Banning of Ismaili/Wahhabi debate

[porus]

I applaud Admin's decision to 'ban' the Ismaili/Wahhabi debates, which had degenerated into hot air of abuse and counter-abuse. It is unlikely that the Wahhabies will change their colors since their agenda is bigoted baiting of the faith and beliefs of sects other than their own. Complete proscription of these Wahhabies from these forums would be a great service to participants who have, I am sure, felt demeaned by these 'debates' and, by adding injury to insult, had their time wasted.

While faith and belief are individual matters, it is important that Bohras, as a group, respect their faith and beliefs as they developed during the Fatimids and later elucidated, primarily, by the the Yemeni duaat.

While exposing the priestly abuse of privileges by the priestly class should remain the focus of the Reformists, there is plenty of scope for enhancing the mutual understanding of the history and faith of Bohras in these forums. Many of us are aware how faith itself gets corrupted to serve illegitimate privilege. Knowledge will be one of the better defences against such corruption and abuse.

[Humsafar]

Welcome back porus. Oh, how glad I'm to see you again. As for Ismaili/Wahabi debate, it was time it was ended. In my book the Ismailis (at least some those who participated here) are no less bigots than the wahabis. They all deserved to go.

[SBM]

Finally it ended and let us keep this board civil.
no more bashing of Isamili or Wahabis

[Al Zulfiqar]

welcome back porus. this board needs you. you are one of the very few people whom i respected on this board and from whom i have learnt a lot.

i was also the first one to support yr decision when u left, considering the nonsense going on. but its nice to see u back now. i had often wondered why you kept engaging the sunni/wahabi idiots when it was patently clear all they wanted was to heckle, harass and derive pleasure from throwing muck about and getting everyone riled up. that is the sole purpose of their existence. they feed on hatred and belligerence..their own.

i had just a few days back advised the ismailies on the board and in pvt. to restrain themselves in the face of this relentless attack from rabid dogs. but alas, they had lost their reason too, and had descended to the same low level as their detractors.

here is what i wrote:

jwm,

this is a progressive dawoodi bohra forum. non-bohras are welcome as long as they have something of value to contribute towards our cause and provide fresh perspectives and knowledge of their own. it does not give them the right to usurp this board to carry out their own agendas of abusing each other day and night with total disregard for the others who use this forum. the weak policies of this board and tolerance of this behaviour, means that there is nowhere else that they would be allowed in this nonsensical fashion.

both the ismaili and extremist sunni wahabi camps have continued endlessly to prove their superiority ad nauseum, inspite of several warnings from admin in the recent past and drastic action in locking up posts and even deleting offensive ones.

to engage in a debate with someone whose sole purpose in his miserable and sorry existence is to bully others, use cheap tactics like making personal attacks, twist words and fight incessantly like a trained miyabhai attack dog and crow over his achievements of racking up thousands of posts day and night to the exclusion of everything else in his mediocre life; is to lose one's time and dignity. to qualify such a person with a reply is to provide him more excuses to bark. his language betrays his background and upbringing..he 'deals with' people. sounds familiar? this is the language of the lowest form of mawali's, a la the local goonda. i do not cower nor engage in talk with such low life bigots. he thinks he scares people with his verbal assaults, but actually most people on this board find him to be a pathological case, even beyond pity. several knowledgeable people on this board have left, disgusted by his strong arm tactics, he thinks he has won a great victory, but those who know are aware, that if you take away a rabid dog's raison d'etre, his need to fight, that is the biggest blow to his psyche'.

let him bark alone to his hearts content, his yelps and and howls are nothing but an obsessive compulsive disorder which feeds on creating an environment where you are forced to respond and he can bark some more and wag his tail with glee! dignifying his provocative talk, which is baited with lies and slander, is his common trick to lure people down a dark alley and then jump on them.

by now, you should know that the man, if i can call him one, is not totally alright up there. i have learnt to ignore him and his insane un-islamic rantings. the only reason that i am writing this now, is to implore you that if you want to keep yr dignity, sanity and credibility, walk away from this madman. follow the example of the great Ali, whom we all respect. Did he take up arms against those who abused him? did he go to war to defend his rights? rights which were proclaimed by the prophet himself? the only time he took up the sword was when he was personally physically attacked and islam was in trouble.

as sure as there is night after day, here he will come swinging, spouting abuses to vent his bile ... but its more fun when u ignore him, for he gets more frustrated when you do not react.

[jawanmardan]

Welcome back porus.

I think it was more about argument for argument sake than about debate. It seems to be a uniquely internet phenomenon. I've seen it in Mac vs PC, Canon vs Nikon, PS3 vs Xbox 360, Democrat vs Republican.

[ghulam muhammed]

Better late then never...... The admin has taken the correct step because this forum no longer looked like a one started by Progressive Dawoodi Bohras. Although one would like to debate on adverse topics but the manner in which every disscussion was hijacked by wahabis/ismailis was a matter of concern. Even topics like "Noor of Prophet s.a.w.", "Mola Ali a.s." and so much so that topics such as "Cow slaughter" were reduced to a mere ismaili/wahabi tirade. It was only about the hidden quran and Hazar Imam and practically nothing else.

The admin can also divert any disscussion which is derailed from its actual subject and which is concentrated on ismaili/wahabi issues to one single thread under the topic "Ismaili/wahabi bashing".

[Al Zulfiqar]

Admin,

would it be out of place to ask which are the members banned? i think we all have a fair idea, but would just like to confirm, if you dont mind revealing that here.

[kalim]

I disagree with this banning decision. It is pointless to ban people as they will reappear in a different guise anyway. The sorry spectacle of the fights between the Wahabbis and Isamilis shows their moral and intellectual bankruptcy. They display the worst possible character, not worth of a decent human being, leave alone followers of so-called imams and sacred books. Shame on them. I hope they are not setting this foul example for their children and fellow believers. If they are, god help them.

The proper thing to do is to just ignore both sets of bigots. Banning them is not the correct approach. Why not ban the foul mouthed progressives or the nut job orthodox Bohras too? How is one to decide what is foul language? For the orthodox disrespecting the da'i is abusive and foul. Progressives do that all the time. So should we resort to banning all progressives too? We will soon be left with a handful of members.

I suggest that the Admin reinstate the members and just hope that common sense and decency will prevail. Wahabbis and Ismailis should take thier fight else where. After all this is a Bohra forum. If they still do not listen, just ignore them. I suggest the following. All threads in Islam Today should be just deleted automatically in 3 days or so. All topics which haveWahabbi/Ismaili fights should just be deleted. I know this is a pain, but it is a better option than banning people.

[Admin]

Sorry, we do not want to name names but all the active participants on both sides of the "debate" have been banned.

[Aarif]

Admin,

With due respect but banning might not be a good idea. Some participants have been on this forum for a long time and have contributed a grt deal. I would request you to reconsider your decision...

[Average Bohra]

Admin, they can simply create new user names and sign back in so banning is largely symbolic, correct ?

Welcome back Porus & Kalim....

[Admin]

Kalim,
Thank you for your comment. You must know that we have been very tolerant and accommodating to these two sets of members. We tried all sorts of tactics over several months to make them behave but nothing seemed to work. The decision to ban them was very difficult for us and we have taken it after much deliberation, and after increasing complaints form other members. Ignoring them is not an option because they infiltrate every thread and derail the topic with their relentless and repetitive arguments. Besides, monitoring them and their posts was taking up more and more of our time. They are all grown adults and must know how to behave responsibly. If they break the rules there will be consequences. Yes, the foul language is a tricky thing but everybody knows that it is not allowed. We've been clamping down on it be it from the orthodox or progressives.

Members must understand that this Forum belongs to all of us and it is our responsibility to keep it free and open. And all it takes to do so is follow simple basic rules. That is not asking for much.

Aarif,
We agree some members have been here for a long time and we respect and appreciate that, and it's precisely for this reason it took us so long to make a decision. The long-time members have greater responsibility to behave responsibly.

Average Bohra,
Technically they can but we have a way of tracking and identifying them. So, no it's not just symbolic.

[Al Zulfiqar]

i fully agree with you Admin.

even if some members have racked up thousands of posts, they have no right to flood this forum with stupid and derogatory mails which are full of lies and slander deliberately designed to provoke extreme emotions in others.

truth cannot be sacrificed at the altar of expediency.

[Aarif]

We agree some members have been here for a long time and we respect and appreciate that, and it's precisely for this reason it took us so long to make a decision. The long-time members have greater responsibility to behave responsibly.

Admin

I agree with you on that. I would request the banned members to send you an apology mail so that you can allow them to come back. Honestly my philosophy is that this forum is like one big family where participants from different backgrounds and inter-faiths have come together to express their opinions. When someone in a family misbehaves we do punish him/her but we definitely do not throw him/her out of the house. I feel the same technic should be employed out here. I sincerely wish and hope that the golden days of this forum comes back when all the stalwarts use to participate with full enthusiasm.

[jamanpasand]

Anajmi was a clear cut wahabi even before this current Ismaili – Wahabi debate.
It were Ismailis that were trying to demonstrate their power for supremacy. He was simply defending. So there is nothing new on his part to cause a ban. If this ban was a better option then I should be taken much earlier.

[kalim]

I want to point out one rather paradoxical thing. On this board, people who are least religious are generally most respectful. I have seldom seen Porous or Humsafar curse or rant. One would think that followers of a prophet who is mercy for all mankind would be more merciful and respecting of others beliefs. Or, followers of a supposed imam who claims he is the rope of god on earth, Ali after Ali, would be kind and decent folks. Ditto for slaves of a person who claims he is ambassador of peace, and will give milk to those who ask for water. Apparently these followers are a shame to their respective leaders and books. Religion has done nothing but make them squabble endlessly on useless and junk topics.

I strongly urge all progressives to set a good example to others. Please do not use abusive language for the Sayedna. Criticism is needed, but no need to get hostile or abusive. There are a set of people whom one can not convince. Leave these people alone. However, the bulk of people will listen to arguments if we present them without hostility. I know personally that many orthodox visit this site and sympathize with the progressive cause. Lets not loose these folks by our stupid behaviour. Also, I urge the wahabbi/sunni and ismaili folks to commit to letting things go so they can participate in this board again, this time as friends. Lets not get carried away by small things and look at the bigger picture here. We are all humans and share the same human values as each other. No point in letting religious beliefs getting in our way.

[jawanmardan]

On this board, people who are least religious are generally most respectful.

Thats a massive generalization don't you think? The last time I checked I believe Porus was a man of faith. Any ideology taken to an extreme can be disrespectful. I think the issue here though was people arguing for the sake of argument, it could have been about doughnuts with holes or without.

In any case its a sad it came to this.

[kalim]

It is not a "massive generalization". I have been watching and occasionally participating on this board for many years now. I say what I see. Religiosity is correlated with a sense of smugness and hostile behavior. It is not clear, of course, that religion is the cause of this behavior, but it is a safe hypothesis.

Also, religion and faith are different issues. Religion makes one buy into a narrow set of doctrines. Defending these doctrines can then be justified, even if it means being rude and nasty to others. What is more important? Defending the "Truth" or being polite? Of course, that religious truth is relative is lost on those who take it onto themselves to defend it.

Anyway, I really do not care who is a man of faith or not. Please let us be polite and civil. No need to get carried away.

[Muslim First]

Brothers

AS & Eid Mubarak

My sincere apoogy for heated discussions.

Be. Aarif

Thank you for support.

Wasalaam

[Aarif]

Br. MF,

AS

Eid mubarak to you as well. I was missing you yesterday.. Welcome back.

[Admin]

Muslim First has written to us and apologized hence we have restored his access to the Forum. However, he says he has "presently no intention to post or participate in any discussions".

[Muslim First]

Admin

That is correct and Than you

Wasalaam

[porus]

Humsafar, al Zulfiqar, jawanmardan and Average Bohra,

Thank you for your words welcome. I returned because, in the banning of some members, I saw an opportunity to resume a healthy dialog. My participation here is unlikely to survive the resurgence of Wahhabi bigotry, especially from anajmi and Muslim First.

The last time I checked I believe Porus was a man of faith.

Jwm, if you mean that I subscribe to 'received' dogmatic beliefs of any of the major religions, then that would not be correct. In contrast to the modern 'evangelical' atheistic position, held notably by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, I respect the belief that there is a transacendent presence. However none of the major scriptures gives out any hint of how to approach it except through, what appears to me, to be meaningless rituals.

If you caught the episodes 72 to 74 of the TV serial Mahabharata, which deal with Bhagvad Gita, you will see how Krishna tries to educate Arjuna out of his dilemma finally by a 'miraculous' display of the entire universe emanating from his mouth. Yet, it fails to answer the ultimate question of why that must be so. Hence, there is perennial search for 'truth' in mystic traditions of all the peoples of the planet. Scriptures simply do not supply the answer. The literalists, like ignorant Wahhabi bigots, do not, and cannot understand this. And they arrogantly call this perennial search of mankind bullshit.

Generally, I have defended the Shia version of Islam from the Wahhabi onslaught. But I also have serious reservation of the Shia postion. One example is infallibility of Imams and Dais. While Quran (33:33), according to hadith, identifies panjatan as Ahlul bayt, and states that it is Allah's desire to render them pure, how does that relate to infallibility?

In any case, if purity refers to panjatan only, how does that then extend to the following Imams and Dais? There is no satisfactory answer to this except unacceptable 'miraculous' , ala Krishna, notion that some modern day people are privy to 'divine' information that others must obey.

With global TV and internet, we no longer live, at least in the West, in a religious society and we are past the enlightenment/humanistic world view where human reason reigned supreme. Reason ought to be our guide but humans are notoriously irrational. Hence humanity needs to go beyond 'reason'. Love and mysticism, perhaps?

[Al Zulfiqar]

Brothers

AS & Eid Mubarak

My sincere apoogy for heated discussions.

Be. Aarif

Thank you for support.

Wasalaam

Br. MF,

The fact that you have apologised and returned, is a sign of humility and greatness, which is to be applauded. But I hope it is not so that you can return to the relentless attacks on shia beliefs and your rigid and narrow view of Islam, whereby anyone who doesnt strictly follow what you prescribe is a kafir and and non-muslim.

you were atleast the more polite one compared to your fellow militant, and i have always credited you for that. But I do remember that you are so fixated on the adherence to 'practices and rituals', that you never could bring yourself to unequivocally accept and declare that all the previous prophets (as mentioned in the quran) are muslims, even though they did not follow the prescribed methods which came with islam. you kept evading this question by various means but uptil today you have not and cannot bring yrself to accept this fact, because that would then destroy your most dearly held positions on 'rituals' and leave you no leg to stand on.

in any case, please welcome back and give us the benefit of your perspective as a long time family member. i dont think anyone objects to a healthy debate as long as it is not from a position of contempt and hatred for those who disagree with you, which is what has prevailed on this forum for too long.

[kalim]

Porus: I do not completely agree that we are beyond the humanistic outlook fostered by the Enlightenment. Also, the fact that humans are notoriously irrational does not mean that reason alone can not be a guide to how one should live ones life. In many ways a "New Enlightenment" is needed. People need to realize that all humans have the same needs and values. Everyone wants the best for themselves, their families and their communities. Everyone wants to enjoy life, avoid pain and maximize pleasure. I do not see why narrow creeds cooked up thousands of years ago should divided humanity.

I like the term eupraxsophy, coined by the philosopher Paul Kurtz which means a combination of rational thought with wisdom, eschewing belief in the supernatural. One needs to live a life of exuberance, rather than of morbidity. Most religious beliefs promote a rigid morbidity, which prevents one from seeing the true beauty of the universe and life in it. The most obvious manifestation of this are the silly and pointless rituals, which lead to stultification in all but the ability to hate the other.

However, I agree that a sense of love and empathy is sorely needed. If we use this board as an indication of things, religious people hate each other for bizarre reasons. It is like the people in Gulliver's Travels who fight over which end of the egg to break. Silly and complete pointless, and very harmful. We need more people who are kind and accepting of others beliefs. I see several such people on this board and they and the progressives, specially, should set a good examples for others to follow. It is important not to loose a large segment of the orthodox population who see the progressives as nothing but evil troublemakers. We should avoid painting the battle in grand terms, like between Hussain and Yazid, as this just makes the cause seem what it is not and makes people hostile. Restraint is needed by all sides.

[Muslim First]

give us the benefit of your perspective as a long time family member

Br. AZ

AS

I am going to take little time off. IA I will participate in discussion. May be with different outlook.

My participation here is unlikely to survive the resurgence of Wahhabi bigotry, especially from anajmi and Muslim First.

Br. Porus
I am not a bigot nor Wahabi
I have no intention of going after you

Wasalaam

[Aarif]

Br. Porus,

Welcome back and ASW. My understanding is that every participant on this forum is a fundamentalist in some way or another. The reformist bohras are also big bigots. They leave no stone unturned when it comes to mud slinging against syedna and Kothar. Not only that they will not even spare his dead father. And they would justify all this comparing Imam Husain with Yazid and stating that how Islam teaches one to stand up and fight against tyrants. That in turn means that they also use religion to justify their stand. Hence, I would call that also a form of religious bigotry. The abde syednas like Gulp are also orthodox bigots. They will leave no stone unturned to protect their Dai just like the Ismailis do to protect their Imam. Most of the threads in Bohras and Reforms are aimed at kothar and syedna and the so called participants use the choicest of words when it comes to abusing him and his cronies. There is nothing new that has been said in last so many years by the reformists. They keep discussing monotonous issues like how corrupt the kothari aamils are or how syedna is hand in glove with modi or where syedna is going to do next Ashura... The point that I am trying to make is that the Admin on one hand has banned some people because they were bashing the Ismaili Imam and the Ismailis were counter retaliating in response to the same while on the other hand the reformist and orthodox bohras do the same in each and every thread. However, I have never seen Admin banning a reformist bohra for cursing syedna and kothar. Why this double standards? Is it because the Admin is a reformist bohra and hence has a soft corner for them???

Also, Porus, if you are supporting the shia stand than according to me you are a shia bigot. I had great regard for you but unfortunately the stand that you have taken after coming back makes me feel that you are also against free participation on this forum.

I would request Admin to stop banning and humiliating senior members like Br. Anajmi and Muslim First. They have contributed a lot to this forum. I have learnt a lot from their posts about Quran and Islam. In fact I find the Wahabi/Ismaili debates more stimulating as one needs to do a lot of research to come up with counter arguments. While in Bohras and Reforms if you know two words i.e. syedna and kothar you can write one thousand posts very easily...

The bottom line is that the debates between reformists and abde syedna is not much different than those between the wahabis and Ismailis... So why ban one group and grant all the freedom to another???

PS: Br. MF and Br. Anajmi. I would request you people to continue on this forum. I don't care what others think but I have learnt a lot from you guys...

[porus]

arif,

What is a bigot? It is a person who is unable to accept that views other than their own are legitimate and then proceeds to mock, insult and abuse those deeply held beliefs. This is what you, Muslim First and anajmi have been doing against Ismailies. Despite his protestation, Muslim First's bigotry is rooted in his complete acceptance of Wahhabism as the only valid viewpoint of Islam and hence he sees others as deviants and unworthy or not entitled to call themselves Muslims.

Neither Ismailies who participated here nor Orthodox Bohras fit this description. They defend their point of view but do not attack other religious beliefs as illegitimate. This was the case with Znanwala who was clearly presenting a case, which was an interesting, even if a bit unusual even for Ismailies. However, I believe that she was sorely provoked by the Wahhabi bigots, especially by continuous insults to the person of her Imam, whom majority of Ismailies revere.

I am against any insult to Bohra divines and have stated many times that this is counterproductive to the reformist cause.

As to the knowledge about Islam, Muslim First has indeed provided some useful links. But I, personally, have not learnt anything about Islam or Quran from him or anajmi. In any case, there is a large number of sites available for thenm to vent their spleen against non-Wahhabis. My preference remains that they do not participate here.

If you found them to be great founts of knowledge and wisdom,, it speaks more about your own level of education.

[jawanmardan]

Aarif,
I'm sure that this forum has a lot of hot topics, and yes everyone has their own agendas, points of view, and we won't always agree. This forum was started by progressives as a forum for their community to discuss ideas relevant to their community, and those of us who are not Bohra are here only as an extended courtesy.

The Isma'ili/Wahabbi "debate" was seldom anything more than emotionally stimulating. I think for some of the participants it became purely personal, rather than academic. While the element of personal appeal is important in any deliberation; the "debate" lacked factual accuracy, constancy, and any semblance of context. Worse still it took over this forum. I would welcome Anajmi, and MF contributing their points of view on broader topics; I believe the orthodox position is a valid one in that it presents an important voice whether one agrees with it or not.

Kalim,

You make many points I agree with,

Defending these doctrines can then be justified, even if it means being rude and nasty to others.

I think issue is getting into a defensive mindset, more so than the doctrines themselves. Explaining your position, and arguing your view can be accomplished with civility. It is not religiosity in my mind that is the problem but dogmatism not being able to see beyond the end of ones own nose. Many on the left or right of the political spectrum too are unable to see the other side, and make sensible judgements.

[Danish]

Religiosity is correlated with a sense of smugness and hostile behavior. It is not clear, of course, that religion is the cause of this behavior, but it is a safe hypothesis.

Also, religion and faith are different issues. Religion makes one buy into a narrow set of doctrines. Defending these doctrines can then be justified, even if it means being rude and nasty to others.

I like the term eupraxsophy, coined by the philosopher Paul Kurtz which means a combination of rational thought with wisdom, eschewing belief in the supernatural. One needs to live a life of exuberance, rather than of morbidity. Most religious beliefs promote a rigid morbidity, which prevents one from seeing the true beauty of the universe and life in it. The most obvious manifestation of this are the silly and pointless rituals, which lead to stultification in all but the ability to hate the other.

….religious people hate each other for bizarre reasons.

Religion is a myth and superstition that stiffens hearts, enslaves minds and promotes disunity and aggression. Good to see some of you back on track.

Myth:
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

Superstition:
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.