The history of Karbala may repeat itself in Dawat

[S. Insaf]

If we contemplate the events resulting in the Tragedy of Karbala, we will find that there is a strong parallelism to the happenings today in our Dawat system.
Most historians including Sunni political theorist, Maulana Maududi agree that first Umayyad caliph Amir Moawiyah was responsible for deviating and bringing fundamental change in Islamic rule. He converted Khilafat (caliphate) into Mulukiyyat (monarchy) and destroyed revolutionary spirit of Islam.

1) Islamic caliphs had practiced and advocated a lifestyle of simplicity lived by the holy Prophet (S.A.).

2) They had adhered to the practice of consultation with the companions of the Prophet (S.A.) before taking all policy decisions or before laying down Islamic laws.

3) They did not appoint their successors from the Caliph’s family and left the matter to the Muslim umma.

Whereas:-
1) Amir Moawiyah discarded simplicity and established his empire much closer to Roman Empire. Royal court, expensive silken robes, splendid palaces, Making Muslims stand in rows with folded hands all around, imperial orders, one man’s decisions and introducing the absolute authoritarian rule that was prohibited in Islam.

2) This was a radical change in which only rich and powerful were favoured and ordinary companions of the Prophet and well-wishers of Islam had no role in formulating the state policies.

3) Hazrat Ali (A.S.) was and is still considered Khlifa-e-Rashid (rightfully appointed caliph) by all Muslims but Amir Moawiyah opposed him and created an unnecessary rift resulting in war.

4) One of the terms of treaty that Amir Moawiyah signed with Imam Hassan (A.S.) was that Moawiyah will not appoint his successor and leave the matter to the Muslims to decide. But Amir Moawiyah unhesitantly violated that term of treaty and appointed his son Yazid his successor. Thus Moawiyah negating all ideals that Islamic revolution stood for.

Moawiyah was also responsible for destroying democracy and creating hierarchical structure both in Sunni as well Shia Islam, though there is absolutely no place for monarchy or religious hierarchy in Islam.

Not only that Amir Moawiyah appointed Yazid his successor knowing fully well that Yazid’s personal character would not be acceptable to any honest and pious Muslim as he was a product of luxurious palaces enjoying all material pleasures without any ethical or moral considerations. And above all Yazid was a tyrant who crossed all limits of decency in getting bay’ah (pledge of loyalty) to him. Yazid wanted all power and absolute authority. He accepted no opposition at all. He unleashed a wave of terror and embarked on elimination of all oppositions. He silenced every free voice by employing terror tactics.

Yazid threatened Imam Husain (A.S.)’s life as Imam(A.S.) strongly disapproved Yazid’s un-Islamic functioning and refused to give bay’ah. As grandson of the holy Prophet (S.A.) and son of Ali (A.S.) and Fatema (A.S.), Imam Husain (A.S.) had an extra-ordinary importance in the Islamic world. Yazid’s tyranny increased due to his illegitimate appointment as Caliph of Islamic state and he wanted to get some legitimacy by compelling Imam Husain for giving him Bay’ah. Yazid’s greed for power and glory and his atrocities to remain unchallenged, ultimately lead to the martyrdom of Imam Husain (A.S.) and his handful companions.

The fear and confusion of common Muslims in such situations are worth pondering over especially by Dawoodi Bohras. The common Muslims were confused whether they should fight against Yazid or remain loyal and faithful to him as he was the ruler of an Islamic state? Or they should fight against Imam Husain (A.S.) as he was opposing their ruler or be faithful to him as Husain was standing firm on the ideals of Islam? The confusion was seen till the last moment. When Muslim bin Aqueel entered Kufa on 18,000 Muslims gave bay’ah for Husain on his hand and 40,000 Muslims joined him for Namaz in the masjid of Kufa. But as soon as heartless and cruel Ziyad replaced liberal governor (Amil) of Kufa, al-Nauman, every one deserted Muslim bin Aqueel. The ‘fear’ made them hide in safety. Again when Imam Husain entered in Kufa and offered midday prayers, on hearing call to prayer, the Muslims from Yazid’s side also joined Imam Husain in the prayer lead by him but by evening they killed and beheaded him.
Similarly the Dawoodi Bohras are also a fearful and confused lot today.

I need not compare the Moawiyah’s deviation and radical shift from Khilafat to Mulukiyyat and Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb’s deviation from Dawat to Sultanate. I also need not compare the lives of simplicity lived by the Prophet of Islam and his Ahle-byate with the luxurious lifestyle adopted for the first time by our 51st and 52nd Syedna Sahebs, their insistence on Misaq to them and their unending love for wealth, power and glory. It is for Bohras to compare incident by incident the life of the Umayyads and that of our last two Dais and drive their conclusion.
My only request is let’s not forget the lessons of the past. During nine days of Moharram instead of crying out and chase-beating let’s study the stand taken by our revered Imam Husain and try to take more righteous and courageous position in our own lives. Let’s respond to Imam Husain’s message that:
“It is better to die fighting for truth than to live under an oppressive and exploitative ruler.”

[Mubarak]

3) They did not appoint their successors from the Caliph’s family and left the matter to the Muslim umma.

Insaf bhai, correction needed in above statement:

Abu Bakr appointed Umar as his successor and not let matter to Muslim umma.

Umar appointed a Shura to appoint his successor and not let matter to Muslim umma.

Thanks,

[Mubarak]

Moawiyah was also responsible for destroying democracy

Abu Bakr was first responsible than Moawiyah for destroying democracy.

there is absolutely no place for monarchy or religious hierarchy in Islam.

As per Dawoodi Bohras faith, there is no room for democracy in Islam. Have Prophet Mohammed (s.a.) or any other Prophet declared that after me you all elect my successor? During Prophet Mohammed (s.a.) or Mola Ali (a.s.) time were governors appointed or democratically elected by respective city/village? Per DB faith, there is only 'Ameeriyat' and no 'Jamuhriyat'.

[Mubarak]

Yazid threatened Imam Husain (A.S.)’s life as Imam(A.S.) strongly disapproved Yazid’s un-Islamic functioning and refused to give bay’ah... Yazid’s tyranny increased due to his illegitimate appointment as Caliph of Islamic state and he wanted to get some legitimacy by compelling Imam Husain for giving him Bay’ah. Yazid’s greed for power and glory and his atrocities to remain unchallenged, ultimately lead to the martyrdom of Imam Husain (A.S.) and his handful companions.

The importance of Bay'ah in Dawoodi Bohras can be gauged from above statement.

Khawaja Moinuddin, Ajmer: Imam Hussain gave his head but not his hand to Yazeed with Bay’ah.

So, Insaf bhai, next time don’t outright reject the concept of Bay’ah.

You and we all must definitely oppose the selfish adulteration by Burhanuddin sahib and his parasite family about the current state of Misaq/Bay’ah but should never outrightly reject the concept per se.

[Mubarak]

...the Moawiyah’s deviation and radical shift from Khilafat to Mulukiyyat and Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb’s deviation from Dawat to Sultanate.

Insaf bhai, you are right, said very nicely. May Allah bless you.

[Gulf]

Insaf bhai, correction needed in above statement:

Abu Bakr appointed Umar as his successor and not let matter to Muslim umma.

Umar appointed a Shura to appoint his successor and not let matter to Muslim umma.

Thanks,

Nice to see 'Mubarak'

Mubarak, your quotation is absolutely correct! (as per our Aamil)

[anajmi]

Abu Bakr appointed Umar as his successor and not let matter to Muslim umma.

This might not be completely true. As per snippets found on the internet and books available on amazon, Abu Bakr appointed Umar as his successor after consulting with the companions of the prophet, most notable amongst whom was Hazrat Ali who agreed with the nomination.

[asif786]

Abu Bakr appointed Umar as his successor and not let matter to Muslim umma.

This might not be completely true. As per snippets found on the internet and books available on amazon, Abu Bakr appointed Umar as his successor after consulting with the companions of the prophet, most notable amongst whom was Hazrat Ali who agreed with the nomination.

woh to yeh kahiyeh ardhe the abu talib ka khoon
woh to yeh kahiyeh ardhe the abu talib ka khoon
warna yeh ,warna yeh SUFYAN ko choonthe nubuwat ke liye

[S. Insaf]

Brother Mubarak unintetionally diverted the topic from the main question that last two Dawoodi Bohra Dais are present followers of Umayyads in the disguise of Dai of Maula Ali and Dai of Imam Husain.

[ghulam muhammed]

Brother Mubarak unintetionally diverted the topic from the main question that last two Dawoodi Bohra Dais are present followers of Umayyads in the disguise of Dai of Maula Ali and Dai of Imam Husain.

Insafbhai,

I appreciate your diplomatic response but beg to differ here. People dont spit venom "Unintentionally" every now and then. Mubarak is full of venom and a frustrated soul who needs to come out from the cocoon of Shri Raj and Daimul Islam, just by quoting verses from daimul islam doesnt make one an Islamic scholar, he has zero knowledge of comparative study of religion and plays the same record again and again, the gramophone pin must have completely worn out till now. Your post raises some serious questions and bohras in general need to ponder over it but Mubarak as always is trying to derail the topic into shia/sunni conflict.

The ones who always blame the likes of anajmi and muslim first of diverting topics into shia/sunni conflicts should now express their views for Mubarak also. Inspite of mubarak talking shit most of times, people from both sides of the divide refuse to take him on. Has anyone thought about it as to why orthos as well as progressives dont rubbish mubarak's claim ? The reason is simple.... Mubarak is a master politician who abuses Asgar Ali Engineer and sometimes S.Insaf which satisfies the abdes and the abdes remain quiet. On the other hand he also abuses Burhanudin saab which pleases the progressives and they in turn remain silent. Hence "Ek patthar se do panchi maarna". This way he gets away with all his crap most of the time and it is left for a handful of members on this forum to bash him up.

[jamanpasand]

I don’t understand the Sunnis converts interest in this forum. Are they paid agents of Saudi Wahabi Government. Except for Anajmi, Muslim First and couple of more, majority does not have any interest in Abu Baker, Umar or Usman or Aisha or the Wahabi point of view. Why these few individuals are allowed to ruin every topic of this board.