Dai Al Mutlaq is Masoom or is he ?

[Adam]

anajmi,
Thank you. I shall not directly engage with you on this issue any further. Consider yourself having won victory by default because I am simply too exhausted with you to continue.

Wow PORUS. You beat me to it!
Since we're closing this topic (if we are)
Prophet cannot go wrong:
وما ينطق عن الهوى ان هو الا وحي يوحى - Surah Najm (The Prophet doesn't say ANYTHING except as the Wahye says so) - It shoes the Prophet simply cannot make a mistake.
والله يعصمك
and فاستعصم are two interpretations of Masum according to DB Shia belief.

IF you believe the Prophet could make mistakes, then there is a possibility that he could've made a few mistakes here an there in the Quran, or preaching Islam, which is totally unacceptable. Rather it is more like a Salman Rushdie thought.
I hate Salman Rushdie to the core for what he has said, BUT if you think about it, you can't blame him for what he wrote, when the main stream Sunni/Wahabi Muslims actually claim the Prophet was imperfect (could have made mistakes!)! He just repeated what THEY (Sunni/Wahabis) are saying with more incorrect details!

Also, i'd further like to add just to clarify the incorrect claim:
ANJAMI said:

the prophet (saw) couldn't read or write

This isn't the belief of Dawoodi Bohras. According to our sources this is incorrect.
Porus, what is your stance on this? And Proggies? (Sunni s and Wahabis are of ANAJMI s belief, I believe)

[anajmi]

IF you believe the Prophet could make mistakes, then there is a possibility that he could've made a few mistakes here an there in the Quran, or preaching Islam, which is totally unacceptable.

And yet abde idiots are known to have ignored the commands of the prophet (saw).

This isn't the belief of Dawoodi Bohras. According to our sources this is incorrect.

Your sources have been shown to be incorrect time and time again. Consider the irony, Adam and porus both believe that the prophet (saw) in infallible and according to one the Dai is hence infallible and according to the other the Dai is not. Go figure!!

[profastian]

Your sources have been shown to be incorrect time and time again. Consider the irony, Adam and porus both believe that the prophet (saw) in infallible and according to one the Dai is hence infallible and according to the other the Dai is not. Go figure!!

The difference is that one (Adam) has some reason for believing it but for the other it is just an assumption(It is just porus's assumption that prophet was infallible, he doesn't accept any of the reasons given nor gives his own)

[Al Zulfiqar]

@Al Zulfiqar

Is it me or does his comments keep getting immature?

adam,

for someone like you drunk and drowning in his own bullshit, everyone appears the same. your comments on others speak more about you and less about the ones commented upon...

your world revolves around 3 things:
1. SOURCES
2. OTHERS' BELIEFS
3. REFERENCES FROM IMAMS AND DAIS

do you bring up these 3 excellent queries when you visit the toilet every morning to reflect on the sources and references about what you defecate??

i agree with porus that this forum has seen more activity since you arrived here, but that's not because you contribute something sensible and thought provoking. its more because of the outrage that it has sparked from intelligent and rational people who are vehemently protesting the highly biased and skewed kothari sponsored crap that you are posting here, trying to pervert people's beliefs which are firmly grounded in islam.

the angles you promote are blasphemous, unislamic and border on kufr.

[porus]

Your sources have been shown to be incorrect time and time again. Consider the irony, Adam and porus both believe that the prophet (saw) in infallible and according to one the Dai is hence infallible and according to the other the Dai is not. Go figure!!

The difference is that one (Adam) has some reason for believing it but for the other it is just an assumption(It is just porus's assumption that prophet was infallible, he doesn't accept any of the reasons given nor gives his own)

The truth is that the Quran sprang from Muhammad's being. Not having met him personally, I rely upon the testimony of those who had first hand experience of him to conclude that he was the most honest and upright amongst men. Thus I trust Muhammad when he says that Quran is from Allah. I am not 100% convinced, however. So, I operate on the assumption that the Quran is from Allah and is infallible, inerrant word of Allah.

That Muhammad is infallible follows from the Quran. Also, my interpretation of the Quran is that no one except Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain is infallible in the age of islam.

[profastian]

The difference is that one (Adam) has some reason for believing it but for the other it is just an assumption(It is just porus's assumption that prophet was infallible, he doesn't accept any of the reasons given nor gives his own)

The truth is that the Quran sprang from Muhammad's being. Not having met him personally, I rely upon the testimony of those who had first hand experience of him to conclude that he was the most honest and upright amongst men. Thus I trust Muhammad when he says that Quran is from Allah. I am not 100% convinced, however. So, I operate on the assumption that the Quran is from Allah and is infallible, inerrant word of Allah.

That Muhammad is infallible follows from the Quran. Also, my interpretation of the Quran is that no one except Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain is infallible in the age of islam.

But if you are not convinced why believe in the Quran in the first place. At least we are convinced of our belief(rightly or wrongly). You can surely live life without Quran and Mohammad. Is it because these present the best of all the alternatives available?

[anajmi]

This is a perfect example of circular logic. The Quran is the word of Allah because Prophet Muhammad (saw), who is infallible, says so. And the Quran says that the prophet Muhammad (saw) is infallible.

[porus]

Prophet cannot go wrong:

والله يعصمك
and فاستعصم are two interpretations of Masum according to DB Shia belief.

Allahu ya'asimuka from 5:67 fasta'asama from 12:32 refer to God-given protection from sin or inerrancy to Muhammad and Yusuf respectively. Scholars of the Quran term this character trait of Prophets as 'ismatul anbiyaa'.

In ayat 5:67, there is waqf mutlaq (absolute stop, denoted by letter Ta) before and after the words 'wallahu ya'asimuka min an-naas'. That indicates that the sentence stands on its own. My own interpretation of the sentence is that Allah has singled out Muhammad from people to make him infallible.

Also, i'd further like to add just to clarify the incorrect claim:
ANJAMI said:

the prophet (saw) couldn't read or write

This isn't the belief of Dawoodi Bohras. According to our sources this is incorrect.
Porus, what is your stance on this? And Proggies? (Sunni s and Wahabis are of ANAJMI s belief, I believe)

It is a bit unbelievable to consider the person, a Prophet no less. who claims to be the "City of Knowledge", to have been illiterate. I have already discussed this issue on this board.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 49, Number 863, relates that Muhammad could write.

http://dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewtop ... lah#p60906

[porus]

This is a perfect example of circular logic. The Quran is the word of Allah because Prophet Muhammad (saw), who is infallible, says so. And the Quran says that the prophet Muhammad (saw) is infallible.

Muhammad was honest, not infallible, according to his contemporaries. I have said that I believe Muhammad himself never claimed to be infallible even though some people report (yet unverified) episodes where he came close to it.

Thus Muhammad's infallibility is from the Quran, not from Muhammad.

Thus I reject the charge of 'circular logic' in my argument.

[anajmi]

First of all, one doesn't need to read or write to be the city of knowledge because the knowledge from Allah to the prophet (saw) wasn't coming in a written form.
But let us put that argument aside for the time being.

Thus Muhammad's infallibility is from the Quran, not from Muhammad.

Thus I trust Muhammad when he says that Quran is from Allah.

Do you need Prophet Muhammad (saw) to be infallible in order to trust him?

[profastian]

This is a perfect example of circular logic. The Quran is the word of Allah because Prophet Muhammad (saw), who is infallible, says so. And the Quran says that the prophet Muhammad (saw) is infallible.

Muhammad was honest, not infallible, according to his contemporaries. I have said that I believe Muhammad himself never claimed to be infallible even though some people report (yet unverified) episodes where he came close to it.

Thus Muhammad's infallibility is from the Quran, not from Muhammad.

Thus I reject the charge of 'circular logic' in my argument.

Honesty is too weak of a condition to be taken as a primary assumption. People could err with honest intentions.

[porus]

Honesty is too weak of a condition to be taken as a primary assumption. People could err with honest intentions.

My very slight doubt about the Quran being the word of God has nothing at all to do with Muhammad's honesty. It has to do with the content of the Quran itself.

Let me dramatize it this way.

Suppose you know of a very honest person, M, who brings you a message from A about whom you know a lot. In the message A states that you are to trust M absolutely without question. In fact, A says that M is infallible.

It just so happens that you know A to be the Creator of the Universe and you believe 100% that he, A, is infallible in whatever he writes. However, you read in the message something else which does not quite ring true to you. Say, he writes that 'a cow's milk is secreted from its abdomen'. You know that cannot be true and you begin to wonder whether A actually wrote that.

However, you know that most of what A wrote is correct and therefore you set your doubt aside for the moment and continue on the assumption that whatever A writes is true. It would be foolish to discard the entire message because of that doubt. You could operate on the assumption that you have not understood correctly that particular part of the message and that , in time, you may understand it.

Once you assume that the message is from A and is correct, then M's infallibility follows from it. You did not start out assuming M is infallible. You began to accept it after reading the message from your friend A.

[anajmi]

Thank you. That is all I needed to know. The conclusion is that you do not need M to be infallible in order to believe in the message to be the word of A.

It makes M the best of mankind.
It makes M a model for the righteous to follow.
It makes M a mercy to all mankind.
It makes M the second in line to go to for resolving disputes.
Whether it makes M infallible or not is debatable.

[ghulam muhammed]

Dan Barker says that “If faith is a valid tool of knowledge, then anything can be true 'by faith,' and therefore nothing is true. If the only reason you can accept a claim is by faith, then you are admitting that the claim does not stand on its own merits.”

[anajmi]

Bro gm,

Am I supposed to assume that you do not have faith in Allah? Or do you have evidence thereby not requiring faith?

[ghulam muhammed]

Bro gm,

Am I supposed to assume that you do not have faith in Allah? Or do you have evidence thereby not requiring faith?

Bro anajmi,

Please do not gauge my faith in Allah (swt) and Prophet (s.a.w.) based on the proverb quoted above as this proverb has its own interpretations with regard to different mindsets. In abdes words "it is taawil".

[porus]

Dan Barker is a noted atheist. He used to be Christian priest. His arguments are splendid and admirable. Try to catch his debate with Hasanain Rajabali on Youtube.

[anajmi]

Bro gm,

Dan barker isn't differentiating between bohra faith and your faith. He is referring to all faith. If you are quoting Dan Barker to point out errors with bohra faith then why can't someone else quote Dan Barker to point out errors in your faith?

[ghulam muhammed]

[ghulam muhammed]

While on the subject of Prophet (s.a.w.), I recieved a mail which is relevant to the current topic of discussion :-

This article is directed to those who are interested in upholding the values of the Quran , who have reverence for Muhammed ( S.A.W.) the messenger of Allah . The last prophet for all mankind , and to those who study Islamic history , who are interested in knowing some facts about the person about whom the Jewish author observes " one of the greatest men in history " " a hero among the top Hundred personalities in world history .

This particular term " Ummi " to mean unlettered , uneducated appeared most unkind , uncultured and unethical when applied to one of the greatest personalities the world has ever seen or recorded in history
.
I have struggled with the explanation offered by Stalwart Ulema about the person whom they profess to adore and worship. For generations this explanation seems to have been in use without realizing the import of the meaning .
In many of my talks on earlier occasions i had also made similar mistakes in reference to the personality of Muhammed (saw) i found in my research , the ancient name of Mecca was bekka or " Umal Khaira " as Medina was named " yatrib .

Naturally the person born or living in a particular place is commonly associated with the place of living . people living in Delhi are commonly called " delhvi "people born and living in Lucknow are called Lucknowi . Like wise , I up held , the people belonging to Mecca were being called Ummi with reference to Umal khaira the old name
.
I now feel , that I should stand up to correct this misnomer. For a ling time , the Muslims have been unconsciously disrespecting the very personality they profess to adore and respect , because of a huge misunderstanding created by the scholars of Islam influenced by the Persians , the Jews and the christian writers of Islam . Unfortunately , this was repeated over and over again in the speeches given by the Ulema at the Milad ceremony . They called the holy messenger of Allah , the greatest personality in history as " unlettered , uneducated "

A Milad ceremony takes place to profess love and respect for the messenger of God , yet reference are made to disrespect his personality . The factual gist of the teachings as " a way of life " societal reformation has long been forgotten by the Muslim people including the scholars .

The ancient Jews and the latter christian used this term " Ummi " to refer to those race of people who have been ignorant of the message of god . that means to those whom God had not chosen to sent his messenger to enlighten them .

The Jews and Christian of Medina used this term for the Quraish of mecca as the race of people , who were not chosen by God to who no messenger was sent before the last messenger Muhammed ( SAW ) . Until the birth and declaration of prophet-hood by Muhammed (pbuh) . This was the way and style of expression for the Arabs of Arabia , who according to the Jews and christian people were not the chosen ones of God . Hence that race who was considered ignorant of the message of God were termed " ummi " hence all the Arabs in Arabia were called UMMi according to the religious term of the Jews and Christians .

Now for the Muslims the world over to use the term not blessed with the message nor chosen to receive the messenger-ship from God is utter blasphemy against the last messenger of Allah .

According to the reading of the Quran " The last prophet and his companions and those around him were GENTILE race , which means they had no knowledge of God's scripture . In other words the Muslim religionists still deny that Muhammed was not chosen by God to receive the message of God .

This is how the Arabs and the Quraish had accused Muhammed ( saw) of writing tales of the past ( earlier generations and prophets ) when he dictated the Quran to be written and declared to the non believing pagan Arabs .

The term Ummi is not unlettered nor ignorant but a pre- islamic term for the one who was ignorant of the scripture of God .When the Muslims and the world over recognize Muhammed as the last messenger of God it would be derogatory to claim that Muhammed (pbuh) to have remained ignorant of the scripture . Quran is the scripture given to the last messenger of God .

The term " ummi " to mean unlettered , uneducated is an Arab corruption by those who were opposed to the way of life taught by the messenger of God
.
This term Ummi is an ancient term used by the early Jews and then later by the Christians ( who converted the teachings of Jesus into a religion called christianity )

ghiasuddin akbar <ghias_aj@yahoo.com

[asad]

If the king is immoral, so will be his subjects

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... s-subjects

replace congress with Kothar and congress leaders with qasre mawali and you will get the picture more clearer

[ghulam muhammed]

replace congress with Kothar and congress leaders with qasre mawali and you will get the picture more clearer

Dont forget the "Dynastic rule" of congress which is ditto in bohraism, no qualifications, no integrity, only dynasty.

[Adam]

@ghulam muhammed
Your post about UMMI is very interesting and I too have received it in my mail.
Simply said, what has been said is in accordance to DB beliefs, rather I will add, that this concept was discussed and clarified by the Fatimid Duaats over a 1000 years ago. (If you read the texts you will realize it).
We DO NOT believe that the Prophet couldn't read or write and our texts state the same as this work.

Unfortunately YOUR FRIEND anajmi wont agree.
I leave it to you too.

@PORUS
Be patient.

[asad]

I am still waiting for the hikmat behind Syedna's mum behind embezzlement right under his nose. How can Abde's claim him to be masoom when he cant stop corrupt practices. Either he is not masoom or he is party to corruption. Both cant be true

We have come accross scams and embezzelment of money in tune of corores which was collected in the name of Dai. And culprits are either pardoned or transfered to more plum positions.

only one of the two can be true, Dais knows about this or he does not. If he knows and doesnt do any thing then he is party to corruption and if he doesnt know anything then he is not all knowing which he claims to be. Which will leave a big question mark on him being Masoom.

Answers from Die hard Abde's are solicited specially Adam/Profastian and their elk.

[humanbeing]

Hi Asad

Duhh !! Justice I dont think its happening.

There was a famous scam in Kuwait, where funds collected for Imam Ali's Masjid in Kufa or Sayyeda Fatema's Zari in Madina. Some Guy famously known as Sheikh Ehsaan had a big hand in this scam along with other members. Once caught he was removed from Jamaat committee. Since then he is not in frontline of any jamat endeavors.

Recently I heard, during the Galiyakot trip, Mansoos Mufaddal Bhaisaab blessed Sheikh Ehsaan house with his Kadam Mubarak service.

[ghulam muhammed]

Recently I heard, during the Galiyakot trip, Mansoos Mufaddal Bhaisaab blessed Sheikh Ehsaan house with his Kadam Mubarak service

This is nothing new because the dai and his family mostly (un)bless the houses of crooks. In the past the dai 'blessed' the house of Shaukat Sarkar who served alcohol at the bars in his hotel, then he blessed Narendra Modi with a shawl and a cheque over a crore of rupees, then he blessed L.K.Advani with a shawl in saifee mahal. He had even blessed Haji Mastan and Yusuf Patel with shawls and expensive gifts after pronouncing lanats on the khalifas during mohurrum vayez. The list is endless. It is "Aao bhai harka, apne beve sarka".

[Al Zulfiqar]

the dai is able to bless crooks, their houses and businesses, because he is "ghaib na maalik"

[Smart]

If you see this discussion thread carefully, Adam has been able to steer it from the question of masoomiat of the Dai to the masoomiat of the Rasool. Nice way to divert the attention.

[ghulam muhammed]

If you see this discussion thread carefully, Adam has been able to steer it from the question of masoomiat of the Dai to the masoomiat of the Rasool. Nice way to divert the attention

He also wriggled out when he couldnt defend Nahjul Balagha, a book which he claimed is in line with Fatimid beliefs.

[profastian]

Honesty is too weak of a condition to be taken as a primary assumption. People could err with honest intentions.

My very slight doubt about the Quran being the word of God has nothing at all to do with Muhammad's honesty. It has to do with the content of the Quran itself.

Let me dramatize it this way.

Suppose you know of a very honest person, M, who brings you a message from A about whom you know a lot. In the message A states that you are to trust M absolutely without question. In fact, A says that M is infallible.

It just so happens that you know A to be the Creator of the Universe and you believe 100% that he, A, is infallible in whatever he writes. However, you read in the message something else which does not quite ring true to you. Say, he writes that 'a cow's milk is secreted from its abdomen'. You know that cannot be true and you begin to wonder whether A actually wrote that.

However, you know that most of what A wrote is correct and therefore you set your doubt aside for the moment and continue on the assumption that whatever A writes is true. It would be foolish to discard the entire message because of that doubt. You could operate on the assumption that you have not understood correctly that particular part of the message and that , in time, you may understand it.

Once you assume that the message is from A and is correct, then M's infallibility follows from it. You did not start out assuming M is infallible. You began to accept it after reading the message from your friend A.

So the conclusion is that the content of the message impressed you. The content of the message as you understood it. So why criticize an abde when you are no different. The content of the message impressed us too. The content of the message conveyed to us by the DAI.You used your intellect to understand the message (read from a book) and we used our intellect to understand the message(spoken by a person).