384 replies to this topic

[JimJam]

princevisram, on 25 July 2010 - 02:52 PM, said:

I never really thought of it that way, but once again there are many interpretations and I'm sure we can all respect each other's. Although I firmly believe in reincarnation, I still see how other may not and I respect their views. Another reason the above ginan (as well as many other ginans) would reference reincarnation could be because they were mainly sung to convert Hindus to Islam (particularly the Ismaili sect) and because the Hindus believe in it, sharing their beliefs could better help them understand (teaching them through their own words basically)... Although I still wouldn't doubt their beliefs in rebirth due to the numerous amounts of times they mention it in their Ginans.. but like I said before, the Ismaili Pirs and Dais weren't the only ones; look at Rumi and other world-famous Muslims...

Although the Sufis like Rumi aren't exactly considered by most to be, well , orthodox. Although I accept that orthodox is a term often abused.

Can you tell me, those Nizaris who are not from the subcontinent and have bee cut off from the Khoja tradition i.e Tajik, Afghan, Iranian, Syrian or from Pakistan's Hunza or Chitral.  Do they believe in reincarnation?

[Ishraq]

princevisram, on 24 July 2010 - 11:51 PM, said:

Rebirth is what you can call it. In the Ginans the Pirs mention that if you fall astray from Islam, you will have to live life in another form, another way to make up for your deeds. If you do not fulfil what you have come on this earth for, you will run through the cycles of rebirth. It is a different interpretation.

It is important to note that Ismailis alone do not believe in reincarnation. Many Sufis, for example, follow this belief.

Mowlana Rumi has said,

"I died as mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was man.
Why should I fear?
When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as man,
To soar with angels blest;
But even from angelhood I must pass on ... "

Mansur al-Hallaj has wrote:

Like the herbage
I have sprung up many a time
On the banks of flowing rivers.
For a hundred thousand years
I have lived and worked
In every sort of body.

The Quran also mentions, based on my own and others' interpretation:

"They [the unbelievers] will say: "Our Lord! Twice you have caused us death and twice you have given us life. We now confess our sins. Is there any way out [now]'?" (40:11)

For more noteworthy quotes and interpretations, check out this article:

http://www.adishakti...on_in_islam.htm

First of all, do not quote Rumi or Hallaj (or any other Sufi figure for that matter) in support of your deviant Ismaili beliefs as if you know what they're talking about. Their above quotations have in fact nothing to do with reincarnation whatsoever. They refer, rather, to the central doctrine of al-Insan al-Kamil in Sufism, and were never understood by anyone from that tradition to refer to anything else.

Secondly, regarding your saying:

Quote

"...but once again there are many interpretations and I'm sure we can all respect each other's."

It's false as well. It's not the case that since there are many interpretations, let's just respect (although a person's right to have an interpretation, provided, of course, he's qualified, should be respected) them all and leave it at that, for that disregards the question of truth, which is of prime importance. There might be many interpretations, but that does not mean they're all correct or even valid (i.e. such as the one you've made), or should even be respected. If that were not the case, then would you respect an interpretation of Ismailism by, say, some lay Ismaili, who holds that even though a particular person who claims to be an Ismaili believes that the current Aga Khan is a false imam, he nevertheless can have inclusion into the community? Would you agree with that and allow him inclusion into Ismailism? Or what if another Ismaili person believes that any Ismaili can interpret the Ismaili faith and not just the Aga Khan? Would you respect or accept his interpretation and allow him to believe and do whatever he wants in the faith?

Quote

Although the Sufis like Rumi aren't exactly considered by most to be, well , orthodox.

Rumi is nothing but orthodox.

Quote

Can you tell me, those Nizaris who are not from the subcontinent and have bee cut off from the Khoja tradition i.e Tajik, Afghan, Iranian, Syrian or from Pakistan's Hunza or Chitral.  Do they believe in reincarnation?

If I may, as far as I'm aware Eastern and Western Iranians (i.e. Tajiks and Iranians of modern day Iran) don't really have such beliefs.

[JimJam]

Quote

Rumi is nothing but orthodox.

Rumi drank

[princevisram]

JimJam, on 27 July 2010 - 11:48 AM, said:

Although the Sufis like Rumi aren't exactly considered by most to be, well , orthodox. Although I accept that orthodox is a term often abused.

Can you tell me, those Nizaris who are not from the subcontinent and have bee cut off from the Khoja tradition i.e Tajik, Afghan, Iranian, Syrian or from Pakistan's Hunza or Chitral.  Do they believe in reincarnation?

The other guy seems to want to start war! lol.. Its sometimes annoying to see how much disrespectful people can be on this forum...

Well anyway I'm only going to answer what I know and try to answer what I don't. Of course, no one but a saint such as the  Prophets or ones that have been known to talk to Allah would know just about everything about religion, but again im just putting my two cents together here.

Speaking on reincarnation, we do not believe God can reincarnate. That is what I feel is most important - as opposed to the Hindus. In general I think I can consider the Pirs from the thirteenth century to be "the idol destroyers" because the majority of their work was to convert Hindus and stop Idol worshiping.. Most people don't know what they did in detail, but I'm sure if they learned, they'd be surprised. For example, the hindus celebrate a nine night festival called Navraati (Nav meaning nine and raat meaning nights); and during one of these festivals it is known that Pir Shams had gone into one temple every night and would sing "garbis" or songs trying to convert them and saying things like "Kuljug is the last era, read the last ved (Koran), do not worship idols as they are only stones, etc.". Thereafter, the hindus converted to the Ismaili tradition of Islam. In my opinion, after the major Pirs had passed away, the majority of the Khoja sect thought it was essential to preserve their history and thus keep the Ginans and incorporate them into their prayer.

I sort of took your question of track.... I know the Ismaili's from Pakistan do also listen and sing the Ginans which support the reincarnation idea, however I can not talk on behalf of the Chitral's because I do not know any local Ismailis from these locations... People from Tajik, Afghan, Iranian, Syrian locations sing Qasidas by Dais and Pirs such as Nasir Khusraw and others. I believe Hunzans recite Burushaski Ginans; but unfortunately i am not entirely sure about this and the origins of these Ginans (but i do know that Burushaski is a language isolate; for more click here)

anyway i got to go to school and write my last exam!

[cgil]

ismailis are not muslims - they are nothing short of disbelieving brain washed people of a person who is a cultist.

look at their family - pure evil with no shame ..

also very known for ripping muslims off and speaking against them - and also favouring non muslims ..

[Gypsy]

There are a number of sects that are considered part of Ismailism. Many of them are clearly Muslim.

Many Ismailis believe in Allah swt, the Holy Prophet and love the ahlul bayt. They pray, fast in the Month of Ramadhan and goes to hajj. They also remember Imam Hussein sacrifice.

[89jghur32]

JimJam, on 28 July 2010 - 03:34 AM, said:

Rumi drank

Where did you get this from, bro?

[macisaac]

Zareen, on 18 September 2010 - 02:00 PM, said:

There are a number of sects that are considered part of Ismailism. Many of them are clearly Muslim.

Many Ismailis believe in Allah swt, the Holy Prophet and love the ahlul bayt. They pray, fast in the Month of Ramadhan and goes to hajj. They also remember Imam Hussein sacrifice.

Unfortunately, amongst those more "observant" ones, I have heard that they are also nawasib (against Imam Musa al-Kazhim considering him as a usurper, na`udhu billah).

[Gypsy]

I don’t know about that. To the best of my knowledge, the Ismailis don’t consider Musa Al Kadhim(as) as the Imam because he was a child and according to them children cannot become the Imam only grownup can. They also claimed Musa Al Kadhim was too late on the scene because Imam Jaffar As Sadiq already made Ismail his successor.

The only problem with this theory is that when they established their government in Cairo, a number of Fatimid Imams came to the Fatimid throne while they were children.

[Yasoob Al Deen]

Zareen, on 18 September 2010 - 02:50 PM, said:

I don’t know about that. To the best of my knowledge, the Ismailis don’t consider Musa Al Kadhim(as) as the Imam because he was a child and according to them children cannot become the Imam only grownup can. They also claimed Musa Al Kadhim was too late on the scene because Imam Jaffar As Sadiq already made Ismail his successor.

The only problem with this theory is that when they established their government in Cairo, a number of Fatimid Imams came to the Fatimid throne while they were children.

Wa alaykum assalam wa rahmetu Allah wa barekato.

Are you sure they say this?
I would have expected a response more along the lines of: "we don't consider him as the Imam because his eldest brother Ismail was given the nass. His father faked his funeral because he never really died".

Peace.

[Gypsy]

Yes. That is their official stance. Ismail was given the Nass, so only he was the true Imam. But sadly, Ismail died. He died in the life-time of his father, Imam Jaffar Sadiq(as). Basically, there are two explanations given for this event:
- Ismail didn't die. It was his other brother Abdullah who died.
- Imam Jaffar Sadiq(as) had a mock funeral to fool the government of the time. According to them, Ismail was hidden to preserve his life.

From out point of view (the Ithna Asharis), I have come across some hadiths about Ismail's funeral. In some of these hadiths, it is stated that our sixth Imam has gone to extra step to make sure people knew who he was burying. He even unveil the face of his dead son and asked his companions to identify the dead body. All of them knew who it was. ....it's as if the Imam knew what would happen in the future. (I believe these hadiths are in Al Kafi).

[Yasoob Al Deen]

Zareen, on 19 September 2010 - 06:33 PM, said:

Wa alaykum assalam wa rahmetu Allah wa barekato.

Quote

Yes. That is their official stance. Ismail was given the Nass, so only he was the true Imam. But sadly, Ismail died. He died in the life-time of his father, Imam Jaffar Sadiq(as). Basically, there are two explanations given for this event:
- Ismail didn't die. It was his other brother Abdullah who died.
- Imam Jaffar Sadiq(as) had a mock funeral to fool the government of the time. According to them, Ismail was hidden to preserve his life.

From out point of view (the Ithna Asharis), I have come across some hadiths about Ismail's funeral. In some of these hadiths, it is stated that our sixth Imam has gone to extra step to make sure people knew who he was burying. He even unveil the face of his dead son and asked his companions to identify the dead body. All of them knew who it was. ....it's as if the Imam knew what would happen in the future. (I believe these hadiths are in Al Kafi).

Isn't that the same Abdullah who lived until a number of days (less than a year) after Imam as-Sadiq's, aleyhis salam, death?
Both of the explanations are quite weak considering the amount of evidence to the contrary, and the scarcity of the evidence to support their position.

Peace.

[Gypsy]

Speaking about successor to Imam Jaffar as-Sadiq(as), do you guys know what is the major problem with Ismaili history?  Even an Ismaili historian like Dr Farhad Daftary has acknowledged this fact.  There isn’t a lot of information or stories about their Imams from Ismail until the Fatimid established their government. There isn’t much written about 5-6 of their Imams. There is a lot of mysteries here.

[Educating_Saniya]

Ishraq, on 27 July 2010 - 09:53 PM, said:

I don’t think the Amman Message includes Ismailism for the following simple reason.

P1. The Amman Message only includes Sunni (maliki,hanafi,hanbali,shafi’) and Shia (ja’fari) madhahib.
P2. Ismailism (contrary to the Aga Khan) does not belong either to the (Shia) Ja’fari madhhab or the 4 Sunni madhahib.
C. Therefore, the Amman Message does not include Ismailism.

Erm' yes it does include isma'ilism: http://ammanmessage....id=57&Itemid=42

Isma'ilism belongs to the Imami Shia tradition, and as such bases it's theology on the Jafari Madhab. Where do you think concepts like Imamate, nass, taqiyya etc, emanate from? Given the millenia that separates us, is it hardly surprising that there are differences between the major schools of Imami Shia?

Quote

then would you respect an interpretation of Ismailism by, say, some lay Ismaili, who holds that even though a particular person who claims to be an Ismaili believes that the current Aga Khan is a false imam

No, a pre-requisite for being an Isma'ili Muslim is recognising the current Imam. In matters of faith the Imams word is final. There is no paradox in the Imam setting boundaries, yet allowing an exploration and discussion amongst academics and adherants. The Al-Azhar and Dar-al Hikma are Fatimid examples of just such a direction. Much as you try, there is nothing new here.

Quote

Rumi is nothing but orthodox.

I beg to differ. Rumi rejected a faith focused on ritualism as utterly bigoted, banal and ultimately superficial. The opposing position of the very things for which both you and others condemn Isma'ilis and Rumi.

Quote

If I may, as far as I'm aware Eastern and Western Iranians (i.e. Tajiks and Iranians of modern day Iran) don't really have such beliefs.

The most powerful Sufi group by far in Iran is the Nimutullahi Order, not only is their a historic relationship between their Maulanas and the Isma’ili Imams. Examine their website for their beliefs.

Quote

God as regards the Sharia’ cannot be changed or abrogated by anyone. The reason for this is because only a messenger can change the Law of God by bringing a new one from Him, but since the Prophet (saw) is the last rasul of God, no one can change the Sharia’ he brought because there will not be any new messenger after him. This is one the fundamental tenets of Islam that all Muslims, Sunni and Shia, accept. This is a belief that anyone who takes a look at the Qur’an and the prophetic traditions will inevitably uphold. Now about Ismalis, do they believe in it as well? In short, no they don’t...

That’s all very nice and cosy for you. But Islam has been interpreted and reinterpreted for centuries. Today increasing numbers of progressive Muslim women in particular question the absence of their role in the formation of theology, and are demanding the right to re-examine texts and long held “truths”. I find it intriguing that liberal interpretations receive far more scorn from other Muslims, while repressive Muslim states are often the subject to excuses that are to any rational person fig leafs in light of human rights abuses.

Quote

These rituals were introduced either by their imam or by some high ranking member of their community and the imam approved it. Moreover, and this is the main issue, the fundamental basis for all this is their belief that their imam has the authority to change the laws of the Sharia’. By doing that, their imam takes on the function of the Prophet and in a sense brings a new Law or can bring a new one. Why else are they so different from the rest of Muslims in terms of practices? More importantly, what consequence has this now for the belief that Muhammad (saw) is the last rasul of God?

Your central objection to Isma'ilism appears to be rooted in the superficial artifice of ritual. At the turn of the last century the Imams were faced with the unenviable position of holding together a disparate community, struggling to maintain or assert a common identity, many Iranian members of the jammat were being integrated into the greater ithna ashari community, the process of coversion to Islam for the South Asian community was for the the most incomplete and many were being  drawn back to Hinduism, scholarship was almost entirely decimated since the destruction of Alamut, the rise of colonialism and the challenges of the enlightenment etc.

Every major innovation in practice by the Imams has been to solve these very issues while gradually moving the community toward more orthodox practices. The previous Imam created a shorter Qu’ranic Du’a to replace the myriad of Du’as practiced by British Indian Isma’ili, and practicing the Namaz in congregation. The current Imam has encouraged Khanas to offer services for breaking fasts during Ramadan and has reintroduced the the Namaz. You may not agree with the pace of their changes, but the focus on the esoteric will remain paramount, and the community will progress together as a united people.

[AliDoost]

The Imam Ali(AS) did not even consider the Kharijites as non-Muslims.  Rather only when they took up political violence, he had to defend himself.

We follow the 12 Imams, however whoever states the Shahada, and believes the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HP) is the last prophet of God, he is a Muslim.  So even if we disagree with the beliefs of some Sunnis, Ismailis, or any other group, it is not up to us to give such a verdict
that they are Muslims or non-Muslims.  Afterall, the Wahabis are doing the same with regards to us Shi'ites, as well as many other sects.    Also the issue is not limited to Muslims.  We have no right to claim that the Jews, Christians, Bhuddists, Zoroastrians, Hindus and etc. are going to hell.    

As Imam Ali said: "They are either your brother in faith or your brother in humanity".  So even if a sect does not believe in the 12 divinely appointed Imams , it is not  up to us to condemn them.

[Ishraq]

Quote

Isma'ilism belongs to the Imami Shia tradition, and as such bases it's theology on the Jafari Madhab. Where do you think concepts like Imamate, nass, taqiyya etc, emanate from?

So do a lot of other heretical sects, but they, including you, are not Jafari proper. To be Jafari, it is not enough to simply have certain connections to their theology; it rather means to accept that theology (and the other disciplines i.e. fiqh, etc, as one’s own). All you have done is simply contrived your heresy (i.e. the doctrines which are exclusively Ismaili in nature) and then loosely connected them to the Jafari madhab in order to procure some legitimacy for yourself in the eyes of Muslims, particularly Shi’is.

Quote

Given the millenia that separates us, is it hardly surprising that there are differences between the major schools of Imami Shia?

The differences are not due to the “millenia that separates [you].” They’re rather due to the false beliefs which you, and others, have contrived.

Quote

No, a pre-requisite for being an Isma'ili Muslim is recognising the current Imam. In matters of faith the Imams word is final.

That was exactly my point. In the same way, your (Ismaili) views aren’t respected and you’re not considered Jafari proper.

Quote

I beg to differ. Rumi rejected a faith focused on ritualism as utterly bigoted, banal and ultimately superficial. The opposing position of the very things for which both you and others condemn Isma'ilis and Rumi.

Is this what you’re taught in your Jamatkhanas? You have no idea what Rumi believed, especially as regards the nature of rituals because you, as an Ismaili, have no idea what they truly are. To you, a ritual is something your imam, almost on whim I should say, mandates for you to follow. This is not the case with rituals in the Sunni/Sufi and Twelver Shi’i/’Irfan tradition; they are not something whimsical and based on external circumstances as they are in your (Ismaili) view. And I do not condemn Rumi, nor do the great ‘urafa and hukuma of the Twelver Shi’i tradition, but only the dogmatic jurists because they lack vision. However, all of them do condemn you.

Quote

The most powerful Sufi group by far in Iran is the Nimutullahi Order, not only is their a historic relationship between their Maulanas and the Isma’ili Imams.

The least you can do is follow the discussion properly.  What I said concerned whether or not other Ismailis, like Khoja Ismailis, believed in reincarnation. What you’ve mentioned in your reply is irrelevant.

Quote

That’s all very nice and cosy for you. But Islam has been interpreted and reinterpreted for centuries. Today increasing numbers of progressive Muslim women in particular question the absence of their role in the formation of theology, and are demanding the right to re-examine texts and long held “truths”. I find it intriguing that liberal interpretations receive far more scorn from other Muslims, while repressive Muslim states are often the subject to excuses that are to any rational person fig leafs in light of human rights abuses.

Interpretation does not mean, as it does for you, changing what the sacred text actually says. And who are this ‘increasing number of women’, the likes of Irshad Manji, etc? I couldn’t care less about what ‘progressive (in the modern sense) Muslim women want. Muslim women the world over are, on the whole, very much content with their roles in Islam – this is especially true of Western converts.  

Any endeavor to re-examine texts in the Twelver Shi’i tradition has to be done in light of the Qur’an, Sunnah, and the sayings of the 12 infallible ones as well as the interpretive (intellectual) tradition. Not only that but one must be qualified before one undertakes the task.

Quote

Every major innovation in practice by the Imams has been to solve these very issues while gradually moving the community toward more orthodox practices. The previous Imam created a shorter Qu’ranic Du’a to replace the myriad of Du’as practiced by British Indian Isma’ili, and practicing the Namaz in congregation. The current Imam has encouraged Khanas to offer services for breaking fasts during Ramadan and has reintroduced the the Namaz. You may not agree with the pace of their changes, but the focus on the esoteric will remain paramount, and the community will progress together as a united people.

Nobody, including your imam, has authority,in principle, to alter what the Prophet – alayhi salatu wa salaam, brought as regards the sharia’. This is fundamental to the integrity of Islam as a whole. So your excuse, I’m afraid, isn’t good enough. Let me emphasize again a point wroth emphasizing: we don’t object to your imam altering the sharia’ because of circumstances, we rather object to it because, in your doctrines, he has this authority in principle. That is to say, even if the circumstances were favorable to him, he would nevertheless be able to change the sharia’ if he wills to do it. This is completely unacceptable to Muslims generally.

[Educating_Saniya]

Ishraq, on 11 October 2010 - 12:23 PM, said:

So do a lot of other heretical sects, but they, including you, are not Jafari proper. To be Jafari, it is not enough to simply have certain connections to their theology; it rather means to accept that theology (and the other disciplines i.e. fiqh, etc, as one’s own). All you have done is simply contrived your heresy (i.e. the doctrines which are exclusively Ismaili in nature) and then loosely connected them to the Jafari madhab in order to procure some legitimacy for yourself in the eyes of Muslims, particularly Shi’is.

That's a pretty story, but not a coherent argument. These are not simply "connections" but form the very fundamentals of our faith and always have. How and when do you believe they were  "contrived" and "loosely connected" given the historical context in which the Imami Shia of the Jafari Madhab split into two groups that would go onto form Isma'ilism and the Twelver?

Quote

The differences are not due to the “millenia that separates [you].” They’re rather due to the false beliefs which you, and others, have contrived.

That's not an argument, just a superficial statement of your belief, which rest assured you have already established.

Quote

That was exactly my point. In the same way, your (Ismaili) views aren’t respected and you’re not considered Jafari proper.

Not respected by whom specifically? All serious  academics and thoughtful Muslims accept we are Jafari. There is not a single Islamic community which hasn't been the subject of derision by someone somewhere. Meh'

Quote

Is this what you’re taught in your Jamatkhanas? You have no idea what Rumi believed, especially as regards the nature of rituals because you, as an Ismaili, have no idea what they truly are. To you, a ritual is something your imam, almost on whim I should say, mandates for you to follow. This is not the case with rituals in the Sunni/Sufi and Twelver Shi’i/’Irfan tradition; they are not something whimsical and based on external circumstances as they are in your (Ismaili) view. And I do not condemn Rumi, nor do the great ‘urafa and hukuma of the Twelver Shi’i tradition, but only the dogmatic jurists because they lack vision. However, all of them do condemn you.

Given that I have participated in symposium on Rumi held by the Iranian Cultural Foundation, and leading institutions on two continent,s and the great reverence Isma'ili hold for Rumi; I believe I am qualified to speak quite comfortably on the subject.

To you ritual and tradition is your religion. The violent, illiterate, misogynistic societies in which you inhabit surpassed not merely by the people of the book, but also by the pagan Far-East is proof enough. Indeed Isma'ili proudly take the essence of our faith looking to the future, for that I will never be ashamed. You may not condemn Rumi, however given the vile attacks upon Sufi shrines in Pakistan recently, and the historic animosity  so many of your so called unified co-religionists appear to hold for Sufism, your condemnation of Isma'ili holds little water.

Quote

The least you can do is follow the discussion properly.  What I said concerned whether or not other Ismailis, like Khoja Ismailis, believed in reincarnation. What you’ve mentioned in your reply is irrelevant.

Reincarnation is something that Satpanith adhere to, no-longer Nizari. They broke away during the Mughal invasion and rule.  

Quote

Interpretation does not mean, as it does for you, changing what the sacred text actually says. And who are this ‘increasing number of women’, the likes of Irshad Manji, etc? I couldn’t care less about what ‘progressive (in the modern sense) Muslim women want. Muslim women the world over are, on the whole, very much content with their roles in Islam – this is especially true of Western converts.

Any endeavor to re-examine texts in the Twelver Shi’i tradition has to be done in light of the Qur’an, Sunnah, and the sayings of the 12 infallible ones as well as the interpretive (intellectual) tradition. Not only that but one must be qualified before one undertakes the task.

Women like Fatima Mernissi, Leila Ahmad, and Asma barlas, many of these women are from the Islamic world have written in the languages of Islamic civilisation. Most women have no choice but to remain unseen in the shadows of society, and content with their lot. Irshad Manji is a publicity hound and has no value or impact beyond the right wing American establishment.

Quote

Nobody, including your imam, has authority,in principle, to alter what the Prophet – alayhi salatu wa salaam, brought as regards the sharia’. This is fundamental to the integrity of Islam as a whole. So your excuse, I’m afraid, isn’t good enough. Let me emphasize again a point wroth emphasizing: we don’t object to your imam altering the sharia’ because of circumstances, we rather object to it because, in your doctrines, he has this authority in principle. That is to say, even if the circumstances were favorable to him, he would nevertheless be able to change the sharia’ if he wills to do it. This is completely unacceptable to Muslims generally.

Much of your Sharia was brought to you by your Imams and latter scholars centuries after the Prophet (saw).  Whether you and others object or not is irrelevant to an Isma'ili, just as your sense of justice and humant rights is met with bemusement by us and much of the civilised world. We will seek to co-operate and form relationships with those Muslims with which we can have mutual respect. Plenty of Shia, Sunni, and Sufi theologians co-operate with Isma'ili institutions and welcome our Imam as a brother. My own community funded a soup kitchen programme with a local Sunni Mosques participation under the umbrella of Muslim charity. The others irrelevant.

[ibnekhaldoun]

Educating_Saniya, on 11 October 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

That's a pretty story, but not a coherent argument. These are not simply "connections" but form the very fundamentals of our faith and always have. How and when do you believe they were  "contrived" and "loosely connected" given the historical context in which the Imami Shia of the Jafari Madhab split into two groups that would go onto form Isma'ilism and the Twelver?


That's not an argument, just a superficial statement of your belief, which rest assured you have already established.


Not respected by whom specifically? All serious  academics and thoughtful Muslims accept we are Jafari. There is not a single Islamic community which hasn't been the subject of derision by someone somewhere. Meh'


Given that I have participated in symposium on Rumi held by the Iranian Cultural Foundation, and leading institutions on two continent,s and the great reverence Isma'ili hold for Rumi; I believe I am qualified to speak quite comfortably on the subject.

To you ritual and tradition is your religion. The violent, illiterate, misogynistic societies in which you inhabit surpassed not merely by the people of the book, but also by the pagan Far-East is proof enough. Indeed Isma'ili proudly take the essence of our faith looking to the future, for that I will never be ashamed. You may not condemn Rumi, however given the vile attacks upon Sufi shrines in Pakistan recently, and the historic animosity  so many of your so called unified co-religionists appear to hold for Sufism, your condemnation of Isma'ili holds little water.

Reincarnation is something that Satpanith adhere to, no-longer Nizari. They broke away during the Mughal invasion and rule.  

Women like Fatima Mernissi, Leila Ahmad, and Asma barlas, many of these women are from the Islamic world have written in the languages of Islamic civilisation. Most women have no choice but to remain unseen in the shadows of society, and content with their lot. Irshad Manji is a publicity hound and has no value or impact beyond the right wing American establishment.

Much of your Sharia was brought to you by your Imams and latter scholars centuries after the Prophet (saw).  Whether you and others object or not is irrelevant to an Isma'ili, just as your sense of justice and humant rights is met with bemusement by us and much of the civilised world. We will seek to co-operate and form relationships with those Muslims with which we can have mutual respect. Plenty of Shia, Sunni, and Sufi theologians co-operate with Isma'ili institutions and welcome our Imam as a brother. My own community funded a soup kitchen programme with a local Sunni Mosques participation under the umbrella of Muslim charity. The others irrelevant.

By assuming a neutral stance, may I try to disentangle both of you ...

while ithna ashari are not misygynist ... iranian women are excelling over men in academics and science inside the IRI ... under the purdah ...

and as a small sect of nizaris before the age of internet, roads, cars, and even pigeons ... and before the printing press must be substantially affected by mongol dispersion which even the ahle sunna decry as the end of their islamic scholarship with the libraries of baghdad darkening the waters of the river(s) ... it must be extremely hard to survive for small groups widely dispersed ...

[Ishraq]

Quote

That's a pretty story, but not a coherent argument. These are not simply "connections" but form the very fundamentals of our faith and always have. How and when do you believe they were "contrived" and "loosely connected" given the historical context in which the Imami Shia of the Jafari Madhab split into two groups that would go onto form Isma'ilism and the Twelver?

You are not Jafari for the same reason that the Druze, Bahais, Alevis, and the various other sects which split off from you (Ismailism), are not Jafari. All of these sects, you included, more or less perhaps, have some sort of a ‘loose’ connection to the teachings of the first 5 Imams (or 4 in your case), but that does not mean that they are therefore Jafari. Your contrived doctrines are the doctrines which distinguish you from Twelvers (e.g.  your belief that your imam can alter the sharia’, to name just one.) not the general concepts of Imamah, and so on which make Shia Islam Shia Islam. These (i.e. your particular Ismaili beliefs) are not Twelver doctrines, which is to say that they are therefore not doctrines of the Jafari madhhab.

Quote

That's not an argument, just a superficial statement of your belief, which rest assured you have already established.

What nonsense. You think that your beliefs differ from that of Twelvers due, somehow, to merely the passage of time? If you mean that Ismailism changed its doctrines depending on the context in which it found itself, then, again, this was a totally false manner of proceeding. Time does not determine truth; rather it’s the other way around. Your imam, or other memebers of you community, willfully, for certain false reasons (i.e. the nature of the environment in which they found themselves) decided to ‘contrive’ false doctrines and thereby ‘separated’ from the Twelvers (Jafari madhhab). There’s no clearer example of this than the pretentions of your imam and his followers during the time of Alamut when he and his followers judged themselves to be free from the sharia’ and claimed to have ‘lifted’ it from his followers. This sort of stupidity is what separates you from us.

Quote

Not respected by whom specifically? All serious academics and thoughtful Muslims accept we are Jafari. There is not a single Islamic community which hasn't been the subject of derision by someone somewhere. Meh'

No serious scholar respects your doctrinal views. They might respect the various philanthropic activities of your imam and your community but on the level of doctrines no scholar takes what you have to say seriously. I mean common, you think that Sunni or Twelver shi’i scholars will ever accept the claims of your imam to alter what the Prophet (s) brought as regards the sharia’ given what they believe about the nature of the Qur’an and the centrality of the Sunna in its understanding? You have to be kidding me.

Quote

To you ritual and tradition is your religion.

To you the whims of your imam is your religion.

Quote

The violent, illiterate, misogynistic societies in which you inhabit surpassed not merely by the people of the book, but also by the pagan Far-East is proof enough. Indeed Isma'ili proudly take the essence of our faith looking to the future, for that I will never be ashamed. You may not condemn Rumi, however given the vile attacks upon Sufi shrines in Pakistan recently, and the historic animosity so many of your so called unified co-religionists appear to hold for Sufism, your condemnation of Isma'ili holds little water.

Don’t assume things about. My ‘co-religionists’ are not people who attack Sufism. Wahhabism or its Shi’i equivalent is not my religion. Any Muslim who attacks authentic Sufism or ‘Irfan does not know anything about either one.

Quote

Reincarnation is something that Satpanith adhere to, no-longer Nizari. They broke away during the Mughal invasion and rule.

I know that. My point was precisly that non-khoja Ismailis generally don’t believe is such a concept. Pay attention.

Quote

Much of your Sharia was brought to you by your Imams and latter scholars centuries after the Prophet (saw). Whether you and others object or not is irrelevant to an Isma'ili, just as your sense of justice and humant rights is met with bemusement by us and much of the civilised world. We will seek to co-operate and form relationships with those Muslims with which we can have mutual respect. Plenty of Shia, Sunni, and Sufi theologians co-operate with Isma'ili institutions and welcome our Imam as a brother. My own community funded a soup kitchen programme with a local Sunni Mosques participation under the umbrella of Muslim charity. The others irrelevant.

So what? That is not to say that they changed, as they saw fit (like your imam), whatever the Prophet (s) had practiced. You know nothing about my sense of justice and human rights. Stop assuming things about me. If you want to know ask me and I’ll tell you. They (non Ismaili scholars) may work for your institutions, but they don’t accept your doctrinal views. They may even respect your imam (as a person, who tries to do good), as do I, but they certainly don’t accept him as any sort of authority in matters of correct belief/practice. That’s precisely my point.

Edited by Ishraq, 15 October 2010 - 12:43 AM.

[ibnekhaldoun]

Ishraq, on 15 October 2010 - 12:41 AM, said:

You are not Jafari for the same reason that the Druze, Bahais, Alevis, and the various other sects which split off from you (Ismailism), are not Jafari. All of these sects, you included, more or less perhaps, have some sort of a ‘loose’ connection to the teachings of the first 5 Imams (or 4 in your case), but that does not mean that they are therefore Jafari. Your contrived doctrines are the doctrines which distinguish you from Twelvers (e.g.  your belief that your imam can alter the sharia’, to name just one.) not the general concepts of Imamah, and so on which make Shia Islam Shia Islam. These (i.e. your particular Ismaili beliefs) are not Twelver doctrines, which is to say that they are therefore not doctrines of the Jafari madhhab.



What nonsense. You think that your beliefs differ from that of Twelvers due, somehow, to merely the passage of time? If you mean that Ismailism changed its doctrines depending on the context in which it found itself, then, again, this was a totally false manner of proceeding. Time does not determine truth; rather it’s the other way around. Your imam, or other memebers of you community, willfully, for certain false reasons (i.e. the nature of the environment in which they found themselves) decided to ‘contrive’ false doctrines and thereby ‘separated’ from the Twelvers (Jafari madhhab). There’s no clearer example of this than the pretentions of your imam and his followers during the time of Alamut when he and his followers judged themselves to be free from the sharia’ and claimed to have ‘lifted’ it from his followers. This sort of stupidity is what separates you from us.



No serious scholar respects your doctrinal views. They might respect the various philanthropic activities of your imam and your community but on the level of doctrines no scholar takes what you have to say seriously. I mean common, you think that Sunni or Twelver shi’i scholars will ever accept the claims of your imam to alter what the Prophet (s) brought as regards the sharia’ given what they believe about the nature of the Qur’an and the centrality of the Sunna in its understanding? You have to be kidding me.



To you the whims of your imam is your religion.



Don’t assume things about. My ‘co-religionists’ are not people who attack Sufism. Wahhabism or its Shi’i equivalent is not my religion. Any Muslim who attacks authentic Sufism or ‘Irfan does not know anything about either one.



I know that. My point was precisly that non-khoja Ismailis generally don’t believe is such a concept. Pay attention.




So what? That is not to say that they changed, as they saw fit (like your imam), whatever the Prophet (s) had practiced. You know nothing about my sense of justice and human rights. Stop assuming things about me. If you want to know ask me and I’ll tell you. They (non Ismaili scholars) may work for your institutions, but they don’t accept your doctrinal views. They may even respect your imam (as a person, who tries to do good), as do I, but they certainly don’t accept him as any sort of authority in matters of correct belief/practice. That’s precisely my point.

I am not the main participant in this thread. However, I wish to point out that this contrasts substantially with the politeness that Brother Shabbir Hassanalli used in discussing the matter between our Ahle Sunna brothers and us - and references he brought from the Holy Quraan.

There are two points in this matter :

1/ We should show the kind of generosity to our Ismaili brothers that we show to the Ahle Sunna or will be accused of bending to power.

2/ The pakistani shias should not try to spoil the sacrifices and achievements made by our Iranian and Lebanese brothers at great sacrifices and exemplary demonstration of patience, politeness, and righteousness.

3/ It is a true fact that scholarship of people tends to deteriorate in the environment of persecution and communications in the past had no resemblance to the email that we send in seconds from one end of the globe to another. Please, constantly bear in mind the incident of the Mongols and its effect on the Abbasid Caliphate and the libraries of Iraq.

4/ For example, today, only after 10 years in the reign of Obama - after the EXIT of BUSH and CHENEY, has the president of Iran spoken in the UN about 911. Why did not a leader in the muslim world speak about it ? because the media was controlled by the others ? Well, in the two caliphates, our own scholars know that the mass media of that time (ie the mosques) were controlled by the establishment of that time. Dr Ahmadinejad said it at a time of his own choosing and assessment.

Thanks for your kind understanding in this matter.

[sunflower9]

I just read the book Alamut - a novel based on the life of Hasan Ibn Sabbah the founder of Hashashin (Assassin).

To be honest, in that book, IMHO he didn't seems to be a good muslim.

Alas, the book is a work of fiction.

[munirmt]

YaAli(as), on 30 September 2009 - 03:51 PM, said:

Is it true that Ismailis do no consider salat to be wajib, alcohol is no longer prohibited, gambling is permissible. I would like for an Ismaili to answer.

When you say Ismailis, you must specify which Ismailis are u talking about. There few sub sects of Ismailis like bohras, Aga khani,  etc... I dont know much about Aga Khanis but the bohras definitely consider Salat as Wajib and offer Salat 5 times a day. Alchohol and any kind of intoxicating product is strictly prohibited whether consuming it or producing it or selling it or being involved in any kind of deals related to Intoxication. Gambling is also prohibited.

[Ishraq]

munirmt, on 19 October 2010 - 09:45 AM, said:

When you say Ismailis, you must specify which Ismailis are u talking about. There few sub sects of Ismailis like bohras, Aga khani,  etc... I dont know much about Aga Khanis but the bohras definitely consider Salat as Wajib and offer Salat 5 times a day. Alchohol and any kind of intoxicating product is strictly prohibited whether consuming it or producing it or selling it or being involved in any kind of deals related to Intoxication. Gambling is also prohibited.

As for Aga Khanis (i.e. Nizari and Khoja Ismailis), salat ( the five obligatory prayers) is not wajib. In fact, they don't pray salat properly speaking; it has been replaced  with a 'dua' that they say three times a day.

Edited by Ishraq, 19 October 2010 - 10:16 AM.

[JimJam]

Quote

Much of your Sharia was brought to you by your Imams and latter scholars centuries after the Prophet (saw). Whether you and others object or not is irrelevant to an Isma'ili, just as your sense of justice and humant rights is met with bemusement by us and much of the civilised world. We will seek to co-operate and form relationships with those Muslims with which we can have mutual respect. Plenty of Shia, Sunni, and Sufi theologians co-operate with Isma'ili institutions and welcome our Imam as a brother. My own community funded a soup kitchen programme with a local Sunni Mosques participation under the umbrella of Muslim charity. The others irrelevant.

The Ismalis I've had most interaction with are the Bohris.They are like living fossils of the Fatimid age. They do adhere to zahir practices of faith. Nazarism appears to have turned into a movement similar to Qarmatism, where the batin obliterates the zahir instead of being in balance with it.

Quote

Reincarnation is something that Satpanith adhere to, no-longer Nizari. They broke away during the Mughal invasion and rule.

Thing is most Nizaris appear to be Khoja-Satpanitht. Most Ismaili websites promote the ginans Doesn't the Satpanitht make up a large number of the followers of the Agha Khan? Apart from the Chitralis and Hunza natives, almost all the Nizaris in Pakistan are Gujrati / Khojas.

Quote

You may not condemn Rumi, however given the vile attacks upon Sufi shrines in Pakistan recently, and the historic animosity so many of your so called unified co-religionists appear to hold for Sufism, your condemnation of Isma'ili holds little water.

Most of Pakistani society holds the Sufi saints dear. The Barelvi are the largest sect in the country and Shias also venerate men like Abdulllah Shah Ghazi and Lal Shabaz Qalandar for their lineage and piety and love of the ahl-e-bayt. The attacks reflect the ambition of a powerful minority which seeks to overthrow the majority. If most had animosity then there would have been no need for sneak attacks like suicide bombings. They'd have torn them down like the Saudis tore down jannat al baqee

Edited by JimJam, 24 October 2010 - 09:30 AM.

[Educating_Saniya]

Ishraq, on 15 October 2010 - 12:41 AM, said:

You are not Jafari for the same reason that the Druze, Bahais, Alevis, and the various other sects which split off from you (Ismailism), are not Jafari. All of these sects, you included, more or less perhaps, have some sort of a ‘loose’ connection to the teachings of the first 5 Imams (or 4 in your case), but that does not mean that they are therefore Jafari. Your contrived doctrines are the doctrines which distinguish you from Twelvers (e.g.  your belief that your imam can alter the sharia’, to name just one.) not the general concepts of Imamah, and so on which make Shia Islam Shia Islam. These (i.e. your particular Ismaili beliefs) are not Twelver doctrines, which is to say that they are therefore not doctrines of the Jafari madhhab.

Only the Druze have any connection to Isma'ili We are Jafari because the basis of our tariqah is based on the precepts and concepts as laid out in the Jafari Madhab, it is only on the enforcement of  ritual, and details of personal law that we differ. Just as Americans argue between an originalist interpretation of the Constitution and original intent, they are still all considered Americans. Whether you consider our positions contrived or not is irrelevant to the discussion, I'm not here to justify, merely to explain.

Quote

What nonsense. You think that your beliefs differ from that of Twelvers due, somehow, to merely the passage of time? If you mean that Ismailism changed its doctrines depending on the context in which it found itself, then, again, this was a totally false manner of proceeding. Time does not determine truth; rather it’s the other way around. Your imam, or other memebers of you community, willfully, for certain false reasons (i.e. the nature of the environment in which they found themselves) decided to ‘contrive’ false doctrines and thereby ‘separated’ from the Twelvers (Jafari madhhab). There’s no clearer example of this than the pretentions of your imam and his followers during the time of Alamut when he and his followers judged themselves to be free from the sharia’ and claimed to have ‘lifted’ it from his followers. This sort of stupidity is what separates you from us.

Time for us determines not truth, but the outward practice of ritual and law.

Quote

No serious scholar respects your doctrinal views. They might respect the various philanthropic activities of your imam and your community but on the level of doctrines no scholar takes what you have to say seriously. I mean common, you think that Sunni or Twelver shi’i scholars will ever accept the claims of your imam to alter what the Prophet (s) brought as regards the sharia’ given what they believe about the nature of the Qur’an and the centrality of the Sunna in its understanding? You have to be kidding me.

Perhaps when you pull your finger out and your scholars stand up for human rights, rather than hindering them, we and much of the world may take you seriously. Personally I couldn't care less what most of them think, lest they hinder our right to practice. It is on the level of charity that we are as a community interested in dialogue, and on the levelof spirituality with those with whom we have commonality. The rest are of no interest. It gives me no more pause for thought than weather Sarah Palin believes I live in the "Real America". Meh'

Quote

To you the whims of your imam is your religion.

Si.

Quote

Don’t assume things about. My ‘co-religionists’ are not people who attack Sufism. Wahhabism or its Shi’i equivalent is not my religion. Any Muslim who attacks authentic Sufism or ‘Irfan does not know anything about either one.

Yet you make half witted assumptions about my faith? Hypocrisy much? Those scholars form a significant portion of your "co-religionists", but I'll leave it to you ya'll to slug it out in your house.

Quote

I know that. My point was precisly that non-khoja Ismailis generally don’t believe is such a concept. Pay attention.

Most Khoja don't either, having some degree of grounding in the subject before making wild accusations may help you to compose a coherent argument.

Quote

So what? That is not to say that they changed, as they saw fit (like your imam), whatever the Prophet (s) had practiced. You know nothing about my sense of justice and human rights. Stop assuming things about me. If you want to know ask me and I’ll tell you. They (non Ismaili scholars) may work for your institutions, but they don’t accept your doctrinal views. They may even respect your imam (as a person, who tries to do good), as do I, but they certainly don’t accept him as any sort of authority in matters of correct belief/practice. That’s precisely my point.

We don't expect them to accept our doctrines, the AKDN recruits from international development courses on the basis of merit not religious persuasion.  

JimJam, on 24 October 2010 - 09:27 AM, said:

The Ismalis I've had most interaction with are the Bohris.They are like living fossils of the Fatimid age. They do adhere to zahir practices of faith. Nazarism appears to have turned into a movement similar to Qarmatism, where the batin obliterates the zahir instead of being in balance with it.

I've had a lot of experience with the Progressive Bohra movement. Their Imamate ended with the Fatimid Empire. The Nizari have only recently regained guidance from our Imam who is focussed on reorganising our community, rebuilding institutions and creating a commonality in ritual. Ever major "inovation" the Imams have introduced has been to move the community closer in terms of ritual. So to be fair, I think the comparison to the Quramati is a tad excessive.

Quote

Thing is most Nizaris appear to be Khoja-Satpanitht. Most Ismaili websites promote the ginans Doesn't the Satpanitht make up a large number of the followers of the Agha Khan? Apart from the Chitralis and Hunza natives, almost all the Nizaris in Pakistan are Gujrati / Khojas.

The Ginans were used to convert them, and form a part of their history and Indian culture which the Imam wants them to be proud of in every way. Communal singing of hymns plays an important part of practice in every Khana. I'm a Pashtun so sing Pushtu or Farsi qasida:  Arabs, Persians, Chinese all have their own traditions. Recently I heard Japanese Isma'ili who recite Haiku. None of the approved Ginans they sing relate to reincarnation. The Satpanith are a separate Hindu sect primarily based around Rajasthan, who reverted to Hinduism under Mughal oppression.

Quote

Most of Pakistani society holds the Sufi saints dear. The Barelvi are the largest sect in the country and Shias also venerate men like Abdulllah Shah Ghazi and Lal Shabaz Qalandar for their lineage and piety and love of the ahl-e-bayt. The attacks reflect the ambition of a powerful minority which seeks to overthrow the majority. If most had animosity then there would have been no need for sneak attacks like suicide bombings. They'd have torn them down like the Saudis tore down jannat al baqee

Pakistan has flirted with extremism since Zia al-Haq, it has been riding the tail of a tiger that finally turned. Extremist groups are on the rise.

i've written this on my phone, and I can't be bothered to proof so ya'll will have to make do.