Are Ismaili muslims?

[guest 34193]

Asalam walaikum,

I am very dissappointed that despite being an Administrator of this forum, you decided to make unsubstantiated accusations against the Ismaili Imam and furthermore in malicious endeavour actually insulted the Prphet and Imams that both Ismailis and Ithna Asharis hold in common.

The Ismaili Imam does not consume alcohol nor has he ever consumed alcohol. Unsubtantiated and malicious claims to the contrary are not becoming of the Shia of Hazrat Ali.

Additionaly, your attempt to malign the Current Imam and and his Predecesor for engaging in the sport of horse racing you also malign all the Imam's past and Nabi Muhammad (pbuh) himself who participated in this venerable sport. Lest we forget, horse racing was one of the Prophet's favourite sports and there are numerous hadiths in which the Prophet set's out the rules and prizes appropriate for horse and camel racing.

It is not within the ethics of our faith Islam to make false and ignorant accusations because we are blinded by malice or hatred for the other.

Walaikum salaam

Very well, so I take it you don't believe in the stories of the wine turning into milk when he drinks it. Regardless, you've still got the dilemma on your hands of explaining how your "hazar imam" can justify making profits off of selling alcohol in his hotels. And please, spare us the "it's because it's ok in other people's cultures". When has other people's cultures somehow overruled the law of God and justified profiting from something which is a great sin in our religion. Would it be ok if he ran a prostitution ring in Amsterdam, since that's legal there too?

As to the horse racing, you are the one slandering the Ma`sumeen (as). Yes, horse racing is a good sport. In fact, it's an exception to the gambling rule (for the _rider_ of the horse, not for spectators and owners like your guy). But if you are trying to associate the Ma`sumeen (as) with this filthy activity of hanging around and actively involved in gambling race tracks, you're the one who needs to be repenting.

[guest 34193]

I don't know much about Ismaili belief, almost nothing actually. However, if they believe there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah, they are Muslims.

There is a world of difference between a person being a misguided believer and being an unbeliever. I don't think we need to start excommunicating anyone.

It's not that simple. They don't believe in the Shari`a, thinking that it's duties have been abrogated by the proclamation of the "Qiyamat" at Alamut by one of their supposed imams (during the month of Ramadan wherein he then proceeded to break his fast during the day and commanded his followers to do likewise). As such, they do not believe in the fara'id, e.g. salat, sawm, hajj, etc., giving them "spiritual" interpretations instead or substituting them with their own bid`at, e.g. saying that instead of hajj you do a spiritual pilgrimage to the Agha Khan and replacing the salat with their "du`a". This is enough to remove one from Islam. The one duty they seem to be really big on though is paying their khums to the Agha Khan, supporting him in his lavish lifestyle of a European aristocrat.

Their beliefs are also obscure, leading at times to ghulw regarding their beliefs in their imam. They also appear to believe in reincarnation.

Put all this together, this is not Islam, they are following a separate religion.

[Awakened]

It's not that simple. They don't believe in the Shari`a, thinking that it's duties have been abrogated by the proclamation of the "Qiyamat" at Alamut by one of their supposed imams (during the month of Ramadan wherein he then proceeded to break his fast during the day and commanded his followers to do likewise). As such, they do not believe in the fara'id, e.g. salat, sawm, hajj, etc., giving them "spiritual" interpretations instead or substituting them with their own bid`at, e.g. saying that instead of hajj you do a spiritual pilgrimage to the Agha Khan and replacing the salat with their "du`a". This is enough to remove one from Islam. The one duty they seem to be really big on though is paying their khums to the Agha Khan, supporting him in his lavish lifestyle of a European aristocrat.

Their beliefs are also obscure, leading at times to ghulw regarding their beliefs in their imam. They also appear to believe in reincarnation.

Put all this together, this is not Islam, they are following a separate religion.

What some Shias whom don't seem part of Shariah as not obligatory during Ghayba?

Would they be out of Islam by same standard?

[guest 34193]

What some Shias whom don't seem part of Shariah as not obligatory during Ghayba?

Would they be out of Islam by same standard?

Conditional obligations are one thing. For instance, say someone believes that the wujub of salat al-`eid is conditional upon the presence of the Imam establishing it himself or through his direct representative, hence in the ghayba this is not possible and thus the conditions of it being wajib are not fulfilled. This is not a problem as such. Like for instance, if a person cannot afford to go on hajj, it is not wajib on them to go, even though the farida of hajj itself is still in place. A problem would be if say the person said "I don't have to go to hajj anymore period because my imam has abrogated it and it is no longer wajib". This is denial of a farida, and denying the farida takes you out of Islam. Similarly how denying the hurmat of certain known haram things (like drinking wine) will also take you out of Islam.

[Awakened]

Conditional obligations are one thing. For instance, say someone believes that the wujub of salat al-`eid is conditional upon the presence of the Imam establishing it himself or through his direct representative, hence in the ghayba this is not possible and thus the conditions of it being wajib are not fulfilled. This is not a problem as such. Like for instance, if a person cannot afford to go on hajj, it is not wajib on them to go, even though the farida of hajj itself is still in place. A problem would be if say the person said "I don't have to go to hajj anymore period because my imam has abrogated it and it is no longer wajib". This is denial of a farida, and denying the farida takes you out of Islam. Similarly how denying the hurmat of certain known haram things (like drinking wine) will also take you out of Islam.

It's the same thing as abrogation...

The only thing is that you see in some future time it will be obligatory.

It's denial of a Farida.

I will take the instance of ruling by Islam. Saying you don't have to rule by Islam (if you have enough people to support it and it's obligatory as a nation for people to believe in Islam and support), then this is abrogating a major timeless command. Saying you need an Imam, would be saying God has not made sure his Deen is complete in all times and in all situations...

If you go by the situation of an Imam not being there changes the situation and hence a Hukim does not last...

Then basic premise is

"During certain circumstances, some obligations be made not mandatory"...

There premise is "During certain circumstances, obligations take on different forms"...

The purpose of Hajj was to travel to God and the Messenger (pbuh). All Rituals have an inward... because people are only taking the outward and emphasizing on it, they claim the Imam of that time has seen in this situation, it's better to ignore the outward, and only acknowledge the inward purpose which is the real inner purpose of the outward. It's because the circumstances are changing. Aside from that, they believe as more knowledge increases about haq, then things need to be modified to keep in line with that. I don't agree with this at all, because I believe there is perfect thaher and inward relationship that is timeless and perfect in Islam, but I see the same premise as people have for example of Islamic government being abrogated. The situation without Imam (as) means we can't, and thus the perfect command of ruling by revelation is not so perfect to do anymore and not so obligatory as long as Imam is not there... They see a change of situation means some things that were perfect for that time, is no longer perfect. While it maybe deviate, it certainly is not denying the revelation or the wisdom of the Shariah at the time. We also believe different Shariahs were of different times, but that a revealed Shariah was for all time (well some of us, some of us say for first 250 years, and at the end of times(Imam Mahdi (as) rule - Ahlulbayt (as) rule) only)...

So what makes one Kufr and the other not... Believing a guidance needs to be modified time to time but keeping same underlying principles... or believing a guidance was only for first 250 years and at the end when the world will be a perfect place only, and that it doesn't apply for all the time inbetween... I think the latter is even worse if you think about in the first... the first at least says God is providing a guidance for all these times...but just denying that there is a perfect way for all times but that situations change what perfect principles command do...but the other is denying there is anything really said to do for thousands of years (ie. God is silent about what to do about government, what laws we should rule by, etc)..

[guest 34193]

sigh... try reading what our Imams (as) said about this please:

http://www.*******.org/hadiths/preface-of-the-ibadat/kufr-of-one-who-rejects-the-daruriyat

there's more ahadith in that chapter of Wasa'il, but I didn't get to finishing translating them all:

http://rafed.net/books/hadith/wasael-1/was1002.html#30

[a student]

Very well, so I take it you don't believe in the stories of the wine turning into milk when he drinks it. Regardless, you've still got the dilemma on your hands of explaining how your "hazar imam" can justify making profits off of selling alcohol in his hotels. And please, spare us the "it's because it's ok in other people's cultures". When has other people's cultures somehow overruled the law of God and justified profiting from something which is a great sin in our religion. Would it be ok if he ran a prostitution ring in Amsterdam, since that's legal there too?

Yes I do not believe such ridiculous stories because it is not true and your repeated insinuation as to the contrary have no basis in fact. Do you have any credible sources (not anti-ismaili rhetoric or one of those all too often used ‘my Ismaili friend told me’ stories) to back up your allegations? The answer is definitely NO, because your allegations are false. Once again, I implore you to stop spreading vicious lies and rumours as I feel that deep down this is not your intention.

As for your objection to the serving of alcohol in hotels, etc., that is a question of fiqh and does not go to the question of whether one is Muslim or not. If you are interested in the logic behind permitting such activities, I suggest you either ask the question directly from the Office of the Imam or find someone with more authoritative knowledge regarding this matter because any response I give would be based on conjecture. If you are interested in my thoughts I welcome an email or PM.

As to the horse racing, you are the one slandering the Ma`sumeen (as). Yes, horse racing is a good sport. In fact, it's an exception to the gambling rule (for the _rider_ of the horse, not for spectators and owners like your guy). But if you are trying to associate the Ma`sumeen (as) with this filthy activity of hanging around and actively involved in gambling race tracks, you're the one who needs to be repenting.

I don’t really understand the distinction you are trying to make in this statement. The Prophet and the Imam’s prohibited gambling and also specifically prohibited gambling for spectators in the case of races because this was a common occurrence. Despite such gambling being common and never completely eradicated, the Ma’sumeen partook in horse racing in terms of sponsoring and organising races, entering horses, accepting prizes for the horses/horseriders that they entered. Can you please clarify your objections?

It's not that simple. They don't believe in the Shari`a, thinking that it's duties have been abrogated by the proclamation of the "Qiyamat" at Alamut by one of their supposed imams (during the month of Ramadan wherein he then proceeded to break his fast during the day and commanded his followers to do likewise). As such, they do not believe in the fara'id, e.g. salat, sawm, hajj, etc., giving them "spiritual" interpretations instead or substituting them with their own bid`at, e.g. saying that instead of hajj you do a spiritual pilgrimage to the Agha Khan and replacing the salat with their "du`a". This is enough to remove one from Islam. The one duty they seem to be really big on though is paying their khums to the Agha Khan, supporting him in his lavish lifestyle of a European aristocrat.

Saying that Ismailis do not believe in Shari’a is quite the claim to make and I would really like to know what primary or even secondary sources you have used to come to this conclusion. Logically, in order for an Ismaili Imam to proclaim the abrogation of Shari’a, belief in Shari’a is required. Additionally, the focus of anti-Ismaili commentary on the events during the Imamate of Imam Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam is founded on misunderstanding and shoddy sectarian scholarship.

Awakened was close on the mark in regards to the “Ismaili” perspective (I put Ismaili in quotations because Ismailis are a very diverse group and no one perspective can be universal in its application to the community) on ritual obligation. First of all, the sharia generally accepted in the Ummah was not created over night, neither was it formulated, ritualised or codified during the lifetime of Nabi Muhammad. This does not mean that Nabi did not provide the Ummah with a sharia because he most definitely did. But the Sharia of the prophet was not restricted by mundane and static does and don’ts – His Sharia was dynamic, evolving, and fluid throughout his Prophethood. His Shari’a was was first and foremost based upon the principle of taqwa or God-conciousness/fearing/loving. The Prophet’s entire life and being, his sunnat and sirat is the physical personification of taqwa. It is taqwa that causes one to bow their head in remembrance of Allah (salat), it is taqwa that prompts one to rise above our material wants and pre-occupations and occupy our minds and hearts with Allah through the act of restraint (sawm), it is taqwa that draws one to travel over desserts and oceans to the House of Allah (hajj), it is taqwa that causes one to always recognise one’s own createdness by and indebtedness to Allah through acting in kindness to one’s fellow man (zakat), and ultimately it is taqwa that prompts one to recognise Allah’s hujjat in this world, the divinely appointed Imam and follow his guidance.

The shari’as formulated from the Prophet’s sunnah after His passing are no doubt earnest efforts to codify and apply the Prophet’s Shari’a, but Shi’i theology stresses that Nabi Muhammad is different from the Prophets that came before him who also brought with them divinely inspired Shari’a according to their times. Nabi Muhammad completed our deen and became the Seal of the Prophets and therefore the Shari’a he brought must be complete, timeless and contain within it divine infallible guidance for all issues that have arisen since and will arise indefinitely into the future. The completion of our deen and the transformation from contingent to timeless was made possible through his designation of Hazrat Ali and his progeny thereafter as divinely appointed Imams for the Ummah. The inititation of Imamate is what Allah refers to in the Quran as the mater for which the Prophet’s failure to convey would render the revelation and our deen incomplete. Islam marked the completion of the era of revelation and heralded the era of continual guidance through the institution of Imamate. The Imam in Shi’I theology does not change the Shari’a given by Muhammad but rather ensures the Prophet’s Shari’a retains the vibrancy, fluidity enjoyed by at its inception.

I'll try to address more of your earnest concerns when I have a little more time to write.

Peace.

[rzairul]

Interesting discussions. I think it comes down to validity of the law interpreter itself, i.e. the Imam.

I think the premise of "Sometimes not all aspect of a law known to all Muslims" is valid. For example, Friday & Ied prayers conditional aspects (their obligations are dependent upon the infallibles) are known to us, but not known (& therefore are not recognized) to Sunni. If you use only this principle, the practice of some Ismaili (Nizari) to replace solat to dua still can be justified.

But that's not the whole story. You have to look whether the validity of the law interpreter itself. In Friday & Ied prayers, since the Imams are infallible, we believe that their interpretations are the most accurate. But, for us, that's not the case of the Ismaili Imams.

So I think the debate will be on the validity of the law interpreter instead of the (supposed) change in law.

N.B. I assume here the conditional aspects of Friday & Ied prayers are to be followed literally & can't be substituted by marja during the ghayba. Some marja, such as Najafi who basically says that if an adl marja exists, Friday & Ied prayer are obligatory.

[real0019]

Saying that Ismailis do not believe in Shari’a is quite the claim to make and I would really like to know what primary or even secondary sources you have used to come to this conclusion. Logically, in order for an Ismaili Imam to proclaim the abrogation of Shari’a, belief in Shari’a is required. Additionally, the focus of anti-Ismaili commentary on the events during the Imamate of Imam Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam is founded on misunderstanding and shoddy sectarian scholarship.

Sigh...This claim is correct, refer to the pro-Isma'ili works of W. Ivanow, Farhad Daftary, or Abu Ali A. Aziz - all of whom have been embraced by your recent imams. Hasan 'ala dhikrihis-salam was abolishing the Shari'a on the premise of elevating his followers to a 'batin' level, manifesting this 'Qiyama' by breaking the fast of the Ramadan during daytime (either on the 17th or 19th of Ramadan it was). If you would like me to quote specific works from pro-Isma'ili sources, I have no problem with it.

[NewLight2010]

It's not that simple. They don't believe in the Shari`a, thinking that it's duties have been abrogated by the proclamation of the "Qiyamat" at Alamut by one of their supposed imams (during the month of Ramadan wherein he then proceeded to break his fast during the day and commanded his followers to do likewise). As such, they do not believe in the fara'id, e.g. salat, sawm, hajj, etc., giving them "spiritual" interpretations instead or substituting them with their own bid`at, e.g. saying that instead of hajj you do a spiritual pilgrimage to the Agha Khan and replacing the salat with their "du`a". This is enough to remove one from Islam. The one duty they seem to be really big on though is paying their khums to the Agha Khan, supporting him in his lavish lifestyle of a European aristocrat.

Their beliefs are also obscure, leading at times to ghulw regarding their beliefs in their imam. They also appear to believe in reincarnation.

Put all this together, this is not Islam, they are following a separate religion.

Your assertions are completely unfounded. Maybe you should do some research instead of saying thing like "they appear" or "seem to be"....people with views such as yours defeat the purpose and intent of Islam. You tend to focus on assumptions and duties based on your personal interpretation. You cannot proclaim that Ismailis do not believe in the Shari'a. What proof do you have of that? Your claim about the "supposed imams" further propagates the fact that you do not abide by the basic and fundamental principles of Islam - peace and tolerance. With this kind of ignorance still rampant within the Muslim community, how can we actually achieve peace, unity and prosperity with other communities? I ask you - show some respect and understand that all Muslims ultimately believe in Allah and their path of getting there may be different from yours but who are you to judge? I thought Allah was the ONLY judge.

[Al-Mufeed]

Salam

I want to ask the Ismaili brother an honest question, do you honestly- really believe that this man is Allah's hujjat on the earth, and the current Imam and successor of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ?

I am not trying to put you down or ridicule your beliefs, I'm asking you to sincerely ask your self if you really believe that this man is the successor of the noble household of the Prophet (pbuh) and is this the man you want Allah to resurrect you with on the day of judgment.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Al-Mufeed

[DerFeldMarschall]

Yup, thats what I've read too.

I want to know from a real bohra if like other Isma'ilis

they believe in a sijistani-style pantheism doctrine or

are they different.

From what I understand, Bohris adhere to a system closer to that of al-Kirmani, while AghaKhanis adhere to a system closer to sijistani.

[Awakened]

sigh... try reading what our Imams (as) said about this please:

http://www.*******.org/hadiths/preface-of-the-ibadat/kufr-of-one-who-rejects-the-daruriyat

there's more ahadith in that chapter of Wasa'il, but I didn't get to finishing translating them all:

http://rafed.net/books/hadith/wasael-1/was1002.html#30

Then it would apply to rejecting obligations in Ghayba as well.

[guest 34193]

Then it would apply to rejecting obligations in Ghayba as well.

If it was individual responsibilities like salat and fasting, sure. But none of us say that. Laws that require certain conditions to be properly fulfilled in order for them to be carried out are another matter. Say you don't have the minimum number of Muslims in a city to hold a jum`a salat, then, you can't hold it. Doesn't mean you've "denied" the obligation of jum`a, it's just that it's being obligatory is dependent on the fulfillment of certain criteria, one of which is the minimum amount of attendees. If there are laws that require the presence of the Imam (as) in order to have their conditions of being wajib fulfilled, then obviously the ghayba would make them unfulfillable (in terms of being wajib for instance) until his re-appearance. So no, it isn't the same thing as the kufr of one who denies an responsibility like the daily salat where the presence or ghayba of the Imam (as) does not change its basic obligatoriness.

[Awakened]

If it was individual responsibilities like salat and fasting, sure. But none of us say that. Laws that require certain conditions to be properly fulfilled in order for them to be carried out are another matter. Say you don't have the minimum number of Muslims in a city to hold a jum`a salat, then, you can't hold it. Doesn't mean you've "denied" the obligation of jum`a, it's just that it's being obligatory is dependent on the fulfillment of certain criteria, one of which is the minimum amount of attendees. If there are laws that require the presence of the Imam (as) in order to have their conditions of being wajib fulfilled, then obviously the ghayba would make them unfulfillable (in terms of being wajib for instance) until his re-appearance. So no, it isn't the same thing as the kufr of one who denies an responsibility like the daily salat where the presence or ghayba of the Imam (as) does not change its basic obligatoriness.

Well if some obligations are still obligatory with presence or without presence of Imam (as), then it would per as the hadiths (your intrepretation at least of them), kufr.

If they were not obligatory then it would not be Kufr. But if they are it's Kufr. So to those whom believe these laws, then we would have to conclude those whom deny them are kaffer. And I would say much of the obligations denied are obvious musts for society by Quran clearly (as well by many hadiths).

I simply said if people say certain obligations are abrogated in Ghayba (ie. the fact they remain obligations but they are denied), it would be the same thing.

The hadiths show people whom deny obligations of Quran and Suna, so if it still obligatory in Ghayba, then it's kufr all the same.

[guest 34193]

You're being vague. What laws are you talking about in particular which according to you are being said to be "abrogated" and by whom?

[Awakened]

You're being vague. What laws are you talking about in particular which according to you are being said to be "abrogated" and by whom?

I guess I will have to leave it ambigious because then it would be a whole new topic all together. The issue is if certain things are obligatory now still and if they are by Quran (you can deduce if you think about it sincerely it's obligatory), then it would be kufr by these hadiths.

And according to one of the hadiths (in the 2nd link), if we ascribe something to the Deen not part of the deen, we are Mushriks.

So by definition, this would mean if we got some wrong laws, we would be Mushriks.

Unless it's changed to knowingly denying them...and some other hadiths verify Kufr only to be of such a case. This would apply to everyone equally then, you can't go picking one sect and saying it doesn't apply to them.

wa salam

[guest 34193]

Then open another topic on it. I don't care to argue about vagueries (though I suspect I know what you're referring to and misunderstanding to mean abrogation when it's not)

[Awakened]

Then open another topic on it. I don't care to argue about vagueries (though I suspect I know what you're referring to and misunderstanding to mean abrogation when it's not)

Whatever you term it, any hypothetical obligation that is still obligatory now, if it's obligatory for society to do something right now per Quran and Sunna, and you are denying it, then those hadiths should apply in the same exact way.

[BintAlHoda]

If it was individual responsibilities like salat and fasting, sure. But none of us say that. Laws that require certain conditions to be properly fulfilled in order for them to be carried out are another matter. Say you don't have the minimum number of Muslims in a city to hold a jum`a salat, then, you can't hold it. Doesn't mean you've "denied" the obligation of jum`a, it's just that it's being obligatory is dependent on the fulfillment of certain criteria, one of which is the minimum amount of attendees. If there are laws that require the presence of the Imam (as) in order to have their conditions of being wajib fulfilled, then obviously the ghayba would make them unfulfillable (in terms of being wajib for instance) until his re-appearance. So no, it isn't the same thing as the kufr of one who denies an responsibility like the daily salat where the presence or ghayba of the Imam (as) does not change its basic obligatoriness.

Furthermore, the Imams clearly rejected those people who 'abrogated' the Sharia and said that you didn't have to pray, or that alcohol was ok, or similiar things. They also rejected those who had 'odd' beliefs (beliefs that are unacceptable under the teachings of the Imams.

From what I know the Bohora Ismailis do not reject the Sharia obligations.

As for whether or not they are Muslims............. well that really depends on your point of view. They are definitely connected to Islam and come from Islam and had a big role in Islamic history. So socioculturally speaking, they are Muslims. I mean, they're not Jews. There are plenty of other people who had bizarre ideas in the past who were, socioculturally speaking, Muslims.

(For instance, the Khattabiyyah who said that Imam Sadiq - astaghfirullah - was God; or, if one wants to think about Sunnis, the anthropomorphists who thought that God had a head and foot and everything)

However, the Imams did reject those people who went against their teachings, and they 'excommunicated' people with 'extremist' beliefs (deifying Imams, saying that various deceased personalities had risen or that people other than the Mahdi had gone into occultation, reincarnation, etc). So from a Ithna Ashari Shia perspective, or theologically speaking, they have gone 'outside the boundaries of Islam' in terms of belief and practice.

If you don't mind me asking..... why it is it important to say one or the other? Unless someone is thinking of marrying an Ismaili man or lady - I can't think of any other reason.

[shoelace]

I got this information on internet and i was so shocked sounds like is aghakhanis in real mess

Dear Brothers-Sisters

As-Salaamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuhu

May I for the sake of Allah (swt), His Deen and the Muslim Ummaah, request you to please consider the following facts very carefully and decide on your responsibility before Allah (swt) in this matter.

I am a revert to Islam. I was an Ismaili before - a follower of the Aga Khan. And I perceive an important Da'wah responsibility which the majority of Muslims are for some reason or other are ignoring. I am not getting you into petty sectarian issues, but a very important matter - please judge for yourself:

1. The Ismailis (followers of the Aga Khan) all professedly believe that the Qur'an was time bound and was not meant to be a Universal message for all times. They believe that their spiritual leader, Karim Aga Khan, is the "walking - talking Qur'an" and his "religious pronouncements", whatever they may be, are the "guidance" for the present times. The fundamental article of faith that there will not be any NEW revelations or "wahy" after the Qur'an, is being completely violated by the Ismailis.

2. The Aga Khan has officially Declared himself, before his followers, as the "Mazhar of Allah on earth". The word "mazhar" means "copy" or "manifest". Consequently, these Ismailis who call themselves Muslims do "sujood" before him. So even the primary axiomatic principle of Tawheed is being fundamentally and formally violated by them.

3. The Ismailis are not instructed to offer the Islamic Salaah, observe Saum or perform Hajj. They have replaced Salaah with certain shirk-infested Dua'as (thrice a day). They are told that their Hajj is a personal "Glimpse" (Deedaar) of Karim Aga Khan.

4. The Aga Khan and his appointees 'forgive the sins' of the followers on regular basis. Ismailis are misled into believing that they will not be questioned on the Day of Judgment for the sins that are already forgiven in their Jamatkhanas (community centers). Forgiving of sins is the exclusive prerogative and privilege of Allah (swt) alone. Qur'an 3:135.

5. Against this backdrop, most of the poor (spiritually poor) Ismailis who are not introduced to al-Furqan are confused and misguided. Hence, Ismailis are very easy prey to missionary efforts by various Christian groups and Baha'is. I have known a couple of young ex-Ismailis who are today preaching "Pauline Christianity" to Ismailis as evangelical missionaries.

6. Karim Aga Khan's own daughter Zahra having married a practising Christian has opened the gates for young Ismailis girls to follow the footsteps of a family member of their beloved Imam-e-Zaman. The parents of the Ismaili girls who wish to marry outside of Islam have no recourse but to let them go.

7. The Aga Khan has made Halaal for the Ismailis that which Allah has made Haraam for the humans. Taking of interest (usury) is not forbidden by the religious instruction classes run by the "Tariqaah" board of the Ismailis. As a matter of fact, the much publicized "Venture Capital" program (details on the website of FORBES Magazine - search under "Aga Khan"), of loaning funds on interest by the AKFED (Aga Khan Fund & Economic Development), has been a great success. Similar entrepreneurial projects are now being actively promoted and introduced to poor Muslims of Tajikistan and neighboring areas.

8. The Muslim Ummaah and the various Muslim leaders are not fully aware of these Un-Islamic acts and beliefs of this community of less than two million members, who claim to be the Ismaili Muslims. Surprisingly, their leader Aga Khan claims himself to be a spiritual leader of 15 million Muslims and a Direct Descendant of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam).

9. Earlier, one did not have authentic books on Ismailism, but it is not so anymore. There are two authentic books as well as one comprehensive web site exposing the inner practices of the Ismailis and the Proclamations (Farmans) of the Aga Khans. Hence, now you have no "hujjah" argument or excuse left before Allah (swt) for not taking up the task of inviting the misguided "Ismaili Muslims" towards the Deen of Allah (swt) and not safeguarding them from committing unpardonable sin of Shirk.

10. The Aga Khan in collaboration with so many Western powers and aid, has set up the world-wide Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) which runs several institutions and service companies both in the profit and not for profit sectors. This network is very actively operating in Pakistan, India, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya and Bangladesh, and has now started concentrating its efforts in Tajikistan and the neighbouring areas where there is a concentration of Muslims who have not known or openly practised Islam for the decades. By taking up economical, social, educational and rural development efforts through NGOs (Non-Govt. Organizations) within the AKDN, the Ismailis and the Aga Khan have gained wide acceptance amongst these countries and masses. Hence this urgent appeal.

11. Now all these beneficiaries are "obliged and grateful" to the Aga Khan and his followers and his organizations for the much-needed schools, medical centers, hospitals, various projects and programmes. In this manner they are penetrating and infiltrating the support system - and one fine day, the Muslim Ummaah will wake up to the unexpected realization that they have a community of so called Muslims, practicing the Un-Islamic Tariqaah, in charge of all core and support activities. Each of these much-needed projects will have the photos of Aga Khan decorating the walls.

In the name of Allah (swt) and Islam, kindly urge our Brothers and Sisters to do Da'wah to the Ismailis, who otherwise will, on the day of judgement, hold us responsible for not conveying the Revealed Truth to them. Dear Brother/Sister, you know much more on the subject than what little I have learnt since reverting to the Deen of Allah (swt). It hurts to see the misguided simple minded people die on SHIRK because we did not amply warn them before their deaths.

I am aware of your stature as a religious leader of repute, respectability and acceptance among Muslim Masses, and hence have sought to put this appeal to you. I request you to seriously consider this request and initiate all steps that you consider Wajib and appropriate. To spread the "Truth" and eradicate "Tagoot" is a significant, major Sunnah of the prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam).

May I also request you to please forward this e-mail to at least five (if not all) of your Muslim friends and activists so that greater awareness of this issue is created, and this request reaches a wider audience. Please do so. JazakAllah."

In case you wish to seek any further clarification please feel free to e-mail a message. I will Insh'Allah respond. I apologize in advance, if this happens to be a repeat message.

May Allah (swt) shower His Choicest Blessings on the entire Muslim Ummah. May Almighty Allah bless you and keep you in the service of Islam and Muslims. Aameen.

Jazak'Allah and Was salaam,

Yours in the Service of Islam,

Akbarally Meherally

[Gypsy]

(salam)

I know for a fact that not all Ismailis reject Sharia. They are some Ismailis who upholds all the religious obligations such as prayers, fasting etc. They even keep the Prophet (sawa) family close to their heart. It is incorrect and totally unfair to pronounce Ismailis as Kafir.

Personally, I dislike people (common men) making takfir on each other. We don't like the wahhabis when they go around declaring Shia as kafir and fit to be killed. You need to be extra careful when you make controversial remark. You don't want to start oppressing people and get them killed because you don't like some aspect of their sect. With proper dawa, I am fairly confident that you will get good people back on track (the correct Islamic teaching).

The best is to check with your marja. He would know.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Zareen

[guest 34193]

(salam)

I know for a fact that not all Ismailis reject Sharia. They are some Ismailis who upholds all the religious obligations such as prayers, fasting etc. They even keep the Prophet (sawa) family close to their heart. It is incorrect and totally unfair to pronounce Ismailis as Kafir.

Personally, I dislike people (common men) making takfir on each other. We don't like the wahhabis when they go around declaring Shia as kafir and fit to be killed. You need to be extra careful when you make controversial remark. You don't want to start oppressing people and get them killed because you don't like some aspect of their sect. With proper dawa, I am fairly confident that you will get good people back on track (the correct Islamic teaching).

The best is to check with your marja. He would know.

(wasalam)

Keep in mind there are two major divisions of the Isma`ilis (with further subdivisions within them), and they are quite different in regards to their stance with the Shari`a. Perhaps the ones you knew where Musta`lis (aka Bohras)? If so, that is correct. While misguided, they do offer their salat, fast, and so on. The other division however, the Nizaris (aka Agha Khanis), are a different story altogether with their rejection of Shari`a (e.g. not considering salat, fasting, hajj to be wajib as such). I can't really see how they could possibly be considered Muslims by this point.

[ananda.zahra]

Is Allah (saw) not the Lord of east and west? Is it not ok to pray in whatever direction if you do not know which direction is facing the Kaba?

yes its ok if you dont, but if you know the direction, you have to face kaabaa, its on the quran, al baaqarah, several ayats is mentioning that (about 3 i recall)

"fa walli wajhaka syatral masjidil haraam" i forget which ayaat but its there, at ninenty's ayat, i forget whether 92 or 95 or something

[Gypsy]

Perhaps the ones you knew where Musta`lis (aka Bohras)? If so, that is correct. While misguided, they do offer their salat, fast, and so on. The other division however, the Nizaris (aka Agha Khanis), are a different story altogether with their rejection of Shari`a (e.g. not considering salat, fasting, hajj to be wajib as such).

(salam)

I know both the Ismaili bohras and the followers of Aga Khan. I have met and talked with many followers of their sect.

I can't really see how they could possibly be considered Muslims by this point.

We'll I don't see how certain wahhabis are consider Muslims. They fast and pray but they also bomb and kill innocent Shias.

How about people who fought the ahlul bayt (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ayesha)? They are still Muslim right? :unsure:

[guest 34193]

(salam)

I know both the Ismaili bohras and the followers of Aga Khan. I have met and talked with many followers of their sect.

One who knowingly denies a fareeda for the fara'id ad-deen is a kafir. So if the Agha Khani rejects salat (that du`a they do doesn't count), fasting, and hajj, then I can't see how they would not be out of the religion. Add to that their utterly corrupt beliefs and there's very little in common with their sect and Islam.

We'll I don't see how certain wahhabis are consider Muslims. They fast and pray but they also bomb and kill innocent Shias.

I don't disagree with that. Nawasib are kafir, and the Wahabis aren't even believers in tawhid regardless of how much they shout about it.

How about people who fought the ahlul bayt (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ayesha)? They are still Muslim right? :unsure:

Anybody who fought against the Ahl al-Bayt and died on their hatred is a kafir no doubt.

[BintAlHoda]

We'll I don't see how certain wahhabis are consider Muslims. They fast and pray but they also bomb and kill innocent Shias.

How about people who fought the ahlul bayt (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ayesha)? They are still Muslim right? :unsure:

There is a general agreement in most historical Islamic scholarship that someone who commits heinous crimes but still professes the main beliefs of Islam (such as tawhid and the Prophethood) is still a Muslim. The correct word for these individuals is 'fasiq' and of course we would assume these people would be in the pit of hell - but, would be in the pit of hell as "Muslims".

However, those who deviate sufficiently from the primary beliefs of Islam are no longer considered Muslims, even if they are good people. An example would be Baha'is - the Baha'i split from Islam happened over some years, and the proto-Baha'is were originally a subsect of Islam. However, eventually they deviated sufficiently in their belief to become something else, and no one (not us and not them) calls them Muslims anymore.

[Gypsy]

#1 One who knowingly denies a fareeda for the fara'id ad-deen is a kafir. So if the Agha Khani rejects salat (that du`a they do doesn't count), fasting, and hajj, then I can't see how they would not be out of the religion. Add to that their utterly corrupt beliefs and there's very little in common with their sect and Islam.

#2 I don't disagree with that. Nawasib are kafir, and the Wahabis aren't even believers in tawhid regardless of how much they shout about it.

#3 Anybody who fought against the Ahl al-Bayt and died on their hatred is a kafir no doubt.

(salam)

Thanks for clarifying. I am in complete agreement with you on point #2 and #3.

However, I have some doubt on point #1. The fact is they are many Shias and also Sunnis who do not pray (salah) or fast. They don't become non-Muslim because of that. We consider them as bad Muslims.

I have spoken to some Ismailis who do not pray or fast. They acknowledge that Holy Prophet(saw) did pray and fast but according to them it is no longer necessary. I have receive numerous answer for this, one that Salat and fast were only applicable to the Arabs in the time of Jahiliah.

My point is, there must be a minimum requirement for be considered as a muslim. :unsure: If we consider salat and fast as the main criteria to be considered as Muslims, then surely a huge segment of the Muslim community are non Muslims. Correct me if I am wrong.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Zareen

[Gypsy]

There is a general agreement in most historical Islamic scholarship that someone who commits heinous crimes but still professes the main beliefs of Islam (such as tawhid and the Prophethood) is still a Muslim. The correct word for these individuals is 'fasiq' and of course we would assume these people would be in the pit of hell - but, would be in the pit of hell as "Muslims".

(salam)

I was thought that Muslims who do not pray and fast are fasiq. It doesn't matter if they are Sunni, Shia or Ismailis, Someone just don't become non Muslim if they believe in Allah swt and the Holy Prophet(sa). Technically, Ismailis are still Muslims based on your criteria - Tawhid and Prophet hood. They do not deny it. Neither do they reject the ahlul bayt.

I am detecting some disagreement with what you said (tawhid and Nubuwat) and with few points highlighted by bro macisaac (tawhid, Nubuwat, ahlul bayt, prayers and fasting).

Before we classify someone as a non Muslim, shouldn't we first decide what is the minimum criteria for being a Muslim. :unsure:

Edited December 22, 2009 by Zareen

[guest 34193]

(salam)

Thanks for clarifying. I am in complete agreement with you on point #2 and #3.

However, I have some doubt on point #1. The fact is they are many Shias and also Sunnis who do not pray (salah) or fast. They don't become non-Muslim because of that. We consider them as bad Muslims.

I have spoken to some Ismailis who do not pray or fast. They acknowledge that Holy Prophet(saw) did pray and fast but according to them it is no longer necessary.

(wasalam)

The general position held at least nowadays is that one who does not pray (for example) because they don't believe it's wajib, then they are a kafir. It's denying a clear mandate of the religion. On the opposite end for instance, one who drink wine and denies it's haram to do so, is also a kafir. They are denying a clear mandate of Islam as such.

Now, one who believes salat is wajib, but neglects it out of laziness for instance is not generally kafir but one who is sinning. That said, personally I have some doubts on this on the basis of a number of riwaya I have read. (About the one who commits the great sin though while acknowledging its being haram and such being different from the one who considers it halal there are narrations that do affirm that distinction) Here, read them for yourself and see what I mean, though there are more narrations in that chapter (in Wasa'il) not up there (yet, in sha Allah):

http://www.*******.org/hadiths/preface-of-the-ibadat/kufr-of-one-who-rejects-the-daruriyat

[sara85]

salam,

being a muslim takes to believe in

-there is no GOD but Allah (which the ismailis believe in)

-the PROPHET is the last prophet ( which i have heard conflicting comments on a few claiming the lineage of their imams to be continuing prophets and some claim them to be imams only in which case its ok)

-the QURAN is the ultimate book of GOD ( which they recite but not hold it in the true sense of a book that covers everythign till QAYAMAT. which is wrong and not muslimi)

- 5 pillars of islam has to be followed ( which they dunt follow and if they do it is very much different from the prophets teachings....infact a few claim that their imam has asked them not ot perfomr it as he will be answerable to Allah for all his ummah)

- saying YA ALI MADAD means they are holding ALI above Allah which is clear shirk as ALI is JUST AN IMAM considering the caomparasion with Allah SUBHANAWATAALA.

- they dunt face the KAABA when they pray where as it is sunnat of prophet and command of Allah to face the kaaba. this is apart form the objection of Allah being the master of the east and the west this is a lame excuse.

more over a few of the marjas have also counted them out of the fold of islam based on such practices fo thiers.

[89jghur32]

Does anyone know if the Amman Message actually covers Ismailis? Are they Muslims by its definition? I know that the Aga Khan sent a letter approving of the Amman Message, but he lumped the Ismaili school with the Jafari school. To my knowledge, Jafaris do not believe Ismailis are Muslim, let alone that the Ismaili school is somehow part of the Jafari school.

[Renaissance_Man]

Depends on which Ismailis we are talking about. Bohri Ismailis are very much Muslim...they pray, fast, commemorate Moharram, and in general follow the practices of mainstream Muslims without major differences. Agha Khani Ismailis are a different case altogether. The Agha Khan's grandfather radically changed the religion to the point that all orthodox practices were thrown out and replaced with a cultist beliefs. In terms of practice, I would say the Ahmedi/Qadiyanni community is resembles Islam more than their sect. But technically you can't label them non-Muslims because unlike other Islamic cults like NOI and Ahmedis, they still believe in monotheism and Prophet Muhammad (saw) as the final prophet. So yes, they are Muslims but they are on the fringes of Islam.

[yaalimaulaali]

I am a Nizari Ismaili.

They offer prayer facing any side which means they do not necessarily face Kaba for offering their prayers.

This is wrong. We face kaba for offering prayers. There are tens of thousands of ismaili mosque all over the world and all of them face kaba. There was one mosque that had some issue in the past where they were confused, but then they fixed it latter. Kaba as great importance for ismailies, Other than many other Islamic importance, our first Imam Ali was born in Kaba.

While having fast, they can eat and drink even and when questioned they say that Fast is of your tongue, eyes and limbs not of your stomach

This is wrong. While fasting we don’t eat or drink. It is true that some ismailis believe that tongue, eye is limbs fasting is more important. Also there are ismailis from india (some of them who settled in Pakistan) know as khoja ismaili, they used to follow that fasting just for tongue, eye and limbs are enough.

To survive in religiously intolerant community of past Gujarat, khoja ismailis practiced taqiya and adopted some of the hindu practices and distanced themselves from wahabi islam. By doing this they got protected from both hindu fundamentalists and wahabi muslims. While aurangazeb (evil wahabi ruler of India), killed many shia, sufi, and moderate sunnis, khoja shia ismaili got protection from hindu rulers against aurangazeb (some shia ithnasary got the same support). After few generations khoja ismailis got so adapted to there lifestyle and their taqaya became their reality. But from last few decades things are now changes. Current Aga khan is working hard to bring these ismailis back to Shia sect.

Khoja ismailis are just a small minority of Nizari Ismailis (90% of all the ismilis are nizari ismaili). All the Nizari ismailis belive in Aga Khan as their Imam. Nizari ismailis (other than some khoja ismaili) strongly believe in the 5 + 2 pillars of Islam. And khoja ismailis have started following the same pillars. And insha-Allah soon there will not be any differences.

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.

This is totally wrong. No Ismailis believe that alcohol is no longer prohibited. No one in my family ever drank alcohol, but I know at least 2 of my ithnasary friends who drink alcohol. Like ithnasaries there are some Ismailis who drink alcohol, but that does not mean alcohol is no longer prohibited. Same with gambling, these two things are very strictly prohibited in Ismaili Islam. Time and again Aga khan has made this very clear that no Ismailis should indulge in these anti-social habits. I am not saying that no Ismailis indulge in these anti-social activities, but if they are indulging in it, they are doing so by going against of Ismailism.

We pray 5 namaz in 3 times.

"Ya Ali Madad" -- Don't know whether Ismailis are Muslims or not, but the above characteristic in a person at least proves that he/she is biddati.

Ismailis do say Ya Ali Madad (O Ali Help). It is how you look at it. For you it may be biddat, but for us it is sunnat. We believe that Ali was send as a help from Allah to man kind. So asking Ali’s help is same as asking Allah’s help. If a post man brings me a post, I will not refuse to get help from post man in getting my post, only because the post is suppose to be delivered by post office. Post man is the part of the post office. So same thing with Ali and Allah. Asking help from Ali also means asking help from Allah.

This does not mean, we don’t say As-Salamu Alaykum, we do great muslims with salamu alaykum.

I think it is Allah, who should judge peoples faith, so stop calling some who do not have exact same believe as yours as Kafir. If you want to call Ismailis kafir then you don’t have any rights in stopping wahabies call Shia kafir.

[Ishraq]

This is wrong. We face kaba for offering prayers. There are tens of thousands of ismaili mosque all over the world and all of them face kaba. There was one mosque that had some issue in the past where they were confused, but then they fixed it latter. Kaba as great importance for ismailies, Other than many other Islamic importance, our first Imam Ali was born in Kaba.

------------

Sure the jamatkhana's maybe built facing the Kaba, but you don't face it when offering prayers. That's why in your jamatkhana's there are people facing in every direction when your Ismaili du'a is being said. Atleast that's how it is in North America. In any case, the fact that it's not the same everywhere shows that it's not that important in Ismailism. Otherwise, it would be taken as seriously as the Sunni's and Twelvers take it. And even given that Imam Ali was born inside the Kaba, it still does not hold 'great importance' for you. Rather the 'didar' of your imam does.

This is wrong. While fasting we don’t eat or drink. It is true that some ismailis believe that tongue, eye is limbs fasting is more important. Also there are ismailis from india (some of them who settled in Pakistan) know as khoja ismaili, they used to follow that fasting just for tongue, eye and limbs are enough.

------------

The problem is your imam does not make fasting obligatory like he makes the 'du'a' you recite everyday obligatory.That is unacceptable. Many many Ismailis don't fast because of that fact.

This is totally wrong. No Ismailis believe that alcohol is no longer prohibited. No one in my family ever drank alcohol, but I know at least 2 of my ithnasary friends who drink alcohol. Like ithnasaries there are some Ismailis who drink alcohol, but that does not mean alcohol is no longer prohibited. Same with gambling, these two things are very strictly prohibited in Ismaili Islam. Time and again Aga khan has made this very clear that no Ismailis should indulge in these anti-social habits. I am not saying that no Ismailis indulge in these anti-social activities, but if they are indulging in it, they are doing so by going against of Ismailism.

----------

Your imam has forbidden the consumption of alcohol, thank God. But why hasn't he forbidden its selling, which he himself does through his hotels?

We pray 5 namaz in 3 times.

------

You don't pray namaz. You pray your du'a which one of your pirs composed and your imam approved.