Do I want to increase differences, create disputes and widen divisions? Or am I striving to find common grounds between different religions and between different faiths and sections in the same religion for the sack of harmony and peaceful co-existence?
I may think that I am a reformist because I am against the atrocities meted out by Sayedna’s establishment. But my birth and brought up in the orthodox background may still come in my way of free thinking.
I was not present when certain incidents took place in the past history. Even those who were present and had witnessed them with their own eyes have differed from each other due to their perceptions, self-interests, situations and the way of description. Then how should I form my opinion about right and wrong in the past history?
As for as the incidents in Islamic history goes I have one yard stick to judge them, that is Qur’an. What is correct as per the spirit of Qur’an is true for me. Qur’an talks of Islam. Qur'an does not talk about Shia Islam or Sunni Islam. Qur’an does not talk about Khilafat or Imamat. Qur’an wants to establish a “Just Society” and nowhere has it talked of norms of forming a state, religious or political. Islam never claimed a worldly government; this was left to the free consideration of the believers.
I have already stated in my article “Understanding Bohra Faith” that “I have come to the conclusion that we, Dawoodi Bohras are Muslims first and then Shia-Ismaili-Mustalian-Tayyebi. Islam is our fundamental faith. All our Shia-Ismaili-Mustalian-Tayyebi doctrines are based on Islamic teachings and Quranic injunctions and whatever is against Islam and Quran can not be the part of our faith.
And again explaining the dispute about Hazrat Ali being the “successor” of the holy prophet I had explained:
The Shias were mostly of non-Arab stock, slaves captured by Arabs during the wars. The half of the population of Kufa consisted of non-Arab slaves, who considered the Arabs inferior culturally and intellectually and resented them as their exploiting masters. Their resentment was further aggravated when Umayyad rulers adopted highly repressive policies giving rise to vested interests, power politics and a class system in Islamic society. The new converts, mostly non-Arab Persians, did not obtain the equal rights which they expected according to Islam. Their aristocratic patrons treated them with contempt and compelled them to submit to every kind of social degradation. This exploited non-Arab lot was looking for a leader who could liberate them from the clutches of their exploitative rulers.
1. Hazrat Ali was known for his simplicity, piety, justice and scrupulous conduct.
2. He and his family members were also seen as the victims of Umayyad’s repressive regime. (Untimely death of Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Fatema, Imam Hasan and then Imam Husain and killing of hundreds of their supporters).
3. He never discriminated between Arabs and non-Arabs in keeping with the true spirit of Islam. He paid non-Arabs their share from Baitul-mal which was denied to them. So Hazrat Ali’s personality found ready appeal among the exploited lot of Persian origin.
Again the Arabs and the Persians had different inborn traditions. Arabs loved liberty and the principle of election. Persians being the subjects of the age-old monarchy were accustomed to slavish submission to their rulers.
Therefore for the Persians the electing the Prophet’s successor was not acceptable. The only principle acceptable to them was of inheritance. Since the Prophet Mohammad had not left any son, for Shias his son-in-law Hazrat Ali should have succeeded him. For them all the caliphs except Ali i.e. Abu Bakar, Umar, Usman and also Umayyads were usurpers. The incident of Gadire-Khum became very important for them and was quoted again and again. As far as Hazrat Ali is concerned he on one hand participated in the day-to-day affairs of the caliphate with Hazat Abu Bakar, Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Usman without any reservation. On the other hand he dealt very strongly with the Arabs and the Arab army officers who tried to persecute and dishounor war-prisoners of non-Arab origin. This further created sympathy for Hazrat Ali and his family members among the persecuted lot.
Again I, like majority Muslims believe that Hazrat Ali was a true and most sincere Muslim so he avoided reducing Islam to a mere rhetoric and instead practiced its teachings and values as he was a great visionary. Hazrat Ali has always been recognized as a divine scholar by the Muslim majority including Sunni and Shia Muslims. It was because he acted most wisely in most difficult times rather than appealing his supporters using mere rhetoric. Rhetoric alienates majority population. One rises to highest status only when one commands respect not only of one's community or supporters but of the general masses (umma) as a whole.
As per the history of Islam as understood by me there was no division of Muslims during Prophet Mohammad's time or during Hazrat Ali's Khilafat. It was a product of later situations after the tragedy of Karbala. (Remember that when Imam Husain had reached Kufa even the soldiers in Zadid’s army offered prayers led by Imam Husain.)
Earlier the Dawoodi Bohras were the true followers of Islam. They were known as much more practicing Muslims than the other Muslim sects. They were Religious but there was no trace of Fanatism in Dawoodi Bohra community. Pronouncing "Tabarra" was never practiced by our earlier Dais, at least openly. But Sayedna Taher Saifuddin and then Sayedna Burhanuddin adopted a double standard policy of projecting themselves as great leaders of Muslim masses, (umma) openly associating with Sunni and Shia Muslims and on the other hand instigating Bohras against both Sunni and Shia Muslims calling them "Sookoo ane Geelu Goo". Taher Saifuddin wrote a book "Noour-Haqqul Mubeen" declaring all the Muslims who do not recognize him as Dai "Jahannami". They inculcated the worst kind of religious fanatism in Bohras which then became a part of Jamiyah's education which influenced even Jamiyah teachers.
Doctrines of Shia Islam have further complicated the history.
When I met Shaikh Ahmed Ali Raj Saheb for the first time at Mr. Ismail bhai Attarwala’s resident at Marline Road – Bombay he was describing to us the “unethical, napaak activities” going on in Saifee Mahal (which he later described in his book “Inkishaf”) I asked him a very disturbing question; “Shaikh Saheb you being a learned man well-versed in Tawil and Tafseer, was it not your duty to expose these things when you were still in services of Sayedna Saheb and come out more honourably?”
It was then that he explained to us about the Shia doctrine of “taqiyya” (secrecy). He said Moula Ali remained silent on his claim of Khilafat after Rasulullah Saheb and co-operated with Awwal, Saani and Saalis, Imam Jafaras Sadiq also adopted the policy of taqiyya as a wise move in the hostile political atmosphere during powerful Abbasid establishment. So though we (four Ustads of Jamiyah) new the truth but we followed the tradition of them and adopted “taqiyyah” and never said a word against these tagoots openly.
As I have said earlier Religion belongs to basically spiritual and moral sphere of life. But the history is an outcome of interplay of several factors, human ambitions, personal interests, political aspirations and individual beliefs and convictions. I am sure if things had not gone wrong after the holy Prophet and the Umayyad rulers had adopted a fair policy of equality and justice and had not done mass killing the division of Islam had not taken place.
Similarly during 48th, 49th and 50th Dais’ time the issue whether proper “Nass” was done on 47th Dai or not was never a matter of dispute and separation. But when 51st Dai adopted a repressive and exploitative policy the issue got momentum and Dawoodi Bohras were further divided in to different sub-sects.
My orthodox and the reformist friends from orthodox back ground may criticize me for my understanding of the past history for which I have honestly burnt many candles. But I request them to understand my Niyyat (aim) to find a common ground to unite Muslims of different shades and not to create enmity among ourselves as Muslims. After all the holy Qur’an, the words of Allah and Suleh-Adibiyah, the agreement signed between the holy prophet and other warring tribes of Medina, both are revolutionary documents to unite people of different religions and different faiths.
-
Al Zulfiqar
- Posts: 4618
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:01 am
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
very well said Bhai Insaf. my sentiments exactly.
but the orthodox blind followers of the syedna, who are so hopelessly brainwashed by the leadership, refuse to think for themselves and are bent upon laanats, abuses and creating hatred. their behaviour is typical of the disease which ails our entire bohra community today.
by not following the examples of the great ali, they are proving themselves to be anti-shia in reality and shia for show outwardly only by superficial lip service.
but the orthodox blind followers of the syedna, who are so hopelessly brainwashed by the leadership, refuse to think for themselves and are bent upon laanats, abuses and creating hatred. their behaviour is typical of the disease which ails our entire bohra community today.
by not following the examples of the great ali, they are proving themselves to be anti-shia in reality and shia for show outwardly only by superficial lip service.
-
ghulam muhammed
- Posts: 11653
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
Bro Mutmaeen,mutmaeen wrote:vro gm-u contend that i draw from shia records which r biassed-but then u too draw from sunni annals which too r biassed-a vast majority of shias believe that the caliphate was the right of ali-can u please enlighten me whether ghadir e khum happened or not
Firstly I wish to correct you when you say that I only quote from sunni records. Majority of my posts and even the last 2 ones are arguments based on shia beliefs and shia books and I can provide you with volumes of shia literature which are contrary to what they actually say or believe. Please be informed that Iam born to shia/bohra parents and lived most of my life in bohri mohalla wherein I have closely interacted with bohras and shias. I have attended various bohra vayez and also shia vayez in Mughal Masjid, Kaiser baug and shia imamwada. I have participated even in Alam proccessions. I did this because I, like many others felt that the only "pristine islam" was the shia faith as I was like the bohras of today, "kuva ma medak". I was not allowed to question the shia/bohra faith or to think rationally. But by the grace of Allah swt I started seeing the true face of shias/bohras which was extremely ugly and by practical efforts I realised that shiasm/bohraism is something very different and totally opposite to Islam. Forgive my words, but leave aside being "pristine Islam", certain shias/bohras are actually enemies of Islam. I say this because they question the wisdom of Rasul Allah s.a.w. and Allah swt and raise doubts with regard to Holy Prophet's judgements, commands and decisions. The kalima which they recite only comes out from their tongue but doesnt reach their hearts. I once again apologise for the harsh words.
Let me also clarify that Iam not a fan of the present day sunnis/wahabis and for me I prefer to identify myself as a "Muslim" and not as a shia or sunni because the ones whom I believe in were neither shias or sunnis but were Muslims. The deen of Allah swt and Rasul Allah s.a.w. and Panjatan Pak a.s. was Islam and not shia/sunni/bohra. Imam Hussain a.s. gave His holy life for Islam and not for shias/bohra/sunnis..... It is said that "Islam zinda hota hain har Karbala ke baad" and not "Shia/sunni ya ke bohra ka deen zinda hota hai har Karbala ke baad".
Regarding Ghadir-e-Khum, I once again say that I fully believe in the said event. Just by not showering abuses on the 3 khalifas doesnt make me a lesser believer of Moula Ali a.s. I regard Moula Ali a.s. as second to the Holy Prophet s.a.w. In fact by not disputing the office of the 3 khalifas Iam actually praising and glorifying Moula Ali a.s. because I believe that He had all the divine powers to snatch the khilafat if He so wished but He refused to do so and willingly honoured the 3 khalifas and hence by not disputing the office of khilafat Iam actually respecting His decision. I also refuse to believe that Moula Ali a.s. did this due to some pressure or compulsion because He was too great and brave a person to succumb to any pressures. For Him and His Sons, Islam was the topmost priorty and for which His holy Son, Imam Hussain a.s. fought with a handful of shuhadas against an army of thousands and ultimately embraced martyrdom but refused to compromise with a tyrant and kuffar. As compared to Imam Hussain a.s., Moula Ali a.s. had thousands of followers who were ready to give their life for Him if at all required but still He didnt wage a war against any of the 3 khalifas. His battle could have been much easier as compared to the one fought by His son Imam Hussain a.s. but still He didnt fight. Does this mean that inspite of greater manpower and following He compromised or succumbed to pressures against tyrants and kuffars (as shias call them) which even His son refused to do ?
The event of Ghadir-e-khum is never understood in its true perspective by majority of shias and hence this division in Islam. The fact of the matter is that no command, saying or prophecy of Rasul Allah s.a.w. has ever gone wrong. Every word of His was the word and command of Allah swt which can never ever go wrong. Same is the case with Ghadir-e-Khum. His words have not gone wrong even here and the Khilafat as told by Him was definately passed over to Moula Ali a.s., it is the real and true khilafat which the enemies of Islam refuse to acknowledge or accept as that would nullify their right to shiasm and hamper their plans to create a divide in the ummah. The Khilafat given on that auspicous day was a "Ruhani Khilafat" and the khilafat which the enemies of Islam are fighting over is the "Duniya-i-Khilafat". I mention it as the true "Ruhani Khilafat" because the khilafat was for the purpose of spreading Islam and the deen of Islam was actually spread by auliyas who were from His lineage. For example, the one who laid the foundation of Islam in India was the great pious and noble soul, Hazrat Gharib Nawaz r.a. and He is addressed as "Sultan-e-Hind". He came to India around 800 years ago and His father was the descendant of Imam Hussain a.s. and His mother was the descendant of Imam Hasan a.s. Hence He was "Aulad-e-Ali". The shias and bohras refuse to mention this and even His great contribution towards Islam but happily quote His sayings which are engraved at the entrance of His shrine at Ajmer which says "Sha Ast Hussain, Badshah Ast Hussain, Deen ast Hussain, Deen e panah ast Hussain, Sar daad na daad dast, dar daste-e-yazeed, Haqa ke binaey La Ila ast Hussain" which means "Ruler is Hussain, Emperor is Hussain, Religion is Hussain, Shield of Religion (Islam) is Hussain, Gave His Head but not His Hand to yazeed, Maintainer of the truth is no one but Hussain". They refuse to acknowledge Him because He had never disputed the issue of khilafat and never uttered laanat on the Holy Companions and hence if they acknowledge Him then they have to follow His teachings. He like all other auliyas have never identified themselves as shias or sunnis and they have preached and propagated only the deen of Islam like their ancestors who were Imam Hussain a.s. and Moula Ali a.s. Just like Rasul Allah s.a.w.,they have spread Islam with the weapon of love, compassion and respect for all. That is the reason that millions of people who visit their shrines are not only Muslims but even Hindus,parsis,christians, sikhs etc. How many alims and sectarian leaders of today are revered, loved and respected by non muslims ? Practically none.
The above is a small synopsis of what I stand for and if I speak at length then the post will become too long and boring for some.
Bro Mutmaeen, Iam not here to change anyone's beliefs but at the same time I would request you and others to have a comparitive study of religion and think logically, rationally not only with your mind but also from your heart. Just keep in mind the greatness of the likes of Rasul Allah s.a.w., Moula Ali a.s. and Panjatan pak a.s. and what status they hold in the eyes of Allah swt before passing any judgement based only on centuries old literature which are very likely to be tampered and distorted by vested interests who are out to create infighting in the ummah. Also remember what years of history have taught us..... enemies are to be found within our own people rather then someone from outside. Imam Hussain a.s., Moula Ali a.s. and various torch bearers of Islam were martyred by the ones who claimed to be Muslims, the ones who were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ were christians, the ones killed in the yudh of mahabharat were hindus at the hands of other hindus. So nothing has changed, it is the same as before. It is not neccessary that by calling oneself shia of Ali a.s. makes him the follower and believer of Moula Ali a.s. One has to believe and follow these great souls in spirit and not in words.
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
This is the words of Sayedna in his appology:
“I have always tried that in spite of differences in belief and faith the mutual relations and love with each other should prevail. It is because we have faith that the Muslims are united on the basis of the kalma that “There is no god but there is Allah".”
This is written by Insaf in this thread:
Do I want to increase differences, create disputes and widen divisions? Or am I striving to find common grounds between different religions and between different faiths and sections in the same religion for the sack of harmony and peaceful co-existence?
Can any one find any difference in both?
Yes there is a difference. The Sayedna has said only out of compulsions and he was well aware that he is saying only just for saying and he will do the same again (Cursing three). The way he says some thing on environment in Burhani foundation site, and doing exactly opposite in real life.
In case of Insaf I think he has some truth in his saying.
“I have always tried that in spite of differences in belief and faith the mutual relations and love with each other should prevail. It is because we have faith that the Muslims are united on the basis of the kalma that “There is no god but there is Allah".”
This is written by Insaf in this thread:
Do I want to increase differences, create disputes and widen divisions? Or am I striving to find common grounds between different religions and between different faiths and sections in the same religion for the sack of harmony and peaceful co-existence?
Can any one find any difference in both?
Yes there is a difference. The Sayedna has said only out of compulsions and he was well aware that he is saying only just for saying and he will do the same again (Cursing three). The way he says some thing on environment in Burhani foundation site, and doing exactly opposite in real life.
In case of Insaf I think he has some truth in his saying.
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
bro gm
that was a very enlightening post
wat i contend is that moula ali[sa] is the rightful successor of rasul e khuda-the preceding rulers ussurped his caliphate
yes moula ali co operated with them not out of any fear or pressure but just to keep islam undivided
bro gm-most of the loyal bohras who visit this forum do have some ranklings with the establishment thats why they come here.some of those who post use too foul a language and think very highly of trhemselves and project the loyals as brainl;ess stooges.this line of action will only alienate them from the so called progressives.
when u are so xplicit in not sending lanats on any u shud come down heavily when fellow bohras are abused as well
that was a very enlightening post
wat i contend is that moula ali[sa] is the rightful successor of rasul e khuda-the preceding rulers ussurped his caliphate
yes moula ali co operated with them not out of any fear or pressure but just to keep islam undivided
bro gm-most of the loyal bohras who visit this forum do have some ranklings with the establishment thats why they come here.some of those who post use too foul a language and think very highly of trhemselves and project the loyals as brainl;ess stooges.this line of action will only alienate them from the so called progressives.
when u are so xplicit in not sending lanats on any u shud come down heavily when fellow bohras are abused as well
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
Agree with mutmaeen whole-heartedly. Calling "loyalists" names and using foul language against them is stupid and counter-productive. People who do this are not real reformists and do not much care about the promoting the reformist cause. They come here just to spill their bile and score cheap points.
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
If that is the case, then why did Imam Hussain decide to take up arms? Shouldn't he have followed in the footsteps of his father? Did he think his father was wrong? Infact if you analyse this properly, Hazrat Ali's silence has resulted in a majority of muslims revering the corrupt khalifas.yes moula ali co operated with them not out of any fear or pressure but just to keep islam undivided
Infact the progressives need to approach this situation in the same way as they approach the Dais situation. They talk about the Dais office and it's status. Same is the case with the Khalifas office too. Doesn't matter who is sitting in the office. They pray for the well being of the corrupt Dai and do not want him to be abused. They should treat the khalifas the exact same way.
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
imam hussain not compromising with yazeed was to prevent islam from being distorted
as believers we have no business questioning the acts of moula ali[sa] or imam hussain[sa]
as believers we have no business questioning the acts of moula ali[sa] or imam hussain[sa]
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
I'm in full agreement.They pray for the well being of the corrupt Dai and do not want him to be abused. They should treat the khalifas the exact same way.
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
Then you have to qualify yourself as a blind believer. No difference between you and the orthos who will not question any act of the Dai.as believers we have no business questioning the acts of moula ali[sa] or imam hussain[sa]
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
where would u draw the line? if u can question the acts of ali and hussain then u may probably not spare even rasul e khuda and allah?
-
Al Zulfiqar
- Posts: 4618
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:01 am
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
imam hussain did not take up arms. he did not go there to fight. he was prevented from going any further, he was prevented from returning back and he was prevented from drawing any water from al furat. the only options open to him were either to pledge allegiance to moayiwah or accept death.anajmi wrote: If that is the case, then why did Imam Hussain decide to take up arms? Shouldn't he have followed in the footsteps of his father?
he chose the latter.
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
mutmaeen,where would u draw the line? if u can question the acts of ali and hussain then u may probably not spare even rasul e khuda and allah?
You initially said this
How did you get this information? Obviously, someone questioned Hazrat Ali's act of co-operation with the khalifas and came up with this answer. So it is not that you are not supposed to question Hazrat Ali. Yes you are supposed to question Hazrat Ali and the prophet and even Allah himself. But be prepared to accept the answers. In your case, if you get an answer that you do not like, then you claim that you are not supposed to question.yes moula ali co operated with them not out of any fear or pressure but just to keep islam undivided
Al Z,
That is the stuff that the bohras are fed in the jamatkhana. Imam Hussain fought for the sake of Islam. Not because he was cornered, but because Islam was in danger in the wrong hands. Hazrat Ali didn't fight because Islam was not in danger and not in the wrong hands.
-
Al Zulfiqar
- Posts: 4618
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:01 am
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
i have to agree with u there. i stand corrected.anajmi wrote:
Al Z,
Imam Hussain fought for the sake of Islam. Not because he was cornered, but because Islam was in danger in the wrong hands. .
-
humble_servant_us
- Posts: 471
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2001 5:01 am
Re: Henceforth Dais without "Nass" will rule us?
anajmi
I diasagree. Act of Imam Ali(as) , Imam Hasan(as) and Imam Husain(as) were according to the situation demands which was in the best intrest of Islam. After the prophet(pbuh) the hypocrits were a great danger to Islam (Abu Sufyan's advice to Ali(as) as an example) and at that point the priority was to protect the integrity of islam. A fight against the khalifas during that time would have given the munafiqoon an oppurtunity to danger Islam. So the necessasay steps were taken by the imams of the time. This is no way proves that Islam was not in wrong hands. The priorities were different.
During Imam Husain(as) the situation and need was different. The initial danger to Islam was not there and now it was time to expose the evil face of yazid and bring forward the true islam as taught by the prophet(sa) , so necessasary steps were taken imam husain(As) and Imam zainul abedin(as).
Imam Hussain fought for the sake of Islam. Not because he was cornered, but because Islam was in danger in the wrong hands. Hazrat Ali didn't fight because Islam was not in danger and not in the wrong hands
I diasagree. Act of Imam Ali(as) , Imam Hasan(as) and Imam Husain(as) were according to the situation demands which was in the best intrest of Islam. After the prophet(pbuh) the hypocrits were a great danger to Islam (Abu Sufyan's advice to Ali(as) as an example) and at that point the priority was to protect the integrity of islam. A fight against the khalifas during that time would have given the munafiqoon an oppurtunity to danger Islam. So the necessasay steps were taken by the imams of the time. This is no way proves that Islam was not in wrong hands. The priorities were different.
During Imam Husain(as) the situation and need was different. The initial danger to Islam was not there and now it was time to expose the evil face of yazid and bring forward the true islam as taught by the prophet(sa) , so necessasary steps were taken imam husain(As) and Imam zainul abedin(as).