How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History ?

Given modern distractions, the need to understand Islam better has never been more urgent. Through this forum we can share ideas and hopefully promote the true spirit of Islam which calls for peace, justice, tolerance, inclusiveness and diversity.
Bohra spring
Posts: 1377
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:37 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#31

Unread post by Bohra spring » Wed Apr 30, 2014 5:04 pm

badrijanab wrote:
shehzaada wrote:These are all concocted lies , why would a person of Aurangzeb rah. stature would meddle with the obscure Bohra , unless they commit open blasphemies? I am sure that even if Aurangzeb rah. ordered the execution than there has to be serious and proven charges against Qutubuddin. There is a strong reason behind all such strong events. Like Sarmad claimed divinity hence was executed.
Has Allah or his Prophet s.a.w.w. authorised Aurangzeb to take decisions in religious matters? No. Hence, Aurangzeb is guilty like any other murderor. And murderor is awarded punishment not praises. So those who praises Aurangzeb for him murdering those who keep different religious view are religiously fools, brain-washed and unintelligent.

Murderor Aurangzeb is no different than any other terrorist like terrorist belonging to Lashkar-Jhangwi or LTTE or RSS / Bajrang Dal Hindu terrorist!

BJ I understand your position of faith , but what I am looking for is historical records to explain some potentially unusual differences of dates, his motivations, and natural sequence of events.

As I said in 1646 a 27 year old governor would be extremely psychopathic to selectively pick a minority leader ...and then when history says he becomes intolerant he picks on his real targets.

Is this a case we have blamed him for something he was only indirectly responsible since he was the governor at time and any administrative issue is his fault....

Yet contradictory is we protect our leaders from direct responsibility for evils during their eras.

Don't get me wrong Aurangzeb may be guilty of other crimes ...but is he personally guilty of crimes against Bohras?

ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#32

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:17 pm

An article on Alavi Bohra website stating how the other Bohra sects (it means dawoodi bohras but doesn't say so openly) distorted historical facts :-

Some excerpts :-

The beginning of the first half of 11th century AH marks the most sensitive part of the history of Bohras. The hypocrites of that time left no stone unturned in manipulating and altering the very sequence of the historic events relating to the most important institution of Isma’ili-Taiyebi Faith for the propagation of Nass i.e. the appointment of Da’i ul-Mutlaq openly or secretly. Because of the greed, envy and arrogance mixed with the desire of getting more material gains and public support, be it a son of Da’i or an ordinary Shaikh, the mudda’i (false claimant) raised his head of disobedience against Da’i uz-Zamaan.

The Rawzah Mubaarakah of Saiyedi Ameenji bin Jalaal (ra) in Ahmedabad stands the witness of the storm of Disbelief and Turmoil sponsored by Hizb ush-Shaitaan (group of devils). The enemies of Da’i ul-Haqq always tried to weaken the foundation of Da’wat and confidence of mumineen by their dirty plots and venomous acts. They have not even spared the ‘azeem khidmat and kirdaar of Saiyedi Ameenji bin Jalaal (ra) in fortifying Da’wah Shareefah through ‘ilm and hikmat.

After highlighting the occurrences of manipulation done with the historic facts by the publications of other Bohra communities, the account of Saiyedi Ameenji bin Jalaal (ra) also seem to be shrouded in the mystery. In this article we will make a serious attempt to bring forth the manipulations done with the historical facts about Saiyedi Ameenji bin Jalaal (ra).

There is a controversy regarding the year of the intiqaal of Saiyedi Ameenji bin Jalaal (ra) as propounded by other Bohra communities – 1010 AH and 1013 AH. Which one is true?

Risaalah "Ne'm ul-Sibghat il-Ilaahiyah" written by Taahir Saifuddin and printed in 1371 AH mentions the date of Intiqaal of Saiyedi Ameenji saheb as 13 Shawwaal 1010 AH, while on the Qabr Mubaarak the year is 1013 AH. Which one is correct is not known. Mystery is that none is correct. The correct year of intiqaal is 1031 AH.

Surprisingly, in the Qubbah Mubaarakah of Saiyedi Ameenji bin Jalaal (ra), the Taqtee’ – Lawhato Ra’s il-Qabr near the Ra’s Mubaarak reads “Mazoon ud-Da’wat” and the name plate over the Qabr reads “Mukaasir ud-Da’wat”? Which one is true?

If we regard the year 1010 AH or 1013 AH to be true of the demise of Saiyedi Ameenji bin Jalaal (ra) then, in the ar-Resaalat ul-Kabeerat ul-Jadeedah it is narrated that Saiyedi Ameenji bin Jalaal (ra) stood witness for the Nass on ‘Abd ut-Taiyeb Zakiyuddin and was sent to take Misaaq of Bohras in different Dholka and Khambhaat by his orders. If this account is true then it proves that Saiyedi Ameenji bin Jalaal (ra) was alive even after 1030 AH? Also ‘Abd ut-Taiyeb Zakiyuddin ordered him to compose a Qaseedah in his praise. If these accounts of ar-Resaalat ul-Kabeerat ul-Jadeedah are true then how is it possible that Saiyedi Ameenji bin Jalaal (ra) died in 1010 or 1013 AH?

The marble Taqtee’ on the Qabr Mubaarak is with the date 13 Shawwaal but without the year of the death and it seems from its existing ‘ibaarat (text) that it has been deliberately erased. Is it an evident attempt to hide the real year of his intiqaal?

History has been fabricated and manipulated by other communities to such an extent that no one can get to the nucleus of the events that happened during 1030 AH.

Many erroneous and doctored reports and baseless narratives have cropped up since last 2 months regarding the Haqqaaniyat of the 29th ad-Da'i al-Alavi al-Faatemi Shaheed-e-Aa’zam Saiyedna 'Ali bin Saiyedi Ibraahim (aq) in the form of websites, press releases, text messages, audio and video clips etc on the internet and mobile platforms alike.

We do understand that certain communities outside of Alavi Bohras do not hold this view point and we do not mean to offend them in any way. Let them quote from their sources to prove their beliefs. We are free to quote from our sources and bring forth unheard facts about the history.

It is incumbent upon us to highlight the few historic facts which have been doctored and manipulated by non-‘Alavi people with the passing time.

Historical facts narrated should always be authentic, undistorted and narrated by the one who is the witness to the events or the one who belongs to its nearest period. It is useless to quote the incidents which occurred between 1030-1046 AH and quoted in the book written around 1231 AH. The Akhbaar book under question contains distorted and false accounts of Historic episodes as the writer didn't had the primary sources which could have furnished him with right inputs and unbiased accounts. But this never happened and the people till today followed it blindly and were wrongfully carried away by their history.

http://www.alavibohra.org/haqqaaniyat%2 ... %20mss.htm


shehzaada
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#34

Unread post by shehzaada » Thu May 01, 2014 9:18 am

Such distortions are very common as you see even in front of our eyes the stroke ridden body of Burhanuddin was used to orchestrate a false succession ceremony , clearly fooling even the thousands present.

badrijanab
Posts: 809
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:19 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#35

Unread post by badrijanab » Fri May 02, 2014 10:38 am

JC wrote:Can Badrijanab reply if Akbar and Jehangir were 'AUTHORISED' to declare the Dai of their times as correct? If that was Fateh Mubeen why cry on Aurangzeb's decision? And have you done any 'independent research' on why Qutubudin was killed? Do you know 'all'???
WC,

What shameless creature you are! You loudly pronounce and practice against dictates of Islam and write here as if you are follower of Islam fighting others!!! Yes, your character is like 1/2/3 so aptly you are within their fold. You are "double" sinner! You have sinned Allah's command as well as you are sinner of Nature.

Rightful Dai's or Priophets or Imam's or common mumineen are not 'mohtaz' of any ruler endorsing their religious status. Before Hijrat also Mohammed s.a.w.w. was the spiritual leader though majority Meccaite opposed him, Mola Ali a.s. was the spiritual leader whether few gave misaaq to him during caliphate of 1/2/3 or all gave misaaq to him when he become caliph. Important is to be "spiritual leader", the kingship is peripheral.

Our rightful Bohra Dai were the then the spiritual leader, whether the justice lover king Akbar & Shahjahan endorse their status or not doesn't make an iota difference to their spiritual leader status.

Man Mohan Singh ji, Modi, Thakre, Mukesh Ambani etc shaking hand with Burhanuddin sahib or King of Jordan entitling him doesn't make him spiritual leader. Spiritual leaders are appointed by Allah not by worldly caliphs. 1/2/3 were self appointed caliphs and not appointed by Allah.

badrijanab
Posts: 809
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:19 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#36

Unread post by badrijanab » Fri May 02, 2014 10:43 am

Ghulam Mohammed bhai,

You are right, I can vouch for you: Tahir Saifuddin has distorted, defaced and misrepresented many things/proofs to appear as if he is legitimate.

Alwi Bohras Dai and Tahir Saifuddin are ditto alike and exactly are like your 1/2/3 = none of them authorised by Allah, none of them hold any religious office. Their all actions will be materialistic, filled with selfish motives. Islam has nothing to do with all above.

JC
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:01 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#37

Unread post by JC » Fri May 02, 2014 2:40 pm

BJ,

Than PLEASE tell who is 'currently' authorized person by God on this earth?? How do I find him??

1/2/3/4 were Rightly Gudied Caliphs after Prophet Mohammad.

And yes I may not be following Islam on a 100% basis, I do not do Shirk or Kufr .... what I do is between me and my God and He will judge me, not some petty religious thaykaydars..!! Check dalals first!! before you point finger to me.

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#38

Unread post by Muslim First » Sat May 03, 2014 6:02 am

Alwi Bohras Dai and Tahir Saifuddin are ditto alike and exactly are like your 1/2/3 = none of them authorised by Allah, none of them hold any religious office. Their all actions will be materialistic, filled with selfish motives. Islam has nothing to do with all above.
A/2/3/4 All 4 were not authorized by Allah but best representative of Islam. Best followers of Quran and Sunnah of Prophet.
BJ
Who is your Imam today?

badrijanab
Posts: 809
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:19 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#39

Unread post by badrijanab » Sat May 03, 2014 4:29 pm

Muslim First wrote:
Alwi Bohras Dai and Tahir Saifuddin are ditto alike and exactly are like your 1/2/3 = none of them authorised by Allah, none of them hold any religious office. Their all actions will be materialistic, filled with selfish motives. Islam has nothing to do with all above.
A/2/3/4 All 4 were not authorized by Allah but best representative of Islam. Best followers of Quran and Sunnah of Prophet.
BJ
Who is your Imam today?
4th Caliph was spritual leader of mumineen like Mohammed s.a.w.w. was during his life. On ground-of - ghadeer Prophet said, "Mankunto molaao, fa haaaza Aliun mola...... O Allah make Haq to follow Ali a.s." So 1/2/3 are not authorized but Mola Ali a.s. is by the virtue of above declaration b Prophet s.a.w.w.

My Imam today is the present Fatimi Imam, in the progeny of prophet Mohammed s.a.w.w. He is the forefather of Imam Mahdi a.z.s., as prophesied by Prophet s.a.w.w. To have Imam Mehdi s.z.s. in coming time, their have to have present Imam, otherwise Mehdi Imam birth can't take place.

Present Imam, the son in the progeny of Prophet Mohammed s.a.w.w. via his daughter Faima a.s. have to be Imam otherwise he cannot transfer the role of Imamat to Imam Mahdi, one cannot give a thing that one doesn't own. If he is Imam; only then he can pass it to next generation, till Imam Mehdi a.z.s .

araz5253
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#40

Unread post by araz5253 » Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:20 pm

I myself could not digest the evidence less bora history. Thanks for this thread.

KA786110
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:20 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#41

Unread post by KA786110 » Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:47 pm

araz5253 wrote:I myself could not digest the evidence less bora history. Thanks for this thread.
What evidence is lacking in your view? Remember history is written and re-written by people in power. This is very old practice. One example is the large collection of fabricated hadiths. With the power of oil money so many books are being published with false information about Shia imams and beliefs. Not only books but media empires have been built to spread falsehoods (TV channels, websites etc)
Last edited by KA786110 on Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KA786110
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:20 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#42

Unread post by KA786110 » Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:37 pm

JC wrote:BJ,
And yes I may not be following Islam on a 100% basis, I do not do Shirk or Kufr .... what I do is between me and my God and He will judge me, not some petty religious thaykaydars..!! Check dalals first!! before you point finger to me.
How enlightening. See was it that bad to confess that religion is between a person and God. Some of the forum members (they know who they are) should learn from JC to be tolerant!!!. :P

Then why don't you give other faiths/din/tariqahs the same latitude. Stop throwing this shirk, bida etc labels.

araz5253
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#43

Unread post by araz5253 » Fri Jan 30, 2015 11:20 pm

KA786110 wrote:
araz5253 wrote:I myself could not digest the evidence less bora history. Thanks for this thread.
What evidence is lacking in your view? Remember history is written and re-written by people in power. This is very old practice. One example is the large collection of fabricated hadiths. With the power of oil money so many books are being published with false information about Shia imams and beliefs. Not only books but media empires have been built to spread falsehoods (TV channels, websites etc)

History is written by both victors and neutral sources, the bohras in this case are both biased non neutral and victors so how can you judge based only their account , only because you were born into it ?

Do bohras have a collection of declared fabricated hadiith ?, Sunnis do have it , see how they have seperated them on pure academic basis.

And regarding Saudi money etc. Then this itself is a blatant propaganda to demonize . Many non Muslims eembrace pureitanical Islam. They have academically sound proofs and are confident about it, so why not spread that which they know is the truth ?

KA786110
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:20 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#44

Unread post by KA786110 » Fri Jan 30, 2015 11:45 pm

araz5253 wrote: Do bohras have a collection of declared fabricated hadiith ?, Sunnis do have it , see how they have separated them on pure academic basis.
Hadiths and Sunnah were mostly created under the sponsorship of Ummayads and Abassids rulers to move masses with shaky foundation away from Ahl-e-Bayt Imams. Something whose beginnings were not kosher cannot be made pure by putting whatever amount of your so called "academic rigor". How many Sahih hadiths are based on very close companions prophet versus Abu Hurairah?
araz5253 wrote:And regarding Saudi money etc. Then this itself is a blatant propaganda to demonize . Many non Muslims eembrace pureitanical Islam. They have academically sound proofs and are confident about it, so why not spread that which they know is the truth ?
Faith of Islam was brought to Arabia over 1400 years ago by Prophet Muhammad(pbuh). Followers of pure Islam are those who obeyed the final will of God and Prophet(pbuh) as declared at Ghadir-E-Khum. So your so called 'Puritanical Deen' is not so pure because Sunnah sect creators removed Prophet (pbuh) and his last will out of it to make it suit their whims. If you remove very essence of the Prophet's (pbuh) last message you do not have anything pure left. Look at the actions of salafi and wahabbi fanatics (flag bearers of your impure pure sect).

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#45

Unread post by anajmi » Fri Jan 30, 2015 11:54 pm

Followers of pure Islam are those who obeyed the final will of God and Prophet(pbuh) as declared at Ghadir-E-Khum.
Imagine that. Pure Islam is based on a misinterpreted incident instead of the Quran and the Sunnah of the prophet (saw)!!

KA786110
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:20 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#46

Unread post by KA786110 » Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:08 am

anajmi wrote:
Followers of pure Islam are those who obeyed the final will of God and Prophet(pbuh) as declared at Ghadir-E-Khum.
Imagine that. Pure Islam is based on a misinterpreted incident instead of the Quran and the Sunnah of the prophet (saw)!!
Ours is no misinterpretation. We heard God's and Prophet's (pbuh) command and obeyed. It is your ilk which has recently started throwing those counterpoints to try to keep existing sunnis in check. People have been at it for over 1400 hundreds years to cast doubt on the events of Ghadir-E-Khum but have not succeeded. So keep trying.

qutub_mamajiwala
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:17 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#47

Unread post by qutub_mamajiwala » Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:51 am

anajmi wrote:

Imagine that. Pure Islam is based on a misinterpreted incident instead of the Quran and the Sunnah of the prophet (saw)!!
yes bro i agree fully with u
it is misinterpreted by salafi fanatics.
it is simple logic bro--those who do not have tolerance for others cannot be trusted themselves.
about fabricated hadith, only one eg is enough.
abuhuraira-- the grave digger who was admonished by prophet himself.
umar himself admonished him several times and last prevented him to recite any hadith, coz he was just blabbering his tongue out in the name of hadith and umar didnt wanted any of his false hadith. till the time of umar, none of this so called blabbering was counted as hadith. it was only during mauawayas time he gained importance due to evil nature of both and again started his false hadith. mauawaiya encouraged him to do so as people would beleive him as he was a companion of prophet. he himself has testified it that it is better to pray behind ali and eat at mauawiyas home.
the so called academic and scientific truth of hadith takes into account abuhurairas hadith as authentic while ignoring pious compnanion of prophet.

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#48

Unread post by anajmi » Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:30 pm

The problem with people like you is that you take things out of context. Every incident you have mentioned has been taken out of context. Heck, your entire "Islam" is based on an incident taken out of context. You take ayahs of the Quran out of context. You separate portions of ayah to suit your own manipulated beliefs. Seriously guys. Consider why your Imam remains in hiding and why your Syednas are the kind they are!!

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#49

Unread post by anajmi » Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:35 pm

Think about it for a second. Did the prophet (saw) give directions about how to urinate? Yes. Are they clear? Yes. How about how to eat? Are the directions clear? Yes. And then we come to the most important aspect of Islam and now the prophet makes one ambiguous statement on a rest stop somewhere without any corroboration anywhere else or in the Quran. For 1400 years an overwhelming majority of those who respect the prophet (saw) more than any other of his companion (including Ali) haven't been convinced with your misinterpretations. That is telling something eh?

araz5253
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#50

Unread post by araz5253 » Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:30 pm

anajmi wrote:Think about it for a second. Did the prophet (saw) give directions about how to urinate? Yes. Are they clear? Yes. How about how to eat? Are the directions clear? Yes. And then we come to the most important aspect of Islam and now the prophet makes one ambiguous statement on a rest stop somewhere without any corroboration anywhere else or in the Quran. For 1400 years an overwhelming majority of those who respect the prophet (saw) more than any other of his companion (including Ali) haven't been convinced with your misinterpretations. That is telling something eh?
Anajmi I am serious , you should write a book on Bohras , it will sell like hotcakes , no good critical literature in english availaible on bohras.

KA786110
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:20 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#51

Unread post by KA786110 » Sat Jan 31, 2015 11:21 pm

anajmi wrote:Think about it for a second. Did the prophet (saw) give directions about how to urinate? Yes. Are they clear? Yes. How about how to eat? Are the directions clear? Yes. And then we come to the most important aspect of Islam and now the prophet makes one ambiguous statement on a rest stop somewhere without any corroboration anywhere else or in the Quran. For 1400 years an overwhelming majority of those who respect the prophet (saw) more than any other of his companion (including Ali) haven't been convinced with your misinterpretations. That is telling something eh?
LOL. You and your moronic logic. You are not telling anything at all. You are showing your ignorance and obstinacy. Keep trying.

Gadhir-E-Khum happened and what Holy Prophet (pbuh) said on that day was and is totally clear and without any ambiguity. You can keep denying and twisting that clear message. That only shows your weak intellectual capacity.

You can stay with the disobedient overwhelming majority. :P Next with your moronic logic you will start questioning Islam itself because majority of world's people are non-muslims. Majority must be correct by your logic. Go figure.

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#52

Unread post by anajmi » Sat Jan 31, 2015 11:35 pm

Again, you are unable to differentiate between the two. Alavi Bohras are in a minority. So according to your idiotic logic, their Dai is the right one!! And the number of jews on earth is less than the number of shias. So according to your idiotic logic they are the ones on the right path. With every post, you prove yourself to be a bigger idiot than after the last post.

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#53

Unread post by anajmi » Sat Jan 31, 2015 11:39 pm

Gadhir-E-Khum happened and what Holy Prophet (pbuh) said on that day was and is totally clear and without any ambiguity. You can keep denying and twisting that clear message. That only shows your weak intellectual capacity.
Yes, what he said was totally clear and without any ambiguity. And the majority of muslims on earth have understood what he said except a few fools like you.

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#54

Unread post by anajmi » Sat Jan 31, 2015 11:45 pm

Consider this scenario. I do not expect you to understand immediately though cause you are a moron.

In a class room a teacher is teaching an important subject to the students. A majority of the students understand the lesson one way. A minority understand it a completely opposite way. Now, if the majority have understood it correctly, then the teacher has done a good job and the minority needs to fix themselves. However, if only the minority has understood it the right way, then the teacher has done a poor job of explaining the lesson.

This concept might take a few years for you to grasp. Start today.

KA786110
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:20 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#55

Unread post by KA786110 » Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:16 am

anajmi wrote:
Gadhir-E-Khum happened and what Holy Prophet (pbuh) said on that day was and is totally clear and without any ambiguity. You can keep denying and twisting that clear message. That only shows your weak intellectual capacity.
Yes, what he said was totally clear and without any ambiguity. And the majority of Muslims on earth have understood what he said except a few fools like you.
:roll:
You and your moronic logic. Majority is not always correct. With your every new post you are showing off your weak intellectual capacity. I repeat here again: With your majority is correct logic, you will soon start doubting Islam too because majority of world's population is not Muslim. Go figure.

KA786110
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:20 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#56

Unread post by KA786110 » Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:36 am

anajmi wrote:Consider this scenario. I do not expect you to understand immediately though cause you are a moron.

In a class room a teacher is teaching an important subject to the students. A majority of the students understand the lesson one way. A minority understand it a completely opposite way. Now, if the majority have understood it correctly, then the teacher has done a good job and the minority needs to fix themselves. However, if only the minority has understood it the right way, then the teacher has done a poor job of explaining the lesson.

This concept might take a few years for you to grasp. Start today.
Weak students always blame teacher. :D But alas in the case of Ghadir-E-Khum commands you cannot use that card/excuse. :P :P :P Go and re-read Ghadir-E-Khum hadiths again.

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#57

Unread post by anajmi » Sun Feb 01, 2015 1:03 pm

Actually, the prophet Mohammad (saw) was a great teacher. That is why the majority understood him right. Besides, how strong can a student who is a fool, such as yourself, be? One look at the bohra abdes with their hands folded and backs bent in front of a human will tell you who the weak students of the class are.

mukhtaarhusain
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 4:48 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#58

Unread post by mukhtaarhusain » Sun Feb 01, 2015 4:56 pm

anajmi wrote:Consider this scenario. I do not expect you to understand immediately though cause you are a moron.

In a classs room a teacher is teaching an important subject to the students. A majority of the students understand the lesson one way. A minority understand it a completely opposite way. Now, if the majority have understood it correctly, then the teacher has done a good job and the minority needs to fix themselves. However, if only the minority has understood it the right way, then the teacher has done a poor job of explaining the lesson.

This concept might take a few years for you to grasp. Start today.
And if the teacher is not an original qualified Teacher..He has become the teacher by cheating n Fraud...n he wants that his teaching should b understand by every one the way he wants...N the main thing asking questions r strickly not allowed n if anyone dares to ask any question then he will b suspended....

ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#59

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:39 pm

KA786110 wrote:
anajmi wrote:Consider this scenario. I do not expect you to understand immediately though cause you are a moron.

In a class room a teacher is teaching an important subject to the students. A majority of the students understand the lesson one way. A minority understand it a completely opposite way. Now, if the majority have understood it correctly, then the teacher has done a good job and the minority needs to fix themselves. However, if only the minority has understood it the right way, then the teacher has done a poor job of explaining the lesson.

This concept might take a few years for you to grasp. Start today.

Weak students always blame teacher. :D But alas in the case of Ghadir-E-Khum commands you cannot use that card/excuse. :P :P :P Go and re-read Ghadir-E-Khum hadiths again.
Muslims from both sects have been reading the hadith since over a thousand years but still nothing has changed, so its no use harping upon an issue which is the fundamental reason of the shia/sunni split. Each one is going to remain adamant no matter what evidences are put forward as people have been conditioned to view things from a pre set prism and they don't want to explore the other side of the arguments. This the sad state of affairs of the Muslim world !!

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: How Authentic Are The Bohra Versions Of Its Own History

#60

Unread post by anajmi » Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:59 pm

Forget all the hadith. What was the primary mission of the prophet (saw)? Spread the glory of Allah or spread the glory of Ali? If you are an idol worshipper, your answer is Ali. If you are not, then the answer is Allah. If your answer is Allah, then what happened at ghadeer is of no significance one way or the other. A majority of the muslims have rightly understood that the mission of the prophet (saw) was to spread the glory of Allah. Hence, for them, ghadeer is of no significance.