54 replies to this topic

[Abdul Hussain]

We have several hadiths which show that Imam Ja'far Al-Sadiq (S) designated his younger son Imam Musa Al-Kadhim (S) as the next Imam, so can the Ismailis show any hadiths narrating otherwise, or evidence to show that Ismail had not died and was appointed as the Imam?

[sirshaheed]

As-Salaam,

Ismail from what I understand was part of the blood of the Holy Prophet but was not part of the line of Imams.
Imam Musa was the one designated the next after Imam Jafar and that's far as hadiths state. If there is anything different that's in Najul Balagha, I want to see it. Feel free to email me personally Insha Allah.
Khuda Hafiz,
Sir Shaheed

[Abdul Hussain]

So if there's no hadiths stating Ismail's leadership, on what proofs do the Ismaili's base their thinking?

[Ismailite]

Ismailies do not have hadith, they have historical sources proving their claims:

Hatim bin Imran bin Zuhra (d. 498/1104) writes in "al-Usul wa'l Ahakam" that, "Ismail was the most perfect, the most learned and the most excellent of the sons of Jafar as-Sadik."

Ismail was declared many times by his father as his successor, and said on an occasion, while Ismail was present, according to "Asraru'n-Nutaqa" (comp. 380/990) that "He is the Imam after me, and what you learn from him is just the same as if you have learnt it from myself."

Asraru'n-Nutaqa" adds, "When Ismail completed 7 years of age, the Lord of religion (Jafar Sadik) declared him the master of religion and his heir-apparent, as his next in descent. He guarded him from his other sons, kept him away from the contact with the public, and his education went on under his own supervision."

According to "Marifat Akhbari'r-Rijal" (comp. after 280/890) that in the absence of his father from Medina, Ismail acted on behalf of his father as the head of family. It is also narrated in "Uyun'l-Akhbar" (comp. 842/1438) that Mualli bin Khunyas, a wealthy Iranian and a famous narrator was killed and his property was confiscated by the order of the Abbasid governor of Medina, Daud bin Ali. Masudi (d. 346/958) also asserts in his "Kitab al-Tanbih wal Ishraf" (ed. de Goeji, Leiden, 1894, p. 329) that Daud bin Ali had killed many persons by order of Abul Abbas, the first Abbasid caliph and the number of victims was about eighty persons. While in the matter of Mualli bin Khunyas, however, Jafar Sadik was absent from Medina, therefore, the dispute was solved by Ismail in the year 133/751.

Farhad Daftary writes in "The Ismailis: their History and Doctrines" (London, 1990, pp. 93-4) that, "According to the majority of the available sources, Jafar al-Sadiq had designated his son Ismail as his successor, by the rule of the nass. There can be no doubt about the authenticity of this designation, which forms the basis of the claims of the Ismailiyya and which should have settled the question of al-Sadiq's succession in due course."

It should be recalled that the Abbasids had gained power on the slogans of the Alids. Later, their slogans took a political shape to the right of caliphate in the house of Abbas on religious ground. Abbas as-Saffah, the founder of the Abbasid dynasty, was to be succeeded by his son like the tradition of the Imamate in the house of Ali bin Abu Talib from father to son. Conversely, Abbas as-Saffah was succeeded by his brother, Mansur. He also boosted to legitimize the line of Banu Abbas on religious ground, and determined to have a same effect in the house of Ali bin Abu Talib, that a brother could succeed by a brother. He diplomatically seems to have rolled a tradition of change of nass in the house of Jafar Sadik by bringing Musa Kazim to the line of Imamate. Thus, in the theory of change of nass, the Abbasids gained more than one benefit. The Shiite orbits, who had acquired the knowledge of the doctrines of Imamate from Imam Muhammad Bakir and Imam Jafar Sadik, however, ruled out the theory of change of nass.

The landmark principle of Shia Islam is that the Imamate can only be passed on from one Imam to the next in succession by the divinely-inspired investiture (nass). It is a divine ordination and a cardinal article of Shiism. This principle is sometimes referred to the covenant (ahd) from father to a son. According to "Basa'ir ad-Darajat" by as-Saffar (vide BA, vol., 23, p. 73), Imam Jafar Sadik had said: "Each Imam knows the Imam who is to come after him, and so he appoints him as his successor." It implies therefore that the three different reasons shown by the aggressive historians for change of nass in favour of Musa Kazim, seem to have been fabricated, challenging the spiritual knowledge of Jafar Sadik. According to Abdulaziz Abdulhussein Sachedina in "Islamic Messianism" (New York, 1981, p. 153), "It implied God's change of mind (bada) because of a new consideration, caused by the death of Ismail. However, such connotations in the doctrine of bada (change of mind) raised serious questions about the nature of God's knowledge, and indirectly, about the ability of the Imams to prophesy future occurrences."

The European scholar Marshall Hodgson writes in "The Order of the Assassins" (Netherland, 1955, p. 63) that, "Such a withdrawal (of nass) evidently was not historical." Nawbakhti (d. 310/912) writes in "Kitab Firaq al-Shia" that, "Yet another version is that by appointing his son, Ismail, as an Imam, Jafar Sadik thus resigned. Ismail was therefore a real Imam, and after him, the Imamate has to pass to his son, Muhammad." Shahrastani (1076-1153) also writes in "Kitab al-milal wa'l-nihal" (p. 144) that, "Designation (nass), however, cannot be withdrawn, and has the advantage that the Imamate remains in the descendants of the person designated, to the exclusion of others. Therefore, the Imam after Ismail is Muhammad bin Ismail."

In sum, the Abbasids brought Musa Kazim to claim for his right on one side, and made an intensified search of Ismail on other, indicating to understand that Ismail was a legitimate Imam in the eyes of the Abbasids. W.Ivanow writes in "Ismailis and Qarmatians"(JBBRAS, Bombay, 1940, p. 58) that, "Musa apparently was recognized by the secular authorities as the legitimate successor of Imam Jafar in his position, so far as it was concerned with the outer world." W. Montgomery Watt also writes that the political moderates had preferred Musa Kazim, vide "The Formative Period of Islamic Thought" (Edinburgh, 1973, p. 271). We have to admit that the Abbasids mustered a large following for Musa Kazim in Medina, and the snares of spies were also planted to watch signs of disloyalty emanating from him. It was also a policy to gather the scattered Shiites at Medina under the leadership of Musa Kazim, and strike a final blow upon them to get an end of the belief of the Imamate among the Shiites.

W.Ivanow writes in "Early Shiite Movements" (JBBRAS, 1941, Bombay, p. 20) that, "This was the atmosphere in the family of the descendants of Imam Jafar as-Sadik, the line of his son Musa, who lived in the full light of publicity at the court of the Abbasids. It is therefore easy to understand that many of their devout supporters might easily lose all respects for them, and come over to support the elder line, of Ismail b. Jafar, who lived in the impenetrable mystery of concealment, and about whom the public could know only what their dais were authorised to tell them."

Some interesting questions:

If Ismail had died before his father, then why even after the death of Jafar, were the Abassids still searching for Ismail?
Why was Ismail reportedly seen in Basra and Syria after his supposed death?
Why was Ismail proclaimed successor to Jafar Sadiq? Did the Imam make a mistake?

[Abdul Hussain]

Those 'historical references' do not have a chain of transmission, like hadiths. Rather they are the opinions of those authors, who by no means are among the elite of the Shia school. There are many ahadiths, which are certified as being authentic, that state Imam Al-Kadhim (S) was appointed directly, by 'nass' as the next Imam by his father. There are also hadiths which show Ismail died during the life of Imam Al-Sadiq (S) and he mourned for him because he was among the best of his children. All these references you provided are not historically verifiable because they are opinions rather than facts based on a chain of transmission.

[Ismailite]

Excuse me brother,

did you know that most hadiths are indeed fabrications, forgeries, and utterly corrupted?

it seems convenient that whichever Shia sect is without an Imam seems to find the appropriate hadiths to go along with them.

Every one of you had different versions of hadith.

Bottom line....hadiths have no historical integrity. When ppl do reserach, they quote from sources, not hadiths, because hadiths are baseless.

[jalal27]

you guys don't need hadith because you follow your iman right does he pray like muslims I am just asking .

[mohammed25]

ismailite can u explain here why u follow ismail when clearly this historical source says he died 5 years before before Imam Al-Sadiq , how cld ismail have been the imam, if he had already been called to the mercy of Allah?

[Ismailite]

we follow Ismaili because:

1) nass was given in his favour - testified by Ismaili, Ithna Ashari, and Sunni sources.
2) while most sources say he died before his father, other sources say that he was sent away into concealment as a means of protection and that he succeeded his father in due course. There are eyewitness accounts of Imam Ismail being in Basra 3 days after his 'supposed death'. The Govenor of Basra himself became a follower of Ismail.

[syed_shia]

so ur saying theres only 7 imams????? loads of hadith in both sunni shia say theres 12 successors never did it say 7..

in al kafi it says, that the imam quotes that there are 12 holy months, the year is the prophet and the months are dedicated to each imam, which imam ali name is engraved on the moon with the name of Allah,,, since he is the wali of god...

so dont ismalies believe in the 12th imam IMAM MEHDI?

[iraqi_shia]

I follow the Quran and the sunna, historical accounts written by mickey duck andfranky nobody dont do it for me.

QURAN AND SUNNAH AS UNDERSTOOD BY THE AHL BAYT AS.

}
//end of getMyPoint func.

[Bro.Djibril]

Ismailite, on Dec 16 2003, 11:30 AM, said:

Ismailies do not have hadith, they have historical sources proving their claims:

Hatim bin Imran bin Zuhra (d. 498/1104) writes in "al-Usul wa'l Ahakam" that, "Ismail was the most perfect, the most learned and the most excellent of the sons of Jafar as-Sadik."

Ismail was declared many times by his father as his successor, and said on an occasion, while Ismail was present, according to "Asraru'n-Nutaqa" (comp. 380/990) that "He is the Imam after me, and what you learn from him is just the same as if you have learnt it from myself."

Asraru'n-Nutaqa" adds, "When Ismail completed 7 years of age, the Lord of religion (Jafar Sadik) declared him the master of religion and his heir-apparent, as his next in descent. He guarded him from his other sons, kept him away from the contact with the public, and his education went on under his own supervision."

According to "Marifat Akhbari'r-Rijal" (comp. after 280/890) that in the absence of his father from Medina, Ismail acted on behalf of his father as the head of family. It is also narrated in "Uyun'l-Akhbar" (comp. 842/1438) that Mualli bin Khunyas, a wealthy Iranian and a famous narrator was killed and his property was confiscated by the order of the Abbasid governor of Medina, Daud bin Ali. Masudi (d. 346/958) also asserts in his "Kitab al-Tanbih wal Ishraf" (ed. de Goeji, Leiden, 1894, p. 329) that Daud bin Ali had killed many persons by order of Abul Abbas, the first Abbasid caliph and the number of victims was about eighty persons. While in the matter of Mualli bin Khunyas, however, Jafar Sadik was absent from Medina, therefore, the dispute was solved by Ismail in the year 133/751.

Farhad Daftary writes in "The Ismailis: their History and Doctrines" (London, 1990, pp. 93-4) that, "According to the majority of the available sources, Jafar al-Sadiq had designated his son Ismail as his successor, by the rule of the nass. There can be no doubt about the authenticity of this designation, which forms the basis of the claims of the Ismailiyya and which should have settled the question of al-Sadiq's succession in due course."

It should be recalled that the Abbasids had gained power on the slogans of the Alids. Later, their slogans took a political shape to the right of caliphate in the house of Abbas on religious ground. Abbas as-Saffah, the founder of the Abbasid dynasty, was to be succeeded by his son like the tradition of the Imamate in the house of Ali bin Abu Talib from father to son. Conversely, Abbas as-Saffah was succeeded by his brother, Mansur. He also boosted to legitimize the line of Banu Abbas on religious ground, and determined to have a same effect in the house of Ali bin Abu Talib, that a brother could succeed by a brother. He diplomatically seems to have rolled a tradition of change of nass in the house of Jafar Sadik by bringing Musa Kazim to the line of Imamate. Thus, in the theory of change of nass, the Abbasids gained more than one benefit. The Shiite orbits, who had acquired the knowledge of the doctrines of Imamate from Imam Muhammad Bakir and Imam Jafar Sadik, however, ruled out the theory of change of nass.

The landmark principle of Shia Islam is that the Imamate can only be passed on from one Imam to the next in succession by the divinely-inspired investiture (nass). It is a divine ordination and a cardinal article of Shiism. This principle is sometimes referred to the covenant (ahd) from father to a son. According to "Basa'ir ad-Darajat" by as-Saffar (vide BA, vol., 23, p. 73), Imam Jafar Sadik had said: "Each Imam knows the Imam who is to come after him, and so he appoints him as his successor." It implies therefore that the three different reasons shown by the aggressive historians for change of nass in favour of Musa Kazim, seem to have been fabricated, challenging the spiritual knowledge of Jafar Sadik. According to Abdulaziz Abdulhussein Sachedina in "Islamic Messianism" (New York, 1981, p. 153), "It implied God's change of mind (bada) because of a new consideration, caused by the death of Ismail. However, such connotations in the doctrine of bada (change of mind) raised serious questions about the nature of God's knowledge, and indirectly, about the ability of the Imams to prophesy future occurrences."

The European scholar Marshall Hodgson writes in "The Order of the Assassins" (Netherland, 1955, p. 63) that, "Such a withdrawal (of nass) evidently was not historical." Nawbakhti (d. 310/912) writes in "Kitab Firaq al-Shia" that, "Yet another version is that by appointing his son, Ismail, as an Imam, Jafar Sadik thus resigned. Ismail was therefore a real Imam, and after him, the Imamate has to pass to his son, Muhammad." Shahrastani (1076-1153) also writes in "Kitab al-milal wa'l-nihal" (p. 144) that, "Designation (nass), however, cannot be withdrawn, and has the advantage that the Imamate remains in the descendants of the person designated, to the exclusion of others. Therefore, the Imam after Ismail is Muhammad bin Ismail."

In sum, the Abbasids brought Musa Kazim to claim for his right on one side, and made an intensified search of Ismail on other, indicating to understand that Ismail was a legitimate Imam in the eyes of the Abbasids. W.Ivanow writes in "Ismailis and Qarmatians"(JBBRAS, Bombay, 1940, p. 58) that, "Musa apparently was recognized by the secular authorities as the legitimate successor of Imam Jafar in his position, so far as it was concerned with the outer world." W. Montgomery Watt also writes that the political moderates had preferred Musa Kazim, vide "The Formative Period of Islamic Thought" (Edinburgh, 1973, p. 271). We have to admit that the Abbasids mustered a large following for Musa Kazim in Medina, and the snares of spies were also planted to watch signs of disloyalty emanating from him. It was also a policy to gather the scattered Shiites at Medina under the leadership of Musa Kazim, and strike a final blow upon them to get an end of the belief of the Imamate among the Shiites.

W.Ivanow writes in "Early Shiite Movements" (JBBRAS, 1941, Bombay, p. 20) that, "This was the atmosphere in the family of the descendants of Imam Jafar as-Sadik, the line of his son Musa, who lived in the full light of publicity at the court of the Abbasids. It is therefore easy to understand that many of their devout supporters might easily lose all respects for them, and come over to support the elder line, of Ismail b. Jafar, who lived in the impenetrable mystery of concealment, and about whom the public could know only what their dais were authorised to tell them."

Some interesting questions:

If Ismail had died before his father, then why even after the death of Jafar, were the Abassids still searching for Ismail?
Why was Ismail reportedly seen in Basra and Syria after his supposed death?
Why was Ismail proclaimed successor to Jafar Sadiq? Did the Imam make a mistake?

Wa Salaam,

Bro. Ismailite, a hadith is a historical source whether it is true or false. Isn't that what history is....a series of true and false events? It just depends on what side of the event you are on. Let me ask you, if Ismail (R.A.) were really the rightful Imam, is there anywhere within the "ancient sources" that can show where Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) mentioned his successors by name and Ismail (R.A.) were among them? I have seen many works from the Ahlul Sunnah from "ancient times" that name the Twelve Imams (A.S.) of the Shia that can be traced back to Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.). These traditions when looked at closely precede the Abbasid and the Umayyad caliphates in age.

Also, nass doesn't have to be father to son as Isa (A.S.) and Yahya (A.S.) were cousins. Isa (A.S.) succeeded Yahya (A.S.). Musa (A.S.) was a brother to Haroon (A.S.) and when Haroon (A.S.) died before Musa (A.S.) then Imamate passed to Yushua ibn Nun (A.S.), a cousin of Musa (A.S.). It does not have to be father to son. The most evidence against that is that Amirul Momineen (A.S.) was not the son of Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) but the Imamate function which the Prophet (S.A.W.) held passed to him.

The other question, I would have is that, I say this out of all due respect, from my reading there are conflicts even within the Nizari Ismaili community (the followers of the Agha Khan) history. If nass is passed from father to son as is the Nizari claim, then why does the 22nd Imam of the Nizari, Al-Qahir Bin Al-Muhammad, not have the name of the 21st Imam within his name? The 21st Imam of the Nizari is Al-Mohtadi Bin Al-Hadi. Why isn't the 22nd Imam known as Al-Qahir Bin Al-Mohtadi? Correct me if I'm wrong.

The other thing that bothered me is that Hassan ibn Sabbah asked other dais, on his deathbed, to accept the 21st Imam as their Imam and he even named his, Hassan ibn Sabbah, successor as the Chief Dai. This came off the Ismaili website that i check out on occasion.

"Imam Hadi was about 25 years old when he came to Alamut. When Hasan bin Sabbah felt that death was approaching him, he called to Alamut an important Dai, Kiya Buzurg Ummid, from the fortress of Lamasser of which he was in charge. Hasan bin Sabbah asked Kiya Buzurg Ummid to be the Chief Dai of the Imam after him. He further introduced Imam Hadi to all who were present there and asked them to accept Imam Hadi as the rightful Imam.

Why wouldn't the Imam name Hassan's successor? After all, if he is Imam then he has charge over him. The other problem I have is that it seems that in modern times the Nizari Imams have had no problem supporting "taghut" regimes such as the British. This came of the same Ismaili website:

"The services rendered by Mowlana Shah Hasan Ali in Sind also proved his staunch attachment to the British cause. For these services, rendered at personal risk and danger, he was awarded the hereditary title of "His Highness" by the British."

Now, this is the 1st Agha Khan and since we are dealing with "historical sources" how could he support the British? They took colonialism to a new level. They wrote the book on "The White Man's Burden". They are the main reason why there is such a chain reaction of events going on in the Middle East today. Why would he support the British when their whole aim was to make sure that "the sun never sets on the British Empire". Now, if he was Imam Zaman with divine inspiration of Allah (S.W.T.) would he not be able to have seen through the British?

These are just questions that have bothered me. Do not take offence to them. I do not mean any harm or ill will.

I forgot to show the website where I got this information from so I am editing this post. It would not be fair of me to post information and not show where I got it: http://www.amaana.or...ntents/main.htm This is the Ismaili website that I review on occasion. There is some really good information that has helped me understand various Islamic concepts over the years but I have trouble understanding the Nizari concept of Imamate.

Wa Salaam,
Djibril

Edited by Bro.Djibril, 23 June 2004 - 10:25 PM.

[Bro.Djibril]

Wa Salaam,

Bro. Ismailite, any thoughts on my previous post?

Wa Salaam,
Djibril

[schatoor]

Well Ismailite hasn't replied, but allow another Ismaili brother to do so.....

Quote

Also, nass doesn't have to be father to son as Isa (A.S.) and Yahya (A.S.) were cousins. Isa (A.S.) succeeded Yahya (A.S.). Musa (A.S.) was a brother to Haroon (A.S.) and when Haroon (A.S.) died before Musa (A.S.) then Imamate passed to Yushua ibn Nun (A.S.), a cousin of Musa (A.S.). It does not have to be father to son. The most evidence against that is that Amirul Momineen (A.S.) was not the son of Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) but the Imamate function which the Prophet (S.A.W.) held passed to him.

I wonder, how do you know who was an Imam and who wasn't before Hazrat Ali ? I mean, the institution of Imamah wasn't even manifest until Ali . Only with Haroon could you say that he was Imam.

Quote

The other question, I would have is that, I say this out of all due respect, from my reading there are conflicts even within the Nizari Ismaili community (the followers of the Agha Khan) history. If nass is passed from father to son as is the Nizari claim, then why does the 22nd Imam of the Nizari, Al-Qahir Bin Al-Muhammad, not have the name of the 21st Imam within his name? The 21st Imam of the Nizari is Al-Mohtadi Bin Al-Hadi. Why isn't the 22nd Imam known as Al-Qahir Bin Al-Mohtadi? Correct me if I'm wrong.

The other thing that bothered me is that Hassan ibn Sabbah asked other dais, on his deathbed, to accept the 21st Imam as their Imam and he even named his, Hassan ibn Sabbah, successor as the Chief Dai. This came off the Ismaili website that i check out on occasion.

"Imam Hadi was about 25 years old when he came to Alamut. When Hasan bin Sabbah felt that death was approaching him, he called to Alamut an important Dai, Kiya Buzurg Ummid, from the fortress of Lamasser of which he was in charge. Hasan bin Sabbah asked Kiya Buzurg Ummid to be the Chief Dai of the Imam after him. He further introduced Imam Hadi to all who were present there and asked them to accept Imam Hadi as the rightful Imam.

Why wouldn't the Imam name Hassan's successor? After all, if he is Imam then he has charge over him.

Your first question is easy Go to http://www.ismaili.n...history614.html
The name of the Imam before al-qahir was Muhammad bin Ali, surnamed al-Mohtadi. So his son is al-Qahir bin Al-Muhammad.
Much information gets lost in history. I coulden't possibly answer the second question in any meaningfull way. Nor is it fair of you to ask such an detailed question.
The Islamic world was in decline long before the English arrived to colonize the Islamic world. You had two options; 1) resist and be humiliated or 2) play along and grab an opportunity when it presents it's self.
There have been few as dedicated to the betterment of the Islamic world as the Ismaili Imams, especially in recent times. Go to google and type ' pakistan, independence, "aga khan" ' and see what you find...

[lotfilms]

Is there any "historical" evidence of Ismael claiming the Imamat? Or are you Ismaelis (this is addressing a particular person) similar to the Christians ascribing divinity to Jesus even though he never claimed it?

salam

[Cypress]

lotfilms, on Mar 30 2009, 12:12 PM, said:

Is there any "historical" evidence of Ismael claiming the Imamat? Or are you Ismaelis (this is addressing a particular person) similar to the Christians ascribing divinity to Jesus even though he never claimed it?

Ismail died before his father. His son, Muhammad ibn Ismail, therefore received the Imamate. Ismail is buried in Jannat al-Baqi.

No living Shi'i group believes Ismail survived; the issue is whether the Imamate passed to Musa al-Kazim or to the son of Ismail al-Mubarak, Muhammad ibn Ismail. Those who believed the former are the ancestors of the modern Twelvers. Those who believed the latter are the ancestors of the Ismaili.

The concept of badah is a Twelver idea: it holds that Ismail had the nass, but because he died, it was then given to Musa. I don't know much about it, but I know that it is an argument made by Shaykh as-Saduq that does accept Ismail had the nass.

Groups that believed Ismail went into Occultation all died out.

[ImamAliwabas]

Ayatallah Sistani said if you dont follow the 12 imams AS all yr religion is null and void.

[Cypress]

ImamAliwabas, on Mar 30 2009, 08:57 PM, said:

Ayatallah Sistani said if you dont follow the 12 imams AS all yr religion is null and void.

And the Pope says that if you don't believe Christ was God incarnate your religion is null and void. What the heck do Ismailis care what Sistani says? That's like telling 12ers to listen to the fataawah of bin Baaz.

Next time, pay attention to the thread before posting less than wise comments.

[ImamAliwabas]

Cypress, on Mar 31 2009, 01:35 PM, said:

And the Pope says that if you don't believe Christ was God incarnate your religion is null and void. What the heck do Ismailis care what Sistani says? That's like telling 12ers to listen to the fataawah of bin Baaz.

Next time, pay attention to the thread before posting less than wise comments.

Why get angry mrs miss whichever? This is a twelver forum so sometimes you have to excuse us when we quote our scholers i forget some ismailis may be present. excuseimmwa like the french say lol

[Cypress]

ImamAliwabas, on Mar 31 2009, 02:28 AM, said:

Why get angry mrs miss whichever? This is a twelver forum so sometimes you have to excuse us when we quote our scholers i forget some ismailis may be present. excuseimmwa like the french say lol

Even if there were no Ismailis present, why would you make such a comment? I know this is a 12er site, I'm just saying it's not a terribly constructive addition to a thread on the origin and theory of the Ismaili faith no matter who is reading. It's not like 12ers don't already think Ismailis are deviated from the 12er path, right?

I don't mean to be a jerk, though. It just was one of those comments where I was like WHY WOULD YOU SAY THAT?

Anyway I dunno who "Ismailite" is, but yeah. Ismailis clearly and unequivocably agree that Ismail predeceased his father, there's no monkey business going around there.

We also don't number the A'immah the same way, so ironically Ja'far is to us the FIFTH Imam-designate and Ismail the SIXTH, but of course his son Muhammad was seventh so I guess it's not a totally off-base situation. Muhammad went into hiding (satr), which isn't the same as Occultation - Ismailis don't believe in Occultation. (The Bohras believe their Imams are in hiding, but not that it's a single person, but rather a lineage.)

[macisaac]

Cypress, on Mar 31 2009, 05:05 AM, said:

Even if there were no Ismailis present, why would you make such a comment? I know this is a 12er site, I'm just saying it's not a terribly constructive addition to a thread on the origin and theory of the Ismaili faith no matter who is reading. It's not like 12ers don't already think Ismailis are deviated from the 12er path, right?

I don't mean to be a jerk, though. It just was one of those comments where I was like WHY WOULD YOU SAY THAT?

Anyway I dunno who "Ismailite" is, but yeah. Ismailis clearly and unequivocably agree that Ismail predeceased his father, there's no monkey business going around there.

We also don't number the A'immah the same way, so ironically Ja'far is to us the FIFTH Imam-designate and Ismail the SIXTH, but of course his son Muhammad was seventh so I guess it's not a totally off-base situation. Muhammad went into hiding (satr), which isn't the same as Occultation - Ismailis don't believe in Occultation. (The Bohras believe their Imams are in hiding, but not that it's a single person, but rather a lineage.)

According to the Nizaris he's the fifth, but according to the Musta`lis he's the sixth (like with Twelvers). As to occultation, actually the Isma`ilis did used to believe in that prior to the Fatimids, namely, that Muhammad b. Isma`il was the Qa'im in ghayba who would one day return. It was one of the da`is, Sa`id b. al-Husayn, that eventually claimed he in fact was the Imam and the new claim was propagated that Muhammad b. Isma`il was really just a code word for all the hidden Imams. This split the movement into the ones who continued to believe the older claim that Muhummad b. Isma`il was the Qa'im who would return in an apocalyptic scenario, the Qaramita, and those who accepted the new claims of the da`i. The older notion never really got reconciled into the Fatimids theology, so in studying Isma`ilism one find this odd conflict of irreconcilable and conflicting claims. (With the later Nizaris it gets even more convulated). Oddly though, Sa`id's (later calling himself `Ubaydullah (or `Abdullah) al-Mahdi) geneological claim was _not_ that he was descended from Muhammad b. Isma`il, but rather from `Abdullah b. Ja`far (i.e. the elder son whom the Fathiyya believed had succeeded Imam Sadiq ). The Fatimids later adjusted this (yet another shift) to claiming he (and thus they) were descended from Muhammad b. Isma`il.

[SpIzo]

Cypress, on Mar 30 2009, 10:21 PM, said:

The concept of badah is a Twelver idea: it holds that Ismail had the nass, but because he died, it was then given to Musa. I don't know much about it, but I know that it is an argument made by Shaykh as-Saduq that does accept Ismail had the nass.

The idea of Twelver Shi'i is also this that bada' does not occur in Prophethood/Imamate.

Sayyed Qazwini answers:

[indent]

Quote

Our scholars believe that the twelve Imams of Ahlul Bayt were well determined and known during the time of the holy Prophet . The Prophet mentioned all twelve Imams by their names. Thus, most of our scholars do not believe that Bada' occurred in Imamate, and that after it had occurred the following Imam would be declared.

There is actually consensus amongst the scholars that Bada' cannot occur in Prophethood and Imamate. There are many traditions that explicitly state that Bada' cannot occur in the declaration and appointment of an Imam. As you have mentioned, there are some narrations that claim Imam Al-Sadiq said that Bada' occurred after his son Ismail died, but our scholars state that these traditions are not referring to the Imamate of Ismail. Instead, Ismail was supposed to die, but Imam Al-Sadiq asked Allah (swt) to keep him alive, and Allah (swt) did keep him alive. So Bada' occurred here and he remained alive the first time, but he later died. Some took such narrations to indicate that Bada' occurred in Imamate, but it wasn't so, as Imam Al-Sadeq was referring to the expected death of his son Ismail.

Imam Al-Sadeq greatly loved his son Ismail, and he was very dear to his heart. He was also his oldest son. Thus, many during the life of Imam Al-Sadeq thought that Ismail would be the next Imam. When he died, however, it became very clear to everyone that he could not have been the Imam. For many reasons, many of which were political, Imam Al-Sadeq did not publicly announce the Imamate of Al-Kadhem . He had only informed those whom he trusted and were firm believers in Allah (swt).

Ismail died in 142 A.H., and Imam Al-Kadhem was born in 128 A.H., which means that Imam Al-Kadhem was 14 years old when his brother Ismail died. The nass on Imam Al-Kadhem's Imamate was not only given when he was in the cradle or five years old. During various stages of Imam Al-Kadhem's life, Imam Al-Sadeq declared him as the next Imam.

[/indent]

[real_light]

nice Article

Thanks for sharing.

Jazak Allah Khair.

Masah Allah
Keep going

[Awakened]

Quote

For many reasons, many of which were political, Imam Al-Sadeq did not publicly announce the Imamate of Al-Kadhem .

How would the masses know whom to follow in that case? is there blame for not knowing the Imam when it's not publicly announced?

wa salam