Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

With respect to the Ginans, you completely disregard their context. When the Ginans speak of the Imam - they were hardly speaking of the historical Imam. Rather, they were speaking of the Light (nur) of the Imam - the "Archetype" which is manifest through the historical Imam. So when the Ginans say that 'Ali is Allah - they are not talking about the human being historical 'Ali or the historical Imam - they are talking about the Divine Names/Attributes/Person which was manifest in through Imam. There is a big difference here. You also have to take into account the Hindu culture in which the Ginans were preached - it was normal for personalities (mythical, imaginal, etc) to be conceived as Divine Personalities. Amir Moezzi writes about the Ontological Imam - which is the Names/Attributes of God and the Historical Imam who is the human manifestation of the Ontological Imam.

Your posts show that you know nothing about the study of religion. You ignore context, interpretation, theological language, symbolism, everything. Your understanding is totally childish and superficial.

Those parts of the Ismaili Dua are not shirk at all. They are more examples of tawassul or intercession.

There is also difference between saying the Imam is the mazhar (locus of manifestation) of God and saying that the Imam = God. Even the Old Ismaili Du'a is only saying that the Imam is the locus of manifestation of God.

"The Imam to be explained as 'mazhar' of God, and the relationship between God and the Imam to be related to varying levels of inspiration and communication from God to man.

Mazhar does not mean copy! Seriously, its absolutely pathetic that you are engaging in a discussion like this and don't even know the meaning of words. Absolutely incredible!

Exactly - so there is a relationship between God and the Imam - so how can they be exactly the same? Mazhar is an arabic noun of place - it literally means "the place of zuhur (manifestation). My interpretation of mazhar is not my personal opinion - the scholars such as Corbin, Reza Shah-Kazemi, Moezzi and others have written about this term and what it means - locus of manifestation. Your interpretation, however, is dead wrong. You should be ashamed for lying like that.

Ali-Allah means "Exalted of God" just like rasul Allah means "Messenger of God" and "Kitab Allah" means "Book of God"

Samir Nurali is an individual with his own opinions.

What about all the passages of the Dua I quoted which show the Imam is not God and instead distinguish between the Imam and God?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 513
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As exemplified by this hadith found in the primary Fatimid era Isma`ili collection of hadiths, Da`a'im al-Islam. I'll quote it here in full with the hopes that Isma`ili posters in this thread actuall

Do you want me to go on? I think i should, so that once and for all this 11 page debate with an easy solution can finally come to an end. In the Ismaili madhab where is the required wudhu? wudhu is a

I used to be an Ismaili, and I left about 7 years ago, because the entire madhhab was a direct insult to not only my intellect, but to the Sunnah of Rasulallah (pbuh) and Allah's religion. Ismailis ha

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member

Everything presented on the previous page of this thread (page 7) speaks for itself. I don't feel the need to respond to Ismailite / Khalil Andani, who once again is doing whatever he can (including lying) to show the Nizari Ismailis in a more orthodox and less heretical light. Many Nizari Ismailis practice taqiyyah even with Shias, so, don't necessarily expect honest responses from these people. They want to protect their reputation and don't want to be persecuted. What is meant by "Ali-Allah" is "Ali Sahi Allah" - which means "Ali is truly Allah." This is clear to anyone who goes through the materials on the previous page and clicks through the links (where various Nizari Ismailis talk about the materials), as well as reads what Allamah Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi wrote, as well as reads the speech I posted by Aga Khan III that Samir mentions. The Haji Bibi court case, where the Aga Khan was defendant and was present in the court through the entire case, accurately portrays all of the pre-1956 Nizari Ismaili beliefs as well as the old "Holy Du'a." I'm not surprised that the Aga Khan's own mother as well as many of his relatives didn't accept him as an Imam (in fact, Farhad Daftary is also a far relative of the Aga Khan and - despite being paid handsomely to work for the Institute of Ismaili Studies - he happily remains a Twelver). Yes, today many Nizari Ismailis no longer believe the Imam and Allah are one and the same, but, there are still today also large numbers of Nizari Ismailis who continue to view the Imam as Allah, especially within the older generation and amongst those who remember reciting the old "Holy Du'a". There are also many elements of shirk that continue today in the jamatkhana practices of Nizari Ismailis that ensure the Imam continues to get treated like Allah, regardless of what certain specific Nizari Ismailis believe about him (such as Khalil). Also, it is undeniable that from Aga Khan I to Aga Khan III, the official belief of Nizari Ismailis was that the Imam and Allah are the same, as the old "Holy Du'a" that was recited thrice daily makes clear. Let me add that the old "Holy Du'a" (i.e. used prior to 1956) was not in Arabic, though Arabic terms were used occasionally. For example, the old Nizari Ismaili shahadah was as follows:

ENE KALAWE KALIMA PAK: I HAQ ASHAHADO ANA LA ILAHA ILALLAH, HAQ ASHAHADO ANA MUHAMMAD RASULILLAH, HAQ ASHAHADO ANA AMIRUL MOMININ ALI SAHI Allah.

Peace.

Edited by Ruwayd
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

.....I'm not surprised that the Aga Khan's own mother as well as many of his relatives didn't accept him as an Imam (in fact, Farhad Daftary is also a far relative of the Aga Khan and - despite being paid handsomely to work for the Institute of Ismaili Studies - he happily remains a Twelver).

.....

Peace.

Could you provide a source that Farhad Daftary and Aga Khans own mother do not accept the Aga Khan as their Imam? Please and Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Could you provide a source that Farhad Daftary and Aga Khans own mother do not accept the Aga Khan as their Imam? Please and Thank you

Farhad Daftary - It is well known he is a Twelver and I also have it on good word from someone who would know. But, I don't have a written reference for you on this. If you want to do your own research, go to the Institute of Ismaili Studies website and try calling or emailing him. His contact information is probably available either on the website or by calling the Institute.

The mother I refer to is the mother of Aga Khan III . This is clearly discussed on the previous page of this thread (page 7, post #162).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Ruwayd - this thing about the Aga Khan III's mother not accepting him as the Imam is not very plausible.

Because when the Imam was only 8 years old, it was his mother who took charge of the administration and the investments and managing the communal affairs with a council. If she was really against his Imamat, she could have prevented him from having physical access to his murids during his youth and caused many problems early in his Imamat. It was his mother who made sure he got the highest education and once even said "he must be prepared to fulfill his destiny". What the Aga Khan said about his mother and what she said about him and the community clearly show that she very much supported his Imamat and was an instrumental influence in his life. He even dedicated his first book to her and gave her the title "Mata Salamat" (mother of peace).

The Aga Khan described his mother as a genuine Muslim mystic who loved poetry. While she may have performed Twelver Shi'i rituals - after all, she was originally from a Twelver royal family in Iran and the Aga Khans had relations with the Nimatullahi Twelver Sufi order - her own religious and spiritual beliefs transcended the theology of Twelver Shiism.

Finally, if the Aga Khan's mother did not believe in his Imamat, why did she offer evidence ON HIS BEHALF during the trial? Keeping in mind that the Plaintiffs were all claiming to be Twelvers themselves.

As for Daftary - where is the statement that he is a Twelver? Saying that you have it "on good word from someone who would know" is not evidence at all.

In fact, your research skills are poor - you don't even know the meaning of the word mazhar and your main source for NIzari doctrine seems to be the subjective opinions of Samir Nurali whom you don't even know personally and found on an anonymous Ismaili chat forum. No serious researcher would take your posts or findings seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Khalil/Ismailite - the aspiring Nizari Ismaili missionary - sounds scared and feels he needs to retort to every post I make. It's pretty obvious who is the childish one. Your comments have no merit, sir.

Everyone is free to go and do their own research. The facts will speak for themselves for anyone who wishes to look into any of these matters (including on Farhad Daftary's faith). In fact, please go and look into the matters of faith that have been discussed regarding Nizari Ismailism and come back here to this forum and tell us what you find that is different from what has been reported. Please also providing supporting references / documents wherever possible, as I've tried to do.

If Aga Khan III's mother really was Nizari Ismaili, wouldn't she attend jamatkhana instead of going to a Twelver masjid or Imambargah? Yet, I challenge you to find any evidence of her attending jamatkhana like a regular worshiper. How come the Imam doesn't go to jamatkhana? Why doesn't he lead you guys in your prayers? Why don't his kids go to jamatkhana? How about Aga Khan's extended family - why don't they go to jamatkhana? Why did the Aga Khan get married by a Sunni Imam? Why did his son (Hussain) get married by a Shia 'aalim (Syed Musawi)? Why doesn't anyone at all from the Aga Khan's family go to jamatkhana? Let's hear any of the Aga Khans recite the "Holy Du'a" or recite a ginan (a hymn said in Nizari Ismaili jamatkhanas).

Does anyone here doubt that a true Imam would lead his followers in prayer and not expect his followers to do anything he is not himself doing?!! What I'm insinuating is that the Aga Khan, of course, is an impostor, who is profiting wildly off of a religion that his ancestors established. Every historian in academia that knows about Ismailism accepts that Imam Nizar didn't have kids and died in a prison, and that the Aga Khan is thereby really the descendant of a Nizari Ismaili da'i (preacher) and not the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). There are also other serious gaps in the genealogy of the Nizari Ismaili "chain of Imamat" that make it extremely unlikely for the Aga Khan to be a descendant of the Prophet (SAWS). Nizari Ismailis always proclaim to all the other Shias of how they have a living Imam and that the others are lost. This of course is pretty darn silly, since the claimed genealogy of the Aga Khan is very highly suspect - and the truth is that the Nizari Ismailis should be claiming that Imam Nizar went into hiding.

I hear Nizari Ismailis complain all the time about the Aga Khan and his family not going to jamatkhanas like the rest of the Nizari Ismailis. That is the sign of a cult, is it not? When the leader and the leader's family don't actually do any of the worship and other stuff that the followers are supposed to do? Yet, the Aga Khan still collects all of the tithes you guys are supposed to give him. And, nobody knows what portion of the money he keeps and what portion of the money actually goes where it's supposed to (charity and helping the community). Nizari Ismailis have zero transparency on this and many other matters involving their so-called Imam.

Edited by Ruwayd
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Ruwayd,

1. You assert that Ismaili doctrine views the Imam as God. This is incorrect and the actual Isma‘ili position is evidenced by the following:

a) Supplications in the Ismaili Dua which clearly position the Imams as intercessors and intermediaries (wasilah) between the believers and Allah as shown by 1) use of the expression “bi-haqqi” (by the right of) before the names of the Imams where the prayers and du`as are addressed to Allah (“Allahuma”); 2) the use of the word “tawassalu” in the phrase “in times of difficulty seek the mediation (tawassulu) of your mawla, the present and living Shah Karim al-Husayni” – where tawassul is from al-wasilah (meaning: means, medium, intermediary) which the Qur’an uses in 5:35 (“O ye who believe, be aware of God and seek the wasilah unto him”).

b) All the Ismaili philosophical literature from the early period and the Fatimid period and Alamut period position the Imam as the mazhar of the Universal Intellect (the Light of Muhammad) or the Divine Word (kalimat or amr Allah) and never as God Himself. In fact, for Ismaili thought, God is the Absolute Reality and totally above and beyond all attributes and descriptions and nothing can be exclusively identified with God. This is also repeated in the modern period in the statements of Aga Khan III and Aga Khan IV.

c) The statements of Aga Khan III and Aga Khan IV in the modern period. For example, in the 1945 Mission Conference held in Dar es Salaam, the Aga Khan III said clearly that:

“You read my farmans that I made in Bombay in 1905/06, interpreted by Kamadia Hajee, where I explained fully that there is a fundamental difference between Ismailism and Christianity. In Christianity they believe that Jesus the man was God Almighty. For the Ismailis, during the 60 years of his life, ‘Ali on earth was the prisoner of the material world, limited by it and suffering constantly. When we think of ‘Ali, it is not the man during these 60 years, but the eternal that came from God and returned to God direct… These are the things which must be understood, that according to the Ismaili religion Allah is the ocean. Ali, during his life on earth, was the river, separated from the ocean of the Almighty - separated from it and running towards it - overcoming all material resistance and running towards its origin… the Imam is the Commander of the Faithful, the khalifa of God and the Messenger on earth.” (Aga Khan III, Mission Conference 1945, Dar es Salaam)

d) The statement of Aga Khan IV at the 1976 All-Ismaili Paris Conference which says:

"The Imam to be explained as 'mazhar' of God, and the relationship between God and the Imam to be related to varying levels of inspiration and communication from God to man.”

You have lied and stated that mazhar means “copy” or “manifest”, but this is totally incorrect. The word mazhar means “locus of manifestation” as evidenced by the scholarly writings quoted below:

“…mazhar, which is grammatically a noun of place derived from zuhur, which means ‘manifestation, outwardness, appearance’. Here the word mazhar is translated as ‘locus of manifestation’.” (Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge, 89)

“generally speaking, every name of God has loci of manifestation (mazahir, sing. Mazhar) in the cosmos, some obvious and some hidden. The universe as a whole manifests all the names of God. Within the existent things is found every attribute of Being in some mode or another.” (Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge, 16)

When the Imam appears to be speaking of his own greatness, it is to be understood that this is nothing but the greatness of God that is being expressed through him, as a mazhar, a locus for the theophanic manifestation of the divine…” (Kazemi, Justice and Remembrance, 184)

“One is speaking only of a corporeal receptacle (mazhar), which fulfils the role and function of a mirror.” (Corbin, the Man of Light in Iranian Sufism, 136)

Thus, when it is said by Aga Khan IV that the Imam is the mazhar of God – and any other similar statements found in Ismaili literature or Ginans about the Imam being the manifest form or manifestation of God – it does NOT mean that the Imam is God Himself. The mazhar is merely the “place of manifestation” – the mirror in which God’s Names and Attributes are manifest (zahir). Now, you cannot argue and say there is mazhar of God because the Qur’an refers to God as al-Zahir and logically speaking, if God is al-Zahir than He is only Zahir through a mazhar or “locus of manifestation”. Al-Zahir is manifest via the mazhar – there can be no other way. The mazhar, however, is NOT the same as God. The mazhar is merely a mirror, a locus, a place in which the manifestation appears.

2. You assert that the Aga Khan III’s mother, Lady Ali Shah, did not believe in his Imamat. This is also incorrect as the simple statement of facts contradicts this claim: Lady Ali Shah was the strongest supporter of the Aga Khan since he became Imam at age 8; she assisted him in his younger years in managing the communal affairs of the Jamat; she testified in his favour during the Haji Bibi case – a case where the Plaintiffs were challenging the Imamat of the Aga Khan and asserting that the Khoja Ismailis were actually Twelvers; Lady Ali Shah in her final days sent a message of blessing and support for the Ismaili Jamat. All of these FACTS (as related in the books of KK Aziz, and the Aga Khan’s own Memoirs) clearly contradict the idea that Lady Ali Shah did not accept her son as the Imam of the Time. Below is what the late Aga Khan wrote about his beloved mother:

“My mother, who had insisted on the educational discipline of my early boyhood, was as shrewd and watchful as she was loving. She and I remained, throughout her long life, in the closest, most affectionate intimacy. Every night in those years I would go to her apartments and join with her in prayer -- that prayer for unity, for companionship on high, which is the core of Muslim faith. This shared experience gave us both, I think, the strength to bear our load of fatigue and anxiety, mental and spiritual, which was by no means light during these difficult years. But my mother's religion was resolutely practical as well; she saw no virtue in faith without works, and from the outset of my public career I accepted and sought to practice the same standards.” (Aga Khan III, Memoirs: World Enough and Time)

It is therefore totally implausible, incredible and simply untrue that Lady Ali Shah did not believe in her son’s Imamat – when in reality, she was the biggest supporter of the Aga Khan III and his Imamat activities. Lady Ali Shah’s practice of Islam was an Islam of mysticism and spirituality. The Aga Khan III describes his mother’s religious beliefs as follows:

In addition, my mother was herself a genuine mystic in the Muslim tradition (as were most of her closest companions); and she habitually spent a great deal of time in prayer for spiritual enlightenment and for union with God. In such a spirit there was no room for bigotry. Like many other mystics my mother had a profound poetic understanding. I have, in something near ecstasy, heard her read perhaps some verses by Roumi or Hafiz, with their exquisite analogies between man's beatific vision of the Divine and the temporal beauty and colors of flowers, the music and magic of the night, and the transient splendors of the Persian dawn.” (Aga Khan III, Memoirs: World Enough and Time)

“My mother gave evidence on my behalf and was complimented by the judge, who said that she had "displayed an extraordinary memory." (Aga Khan III, Memoirs: World Enough and Time)

My work in this international field, and its crown and climax in my year as President of the League, had especially delighted my beloved mother. When I first went to Geneva she was over eighty, and she followed my work there with unflagging interest. Each year that I went to India we talked together as fully and as frankly about this as we had, throughout my life, shared our interests, our joys and our sorrows.” (Aga Khan III, Memoirs: World Enough and Time)

“A few minutes after I reached her bedside, her eyes opened, and she recognized me. Then in the way that all true Muslims would ask, who seek to follow the Prophet's example and attain a safe and quiet journey from the midst of the living, she achieved peace and happiness and that final "Companionship on High" for which all yearn.” (Aga Khan III, Memoirs: World Enough and Time)

3. You assert that Imam Nizar did not have children. This is completely incorrect and is contradicted by actual scholarship - historians such as Farhad Daftary, Paul Walker, and medieval historians write that Imam Nizar had sons and grandsons – and some of them even rose in revolt against the later Fatimids. See Daftary’s long History and Paul Walker’s recent book Fatimid History and Doctrine. Below are some relevant quotations from these sources:

It is a historical fact that Nizar did have male progeny. Some of these Nizarids even launched unsuccessful revolts against the later Fatimids, claiming the caliphate. The last of these revolts was led in 556/1161 by a grandson of Nizar.” (Daftary, The Ismailis, 326)

“There were many who thought that that Nizar died in prison at Alexandria; history records that he left behind a male progeny who continued to sporadically fight the Cairo regime.” (Nasseh Ahmad Mirza, Syrian Ismailism, 6)

“Only one of al-Nizar's sons was arrested with him, and the other son disappeared in Alexandria, who was neither arrested nor recognised." (Hafiz Abru, d. 833/1430, “Majma al-Tawarikh-i Sultaniyya”, 242)

Hasan bin Sabbah introduced an Imam to his successors during his death-bed.” (Ibn Muyassar, d. 1278, "Tarikh-i Misr", 68)

4. The descent of the Aga Khan and the Alamut Imams from Imam Nizar is well attested to in the sources. Firstly, the only CONTEMPORARY sources of that period are the “Diwan-i Qa’imiyyat” and the “Haft Bab Baba-yi Sayyedna” written by Hasan-i Mahmud al-Salah. Both these contemporary sources CONFIRM the Nizari descent of Imam Hasan ala-dhikrihi al-Salaam. Secondly, there are NON-ISMAILI historians whose works also CONFIRM the Nizari genealogy of the Imams of Alamut. They are Jamal al-Din Ibn ‘Inaba (“Umdat al-talib fi ansab al-Abitalib”), Ibn Qalanisi (“Dhay tarikh Dimishq”), and Ibn Zafir (“Akhbar duwal al-munqat’a”). So there you have it – both Nizari and non-Nizari sources confirm the Nizari geneaology of the Imams of Alamut from which the Aga Khans descend.

Further, when the Aga Khan’s letter asserting his lineage to Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi talib was read at the Amman Conference – where leadership of Sunni and Twelver Islam (including Ayatullahs, Muftis, Shaykhs, etc) was present – there was not a word of opposition of disagreement from any of the Muslim leadership about his genealogical claim. Even Farhad Daftary, whom you say is not Ismaili, has said publically that there are “no issues” with the Aga Khan’s genealogy from the Imam ‘Ali. End of Story.

5. You falsely claim the Aga Khan personally profits off the offerings (i.e. zakat, dasond) which the Murids give. This is absolutely untrue. The Aga Khan’s personal assets and the Imamat’s assets (which consist of the dasond and offerings of the Ismaili murids) are kept and accounted for separately – and they are only used for the Jamati and communal affairs of the Ismailis; they are NOT used by the Aga Khan for his personal living. The Aga Khan has stated this publically in numerous interviews quoted below:

There is a great difference between wealth which comes from the faith and is used for the faith and personal wealth used for the individual. The Imam has responsibility for significant resources but they in no way cover the needs we have, and never will.”

Financial Times Interview, Rachel Morarjee, ‘Coffee with the FT: HisHighness the Aga Khan’ (London, United Kingdom) ·· incomplete 26 September 2008, http://www.nanowisdo...rg/nwblog/9028/

ITV: You have immense wealth, both private and institutional. Where does all that wealth spring from?

AK: “Well, the institutional wealth is that which comes from people who practise the faith. It comes from the institutions themselves which, if they are successful develop their own wealth in the economic field. Personal wealth I inherited from my father and my grandfather. And the institutional wealth is used exclusively for institutional development. And this I think has been demonstrated by a lot of what has been done in the recent years.”

Independent Television (ITV) Interview (London, United Kingdom ) 4 June 1985 http://www.nanowisdo...rg/nwblog/3134/

AK: A lot of stories have been told. My grandfather’s jubilees were events which the Western media thought were very spectacular. The impression was given that very substantial amounts of money went straight into his personal wealth. These funds are offered to the Imam because he is the Imam, and he uses these funds for the benefit of the community. My grandfather left me some wealth which I use for my own living. I have some institutional expenses. If I didn’t occupy the office of Imam, I wouldn’t fly on a private aircraft, I wouldn’t have a secretariat of some 100 people. You really should apply to the Imam the same criteria you would apply to any public office. But that’s never been done, because there has been a sort of inheritance of gloss. Maybe I should have addressed that issue more quickly. I have felt that the area of the world I work in has not had the misperception; that’s much more a Western misperception.

Life Magazine Interview, Margot Dougherty and Richard B. Stolley, ‘In Him, East and West Meet’ (New York, USA ) ?? December 1983 http://www.nanowisdo...rg/nwblog/2997/

MC: How is your institution organised, the Imamat of the Ismaili sect? For example, is your own property inseparable from the property of the Imamat itself?

AK: The Imamat revenue is given by the community to the Imam. He has a responsibility to manage the Imamat revenue. Now, in Shia Islam, and this is true of the Twelvers and of the Seveners, the Imams or the Ayatollahs, as it would be in Twelver Shi’ism, are allowed or authorised to retain certain percentage of the Imamat revenue.

MC: Can you tell me how much that is?

AK: In Ismaili tradition, because there is nothing which I have seen in writing, it is 10% at the present time, but the interesting thing is that, in effect, I would say easily 98% of those funds, and in fact at times much more than 98%, in fact probably of the order of 150%, goes back to the community.

BBC Radio 4 Interview, Michael Charlton (London, United Kingdom ) 6 September 1979 http://www.nanowisdo...rg/nwblog/1988/

6. You ask why the Aga Khan does not attend Jamatkhana and lead his murids in prayer. Clearly, you misunderstand and have no clue what a Tariqah is and what a Murshid and what is the status of the Imam in Shia Islam. Shia Ismaili Islam is not merely a madhab or a shari’ah, it is a Tariqah (spiritual brotherhood) of Islam akin to the Sufi Tariqahs and Sufi orders. In the Tariqah, there are Murids and there is the Murshid (the leader of the Tariqah). The Murshid is the spiritual guide – his role is to lead the Murids to spiritual enlightenment and he does so by prescribing spiritual practices for them – including Du’a, Dhikrs, and other rites and rituals. The Murshid himself does not practice what he has prescribed because he has already reached spiritual enlightenment. It is only the murids who must practice the prescribed Tariqah rituals because they are the Seekers on the Path while the Murshid has already completed the Path. The Imams, being pure and sinless are always and perpetually in a state of remembering Allah – they never leave the state of remembrance for any second of their lives. Thus, the Imams do not need to practice any sort of Tariqah rituals because the purpose of rituals is to instill the remembrance of God (the Qur’an says – “Establish the prayer for the sake of My Remembrance”) and the Imams are already and always in a state of Divine Remembrance (dhikr Ilahi). The Imams are the Ahl al-Dhikr mentioned in the Qur’an:

“And We sent Messengers from before who were but men, to whom We granted inspiration: if ye realize this not, ask of the People of the Reminder (ahl al-dhikr).

- Holy Quran 16:43

“We are the People of the Remembrance (ahl al-dhikr) and we are the ones who must be asked questions.”

- Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, (al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi, Chapter 20, Hadith # 7)

Indeed, there is a special group (ahl) who belong to the Remembrance (dhikr); they have adopted it in place of the world, such that ‘neither trade nor merchandise’ distracts them from it. They spend the days of their life in it … It is as though they had left this world for the Hereafter, and they are there, witnessing what is beyond this world…”- Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib, (Reza Shah-Kazemi, Justice and Remembrance, p. 142)

Ruwayd, it’s about time you stopped lying and faced the truth. You are only here on this forum to forward a hate-campaign against the Aga Khan. It appears you have no other purpose except this. I am not sure what religion you practice – because I don’t know of any faith whose exclusive aim and purpose is to hate and slander other people.

Do you really think you are fulfilling the purpose of Islam and coming closer to your Lord by slandering a Shi’ite Muslim community, and their hereditary Imam? This Imam Aga Khan IV – whether you believe in him or not - has invested millions of dollars and all of his time and resources into improving the quality of life for ALL PEOPLE on earth through the Aga Khan Development Network? What do you think will happen to you on the Day of Judgment when you are asked about your hateful actions and your lies against a community and a person who have done much good in the world? Are you prepared to face the music?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

What is meant by "Ali-Allah" is "Ali Sahi Allah" - which means "Ali is truly Allah."

Allyyullah means Ali of Allah, not Ali is God. Refer to other examples of words with -llah as a suffix. For example rahmatullah (mercy of God) and kalamullah (word of God).

Edited by ohhcuppycakee
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Interesting debate ...Ruwayd....Khalil is not wrong....in Shii Islam Tawassul is important !

The Shii Muslims affirm that the Prophet beqeathed and entrusted his religious and spiritual authority to His progeny (itrat) and family (ahl al-bayt) through Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib and his descendants - the Imams. For the Shia, each Imam in his own time serves as the intercessor and mediator between Allah and the mumins (believers) and the functions that the Quran commands the Prophet to perform are taken over by the Imam of

the Time, with the exception of revelation since Muhammad is the last of the prophets.

The above is a principle which is then reflected in Ismaili practices. Shias do invoke the help and intercession of their Imam when they seek the help and bounties of Allah. In fact, the Holy Quran encourages believers

to seek the Means of Approach (al-wasilah) unto Allah:

"O ye who have faith! Do your duty to Allah, seek the means of approach ( al-wasila) unto Him, and strive with might and main in his cause: that ye may prosper." - Holy Quran 5:35...

I suggest that you don't place reliance on Maherally's confabulations...he himself depends on MIHIR Bose...and Marco Polo !

The key word here is "Wasilah" which means "medium" or "means of approach". The Wasilah of Allah is the Prophet in his age and the Imam in his time.

This concept of Wasilah is reflected in their Holy Dua (Salat)...if you are Sh'ia, you will easily understand me....if you are NOT then ofcourse your anxiety is understandable...

Ali means the MOST HIGH ! This is also Allah own Attribute...and so Allah is Ali ! So can you argue that Allah is not "Ali" ? The important thing is the underlying intent and if Allah has so many beautiful names and if the Quran allows someone to call HIM by any of HIS names, then would you have an issue with me if I called Allah as Ali? if so why? The named and the name is one and the same ! where is then the duality? OR "partnering?

Only purifiied souls such as Prophet Muhammad and the Imams of his Ahl al-Bayt (whom God has purified by Quran 33:33) are "muslim" in the true sense; they are perfectly submitted to God's Will and only they can truly possess a direct, unmediated relationship with Allah by virtue of the divine closeness (walayah) of their souls with Allah. ...What does Sura al Hamd ask you muslimeens to do? why? It is so logical...don't believe Maherally....Thank you !

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Ismailism is full of shirk. Saying the Imams have the noor of Allah is still shirk. Allah is not present inside any human being. Plus, the Imam's daughter is married to a CHRISTIAN. How can the imam tolerate this and embrace such a relationship?A relationship which is clearly haram among both Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia,

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Nobody said Allah is present inside anything or anything. Go and do some reading about the concept of mazhariyya and zuhur. The Quran does say Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth - so clearly Allah is `present`in all realms of reality without being physically contained in them.

So what if the Imam`s daughter is married to a Christian. Christians are not kafirs or mushrikeen, they are People of the Book and monotheists. The Quran says that Christians will get salvation too. Seriously, that is a very silly point to make. All human beings are created from One Soul as the Quran says.

It does not matter what Ahl al Sunnah or what Twelvers consider haraam - the Aga Khan is the Imam of the Ismaili Muslims and he makes the decisions - not the Sunni or Twelver scholars who are fallible human beings that can make mistakes and errors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Nobody said Allah is present inside anything or anything. Go and do some reading about the concept of mazhariyya and zuhur. The Quran does say Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth - so clearly Allah is `present`in all realms of reality without being physically contained in them.

So what if the Imam`s daughter is married to a Christian. Christians are not kafirs or mushrikeen, they are People of the Book and monotheists. The Quran says that Christians will get salvation too. Seriously, that is a very silly point to make. All human beings are created from One Soul as the Quran says.

It does not matter what Ahl al Sunnah or what Twelvers consider haraam - the Aga Khan is the Imam of the Ismaili Muslims and he makes the decisions - not the Sunni or Twelver scholars who are fallible human beings that can make mistakes and errors.

Ahlul kitab are Kuffar but they are a different category of Kuffar. Muslim women are NOT allowed to marry ahlul kitab. Whoever disbelieves in the messenger it is as if he has rejected the message. But then again, in Ismailism its all about the imams, little mention is made of the messenger (SAW).

What if this Imam changes the Quran or goes against the Quran? Is his opinion still valid? I believe, your aga khan changed the Salah to a dua in which there is no Ruku or Sajda.

those who repent, those who worship, those who praise (Allah), those who journey (in Allah’s way), those who bow in Ruku‘, those who prostrate in sajdah, those who bid the Fair and forbid the Unfair and those who preserve the limits prescribed by Allah. And give the good news to the believers. (9:112)
Your so called Imam has the right to change Quran, but he has no proofs for his own position as an imam in the Quran. How dare he change the Sunnah? Edited by Abu Muslim
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Brothers, if you disagree with Ismailite, I suggest you simply say, "Lakum deenakum wa liya deen" . After all, "Laa ikraaha fee 'd deen", and it's not as if the Nizaris have an active da'wa anyway. As Ruwayd has pointed out, simply converting to Nizari Isma'ilism is a lengthy and drawn out process, so there's little chance of your friends and family ever embracing that faith.

Rather than belittling Ismailite's beliefs and insulting his Imams, you should seek to bring him over to your school of thought by providing cogent, convincing arguments, bereft of ad homonym attacks and accusations. Rather than attempting to convince him he is wrong, bring compelling evidence of the correctness of your beliefs.

I know it's a cliched maxim, but you can always catch more flies with honey than vinegar ...

Edited by Abdul Qaim
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Ruwayd,

1. You assert that Ismaili doctrine views the Imam as God.

You're misstating what I wrote.

Specifically, I said that between Aga Khan I and the year 1956, the Nizari Ismaili "Holy Du'a" that was in use proclaimed the Aga Khan to be the manifestation of Allah. The translation of the old "Holy Du'a" is included in the Haji Bibi case. The old shahada also contained "Ali Sahi Allah" which is the same as saying that "Ali is truly Allah." The Judge in the Haji Bibi case was also led to believe, from his hours of research and communication with the Imam, historians, as well as others in and around the Nizari Ismaili community, that Nizari Ismailis viewed the Aga Khan as the same as Allah and that he was the Godhead. This is all very clear from the court documents and undeniable, as a result. There are also many Nizari Ismaili ginans from back then (many of which were later rescinded / banned) and even some that have still not been rescinded (including one I posted earlier in this thread) that explicitly say or indicate that Ali is the equivalent of Allah. There are also other pieces of evidence that indicate that the Aga Khan (whether I, II, or III) was worshipped as equivalent to Allah by virtually all Nizari Ismailis, prior to 1956, such as newspaper clippings, articles, and quotes from back then (the time of Aga Khan I to the year 1956). For instance, in the mid-20th century, Norman Lewis wrote, "The Aga Khan is the spiritual and temporal head of the sect and possesses attributes of divinity." [Lewis, N. N. (1952). "The Isma'ilis of Syria today". Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society 39: 69–77] In a paper discussing the theology of East African followers of the Aga Khan, H.S Morris quotes a Nizari Ismaili that was living in East Africa and educated in England, but, who had never visited India, as saying: "Our Imam, His Highness the Aga Khan, is like your Jesus Christ. Even Hindus believe that God will never leave the world deserted, we believe that God, that is Vishnu, descended to earth in Ali [as the Tenth Avatar] and has never left us. When the Imam dies the Light moves on to his son: it follows like the sacred blood—like the King. The King never dies." [Morris, H. S. (1958). "The Divine Kingship of the Aga Khan: A Study of Theocracy in East Africa". Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 14 (4): 454–472.]

In 1956, the "Holy Du'a" and the Nizari Ismaili shahada were both changed. New language was assumed that no longer made it clear what the status was of the Aga Khan in relation to Allah, although it was clear the Aga Khan was still an object of worship (as shown earlier in this thread). The proclamation of "mazhar" wasn't even made until 1975 (decades after a new "Holy Du'a" was introduced and the Nizari Ismaili shahada was changed), and it was primarily motivated by a need to respond to leaders of the Nizari Ismaili jamat who did not know how to explain the status of the Aga Khan within Nizari Ismailism to fellow Nizari Ismailis. Even with the "mazhar" proclamation that was made in 1975, there is no one right interpretation that your Imam has mandated for the term "mazhar." Your Imam has not required any Nizari Ismailis to believe one particular thing or another about him, as a result, once again leaving people puzzled. Khalil / Ismailite, you're doing NOTHING OTHER THAN giving your interpretation of "mazhar" (as well as other Nizari Ismaili doctrine) and there are many Nizari Ismailis who would completely disagree with your interpretation and view the Aga Khan as equivalent to Allah.

I gave links to the Ismaili.net forum showing this (1, 2, and 3...and there are more) and showing the diversity of interpretations about your Imam's status in relation to Allah - where you can see that some clearly quite devoted and informed Nizari Ismailis consider the Aga Khan as equivalent to Allah, while there are also others (such as yourself - "kandani") that consider him lower than Allah. Many Nizari Ismailis today interpret the term "mazhar" as manifestation, as can be seen from the posts at the Ismaili.net forums, or in the Encylopedia of Ismailism by Mumtaz Ali Tajddin, or even by sitting down and talking with a diverse group of Nizari Ismailis, for example. Here is a quote from Mumtaz Ali Tajddin: The Imam is the mazhar (manifestation) of God on earth as the electric bulb is a device of manifestation of electricity, which itself is invisible. The bulb plays the same role as the body of the Imam.

Let me add that there is no one correct interpretation of the vast majority of Nizari Ismaili doctrines...not even close! There is nothing you, Khalil / Ismailite, can point to that explicitly lays out what "is" and "isn't" in Nizari Ismailism. This is why there are Nizari Ismailis who have completely different views not only about their Imam, but, about most other aspects of Nizari Ismailism. You seem to have decided to make yourself a spokesperson for Nizari Ismailism, Khalil / Ismailite - but, you don't have the right or the ability to speak on behalf of a diverse group of individuals with a diverse set of beliefs on various doctrines of the Nizari Ismaili religion. You're not authorized to speak for Nizari Ismailis - neither by your Imam nor any of the Ismaili councils in Canada, where you live. Your Imam is letting these various interpretations of various doctrines co-exist, and has not required Nizari Ismailis to have one set of specific beliefs on any particular aspect of the Nizari Ismaili religion, in the vast majority of cases.

There are Nizari Ismailis who believe the Aga Khan is equivalent to Allah, and there are others who deem him only a spiritual leader.

There are Nizari Ismailis who believe in reincarnation, and there are others who don't even believe in heaven and hell.

There are Nizari Ismailis who believe the Qur'an has been corrupted, and there are others who believe it is perfect and uncorrupted.

There are Nizari Ismailis who believe that there were no Imams prior to Ali, and there are others who believe there were Imams prior to Ali.

I could go on and on because this is what Nizari Ismailism is - a faith full of a multiplicity of interpretations, practically none of which your Imam has explicitly rejected or urged his followers to accept, and that are thereby all considered equally valid and acceptable (though, in many cases CONTRADICTORY!).

This is incorrect and the actual Isma‘ili position is evidenced by the following:

a) Supplications in the Ismaili Dua which clearly position the Imams as intercessors and intermediaries (wasilah) between the believers and Allah as shown by 1) use of the expression “bi-haqqi” (by the right of) before the names of the Imams where the prayers and du`as are addressed to Allah (“Allahuma”); 2) the use of the word “tawassalu” in the phrase “in times of difficulty seek the mediation (tawassulu) of your mawla, the present and living Shah Karim al-Husayni” – where tawassul is from al-wasilah (meaning: means, medium, intermediary) which the Qur’an uses in 5:35 (“O ye who believe, be aware of God and seek the wasilah unto him”).

B) All the Ismaili philosophical literature from the early period and the Fatimid period and Alamut period position the Imam as the mazhar of the Universal Intellect (the Light of Muhammad) or the Divine Word (kalimat or amr Allah) and never as God Himself. In fact, for Ismaili thought, God is the Absolute Reality and totally above and beyond all attributes and descriptions and nothing can be exclusively identified with God. This is also repeated in the modern period in the statements of Aga Khan III and Aga Khan IV.

The Nizari Ismaili "Holy Du'a" contradicts itself at different points. In certain places, it does indeed make Allah look like the one to be worshiped and sought help from. But, then it goes on to contradict itself and make the Imam look like the one to be worshiped and sought help from.

I'm not the first one to say that the "Holy Du'a" contradicts itself at different points, and have already outlined in a previous post in this thread what I think are the lines of the "Holy Du'a" that reek of shirk.

c) The statements of Aga Khan III and Aga Khan IV in the modern period. For example, in the 1945 Mission Conference held in Dar es Salaam, the Aga Khan III said clearly that:

“You read my farmans that I made in Bombay in 1905/06, interpreted by Kamadia Hajee, where I explained fully that there is a fundamental difference between Ismailism and Christianity. In Christianity they believe that Jesus the man was God Almighty. For the Ismailis, during the 60 years of his life, ‘Ali on earth was the prisoner of the material world, limited by it and suffering constantly. When we think of ‘Ali, it is not the man during these 60 years, but the eternal that came from God and returned to God direct… These are the things which must be understood, that according to the Ismaili religion Allah is the ocean. Ali, during his life on earth, was the river, separated from the ocean of the Almighty - separated from it and running towards it - overcoming all material resistance and running towards its origin… the Imam is the Commander of the Faithful, the khalifa of God and the Messenger on earth.” (Aga Khan III, Mission Conference 1945, Dar es Salaam)

I don't know what the Mission Conference is or where you're taking this quote from. Please show us the book this is from and where we can obtain it, with full reference. The above quote even contradicts the very unique and polytheistic concept that Ali (as) is the "mazhar" of Allah, in my opinion, as the Aga Khan III is indicating here that Ali (as) neither possesses the so-called "Noor of Allah" and nor is he the "mazhar" of Allah.

Let me add that the Aga Khan III contradicts here what we read in the Haji Bibi Case regarding the status of the Imam in Nizari Ismailism, where he was present, as well as the status of the Imam per the old Nizari Ismaili "Holy Du'a," as well as the status of the Imam per many ginans that used to be recited and some of which are still recited today. All of these mentioned materials indicate that the Imam is equivalent to Allah. So, they completely disagree with the alleged statement above.

Further, by calling the Imam a Messenger in the above statement, Aga Khan III is indicating the Imam is a recipient of wahy, which only a Prophet/Messenger of Allah can obtain - and he is indicating that the Prophet (SAWS) wasn't the last Messenger of Allah, which is now Qadiani territory.

2. You assert that the Aga Khan III’s mother, Lady Ali Shah, did not believe in his Imamat. This is also incorrect as the simple statement of facts contradicts this claim: Lady Ali Shah was the strongest supporter of the Aga Khan since he became Imam at age 8; she assisted him in his younger years in managing the communal affairs of the Jamat; she testified in his favour during the Haji Bibi case – a case where the Plaintiffs were challenging the Imamat of the Aga Khan and asserting that the Khoja Ismailis were actually Twelvers; Lady Ali Shah in her final days sent a message of blessing and support for the Ismaili Jamat. All of these FACTS (as related in the books of KK Aziz, and the Aga Khan’s own Memoirs) clearly contradict the idea that Lady Ali Shah did not accept her son as the Imam of the Time. Below is what the late Aga Khan wrote about his beloved mother:

“My mother, who had insisted on the educational discipline of my early boyhood, was as shrewd and watchful as she was loving. She and I remained, throughout her long life, in the closest, most affectionate intimacy. Every night in those years I would go to her apartments and join with her in prayer -- that prayer for unity, for companionship on high, which is the core of Muslim faith. This shared experience gave us both, I think, the strength to bear our load of fatigue and anxiety, mental and spiritual, which was by no means light during these difficult years. But my mother's religion was resolutely practical as well; she saw no virtue in faith without works, and from the outset of my public career I accepted and sought to practice the same standards.” (Aga Khan III, Memoirs: World Enough and Time)

It is therefore totally implausible, incredible and simply untrue that Lady Ali Shah did not believe in her son’s Imamat – when in reality, she was the biggest supporter of the Aga Khan III and his Imamat activities. Lady Ali Shah’s practice of Islam was an Islam of mysticism and spirituality. The Aga Khan III describes his mother’s religious beliefs as follows:

In addition, my mother was herself a genuine mystic in the Muslim tradition (as were most of her closest companions); and she habitually spent a great deal of time in prayer for spiritual enlightenment and for union with God. In such a spirit there was no room for bigotry. Like many other mystics my mother had a profound poetic understanding. I have, in something near ecstasy, heard her read perhaps some verses by Roumi or Hafiz, with their exquisite analogies between man's beatific vision of the Divine and the temporal beauty and colors of flowers, the music and magic of the night, and the transient splendors of the Persian dawn.” (Aga Khan III, Memoirs: World Enough and Time)

“My mother gave evidence on my behalf and was complimented by the judge, who said that she had "displayed an extraordinary memory." (Aga Khan III, Memoirs: World Enough and Time)

My work in this international field, and its crown and climax in my year as President of the League, had especially delighted my beloved mother. When I first went to Geneva she was over eighty, and she followed my work there with unflagging interest. Each year that I went to India we talked together as fully and as frankly about this as we had, throughout my life, shared our interests, our joys and our sorrows.” (Aga Khan III, Memoirs: World Enough and Time)

“A few minutes after I reached her bedside, her eyes opened, and she recognized me. Then in the way that all true Muslims would ask, who seek to follow the Prophet's example and attain a safe and quiet journey from the midst of the living, she achieved peace and happiness and that final "Companionship on High" for which all yearn.” (Aga Khan III, Memoirs: World Enough and Time)

It is interesting that the Aga Khan III mentions above one of Judge Russell's comments about Lady Ali Shah. Judge Russell also declared, based on various evidences that he had obtained in the 1908 Haji Bibi Case, that there could be "no doubt" that Aga Khan III's mother was a Twelver (see court documents of Haji Bibi Case linked to in earlier posts in this thread). No one objected to this statement of the Judge (including Aga Khan III and Lady Ali Shah), and the Judge would never have said something like this unless he had been absolutely compelled to by the evidence he had been given - especially considering what it implies about the relationship between Lady Ali Shah and her son.

There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that Aga Khan III's mother followed the Nizari Ismaili religion. It looks like she respected it, and respected her son. But, there's not even one piece of evidence out there that indicates she practiced Nizari Ismailism and accepted it over Twelver Islam. She wore the hijab and she attended Twelver masjids and Imambargahs. This is all clear.

3. You assert that Imam Nizar did not have children. This is completely incorrect and is contradicted by actual scholarship - historians such as Farhad Daftary, Paul Walker, and medieval historians write that Imam Nizar had sons and grandsons – and some of them even rose in revolt against the later Fatimids. See Daftary’s long History and Paul Walker’s recent book Fatimid History and Doctrine. Below are some relevant quotations from these sources:

. Some of these Nizarids even launched unsuccessful revolts against the later Fatimids, claiming the caliphate. The last of these revolts was led in 556/1161 by a grandson of Nizar.” (Daftary, The Ismailis, 326)

“There were many who thought that that Nizar died in prison at Alexandria; history records that he left behind a male progeny who continued to sporadically fight the Cairo regime.” (Nasseh Ahmad Mirza, Syrian Ismailism, 6)

“Only one of al-Nizar's sons was arrested with him, and the other son disappeared in Alexandria, who was neither arrested nor recognised." (Hafiz Abru, d. 833/1430, “Majma al-Tawarikh-i Sultaniyya”, 242)

Hasan bin Sabbah introduced an Imam to his successors during his death-bed.” (Ibn Muyassar, d. 1278, "Tarikh-i Misr", 68)

Other than perhaps the quote from Daftary, none of them definitively say that Imam Nizar had a male heir. A statement like "history records..." is far from definitive, for example. Furthermore, Daftary - although not a Nizari Ismaili - is not someone who I consider completely unbiased, especially due to his longstanding employment with the Institute of Ismaili Studies (owned by the Aga Khan) and from being, from what I understand, a far relative of the Aga Khan. When you're writing about something that ties into a man who not only employs you, but, is additionally related to you, it is quite easy to be biased.

Further, the full context should be given of the quote you mention:

nizar.png

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Where is the evidence Imam Nizar had a designated successor? As Professor Peter Lamborn Wilson writes in "The Anti-caliph":

No real evidence exists to support the story of Nizar's infant son. Some historians believe these claims of legitimacy to be later fabrications. But who would have fomented such a hoax? Hassan-i Sabbah? Apparently he preached only in the name of the murdered Pretender Nizar, and never mentioned any rescued infant. Was the hoaxer then Hassan II, Master of the Qiyamat? No. In the earliest descriptions of the Qiyamat, he presents himself as speaking on behalf of the Imam. Apparently only after- his violent death - a few years after the Qiyamat - was he openly proclaimed Imam.

As Anthony Campbell writes in the "Assassins of Alamut":

As far as history was concerned, Nizar and his son died imprisoned and intestate. Hasan-i Sabbah was therefore a legitimist supp-orting a non-existent pret-ender! He never claimed to be the Imam himself, nor did his successor as "old Man of the Mountain," nor did his successor. And yet they all preached "in the name of Nizar".

He later adds:

When Hasan II proclaimed the Great Resurrection which marks the end of Time, he lifted the veil of concealment and abrogated the religious Law. He offered communal as well as individual participation in the mystic's great adventure, perfect freedom. He acted on behalf of the Imam, and did not claim to be the Imam himself. (In fact he took the title of Caliph or "representative".) But if the family of Ali is the same as perfect consciousness, then perfect consciousness is the same as the family of Ali. The realized mystic "becomes" a descendant of Ali (like the Persian Salman whom Ali adopted by covering him with his cloak, and who is much revered by sufis, Shiites and Ismailis alike). In Reality, in haqiqah, Hasan II was the Imam because in the Ismaili phrase, he had realised the "Imam-of-his-own-being." The Qiyamat was thus an invitation to each of his followers to do the same, or at least to participate in the pleasures of paradise on earth.

What's the bottom line? The bottom line is that there is simply no evidence to indicate that the Aga Khan is a hereditary descendant of Imam Nizar. It is a matter of "faith" alone. I have not seen one academic historian support the Aga Khan's claim. And, even if one did, like Farhad Daftary (who is actually employed by the Aga Khan and a far relative of the Aga Khan - so difficult to completely trust), the vast majority DO NOT.

Further, when the Aga Khan’s letter asserting his lineage to Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi talib was read at the Amman Conference – where leadership of Sunni and Twelver Islam (including Ayatullahs, Muftis, Shaykhs, etc) was present – there was not a word of opposition of disagreement from any of the Muslim leadership about his genealogical claim. Even Farhad Daftary, whom you say is not Ismaili, has said publically that there are “no issues” with the Aga Khan’s genealogy from the Imam ‘Ali. End of Story.

No one contesting his lineage at the Conference means nothing at all. The Conference was not held to discuss who he or anyone else is descended from. Furthermore, I'm not sure anyone there would care enough about the Aga Khan to bother questioning his lineage. There are millions of people who claim to be descendants of Prophet Muhammad (SAWS).

Regarding Farhad Daftary's comment, I have no idea what he's trying to say by "no issues." It could mean a variety of things and there is no context given by you (as is typical). Please see my comments earlier on him, also, and please also cite your source.

5. You falsely claim the Aga Khan personally profits off the offerings (i.e. zakat, dasond) which the Murids give. This is absolutely untrue.

The Aga Khan IV can say what he likes. Without evidence, it is meaningless.

In 2007, after an interview with the Aga Khan, G. Pascal Zachary, of the The New York Times, wrote:

"Part of the Aga Khan's personal wealth, which his advisers say exceeds $1 billion, comes from a dizzyingly complex system of tithes that some of the world's 15 million Ismaili Muslims pay him each year - an amount that he will not disclose but which may reach hundreds of millions of dollars annually."

In his 1949 interview with Life Magazine, the Aga Khan III claimed he keeps "about 10%" of the tithes for himself (this would amount to hundreds of millions of dollars per year, by my estimation). How do we know the percentage is not much more than this? No one knows other than the Aga Khan. There is simply no information available on this topic. No has any idea what he keeps and what he doesn't. There has never been any financial information published on this or made available on this. There is simply no financial transparency on this issue, and there isn't one Nizari Ismaili who knows exactly what percentage of the tithes the Aga Khan keeps for himself and exactly what percentage goes to charities or the community at large.

Here is what Judge Russell said in the Haji Bibi Case regarding Aga Khan I - who by all appearances went from being a pauper after being kicked out of Iran to becoming extremely wealthy in India off of the backs of his followers:

As I have said it has not been proved that the 1st Aga Khan retained any property in Persia, and I think I may take it that when he arrived in Bombay, he had to rely on his pension from [british] Government and the offerings of his followers. Gradually he acquired properties, and there can be no doubt that he maintained his family and probably the large number of retainers who must have accompanied him from Persia. He gradually acquired immovable properties in Bombay and elsewhere, permitted the members of his family and some of his retainers to reside in his various houses. He also acquired property in Poona, where he followed the same practice.

The pension was quite small, so, the tithes were clearly a major source of income for the Aga Khan I. Over time, as the income accumulated (it doesn't take long given the amount of money we're talking about), the Aga Khan I became very wealthy and had many properties. By the time of his death, his heir, Aga Khan II, was naturally also very wealthy. And, so it continued with Aga Khans III and IV, with income from tithes accumulating like a rolling snowball of money. Today, the wealth is immense, and the Aga Khan is a billionaire. Is it possible that, given how much wealth has been accumulated by the Aga Khans over the past near two centures (largely from Nizari Ismaili tithes), the Aga Khan today (or even since he became Imam) chooses to no longer keep any of the tithes for himself? Yes. But, apparently not, according to the New York Times.

In any case, there is no financial transparency on this issue, as I said. Even a small fraction of the total tithes each year, which a total in the billions of dollars per year, is an extraordinarily immense amount of income for a person to take in.

6. You ask why the Aga Khan does not attend Jamatkhana and lead his murids in prayer. Clearly, you misunderstand and have no clue what a Tariqah is and what a Murshid and what is the status of the Imam in Shia Islam.

I stand by what I said, completely. I don't know of any Shia Imam (nor Prophet) that didn't go to the same masjid as his followers and lead his followers in prayer. I know of no Shia Imam that didn't do the same acts of worship he told his followers to do. An Imam should not just be doing what he asks his followers to do, but, he should be leading them in it and being an example of it for all of his followers. That is the whole point.

Your Imam doesn't participate himself in any of your acts of worship. He doesn't lead you in saying the "Holy Du'a," or singing Ginans, or reciting dhikr, or any other acts of worship. He doesn't go to jamatkhana. Nor do his kids, nor does his extended family. And, none of them practice Nizari Ismaili acts of worship, rites, or ritals. Rather, they practice either Sunni or Twelver acts of worship, rites, and rituals - with the marriages and funerals we've seen in the media being just a small example of this [there is never a mukhisaheb (Ismaili priest) conducting the Nikah or leading the funeral prayer when it comes to the Aga Khans - it's always someone from the Sunni or Twelver community].

Sufis practice the five pillars of Islam, including praying in masjids with all the other Muslims. They also do extra things on top of what is required in Islam as part of their tariqah, determined to get closer to Allah. Ask any legitimate Sunni or Shia Sufi tariqah about whether Nizari Ismailism is a legitimate Sufi tariqah and they will laugh in your face. There's no relationship between legitimate Sufism and Nizari Ismailism. What you're following is a full-fledged religion separate from Islam and nothing like a recognized Sufi tariqah.

Allyyullah means Ali of Allah, not Ali is God. Refer to other examples of words with -llah as a suffix. For example rahmatullah (mercy of God) and kalamullah (word of God).

Allyyullah means Ali of Allah, not Ali is God. Refer to other examples of words with -llah as a suffix. For example rahmatullah (mercy of God) and kalamullah (word of God).

There is a bit of confusion here.

Yes, "Aliyullah" means "Exalted of God." But, don't be misled. When "Ali-Allah" is mentioned pre-1956, it is with regard to the old "Holy Du'a," which was not entirely in Arabic, and is referring to "Ali Sahi Allah" and not "Aliyullah." Please refer to the meaning of "Ali Sahi Allah" and realize that the term "Aliyullah" wasn't in the old "Holy Du'a" nor the old Nizari Ismaili shahada (but "Ali Sahi Allah" was). So, it's a post-1956 term. It also wouldn't make sense to interpret "Ali-Allah" as "Aliyullah" in the below context, as an example (as should be clear):

imagefrombook.png

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
This Imam Aga Khan IV – whether you believe in him or not - has invested millions of dollars and all of his time and resources into improving the quality of life for ALL PEOPLE on earth through the Aga Khan Development Network?

A quick grading of your so-called "Imam":

Anyone who has the truth does not hesitate to actively call all others to it. (fail)

Anyone who is divinely guided goes ahead and proves it to others just like the Prophet (as). (fail)

Anyone who claims to be divinely guided and does neither of these is clearly a dajjal. (checkmark)

Your "Imam" (who clearly seems to either follow Sunni or Shia Islam personally, unlike his followers) is clearly an impostor who is collecting billions of dollars in tithes each year from his worshipers. These worshipers just so happen to be amazingly and wholly ignorant of the realities of Islam, very unfortunately (may Allah guide them to the right path). They are driven by your "Imam" to become a financially prosperous community - becoming as educated and as wealthy as possible whilst abandoning the practices of Islam, all so that the "Imam" can become even more wealthy (through a continuously growing and seemingly everlasting sum of tithes) and powerful (by wielding power over a community with diverse and vast business interests around the world).

Of these billions he collects from his worshipers, the Aga Khan puts a portion in his pocket and the rest he contributes to charity on behalf of his followers (as that's where they expect the money to go, anyway).

It's not his money he's giving away, but, that of his followers. And, even his money comes primarily from his followers (whether today or in the past), as I explained in my prior post.

He is made to look like a great philanthropist and friend to all. The reality is that he is an impostor that is leading his followers to hell. No amount of charity can fix that.

Your "Imam" is an evil man and is swimming naked. One day, the tide will go out and everyone who has fallen for the image he tries to project will realize what a criminal he is. May Allah make that day come quickly.

Edited by Ruwayd
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Dear Brother Abu Muslim....

Help me to understand here as you seem to be an expert on Shii Islam..

“And, it is by the Mercy of Allah (rahmatin mina Allahi) that you [Muhammad] were gentle with them, for if you had been stern and fierce of heart they would have dispersed from around about you. So forgive them (fa o‘afoo ‘aanhum) and ask forgiveness for them (wa istaghfir lahum) and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs. ..And when you are resolved, then put your trust in Allah. Surely, Allah loves those who trust.” — Holy Qur’an 3:159

“Hold to the forgiveness (khuthi al-‘afwa); command what is right;

But turn away from the ignorant.” — Holy Qur’an 7:199

These verses, particularly 3:159, refer to the duty of Muhammad over the believers and close followers. ...

And so if the MAHDI was to come tomorrow, would you also say that the Saviour (Qaim) is NOT empowered?

Revelations have stopped and Naboowat/Risalat has ended ! all else remains unchanged !

Prophet (saw) was commanded by God to both “forgive them” and “ask forgiveness for them”.

The first command relates to the ‘afwa or forgiveness of the Prophet and the second command pertains to the maghfira or forgiveness of God which the Prophet seeks on behalf of his followers as their intercessor and wasilah.

But it should be noted that the Prophet must forgive the believers himself through his ‘afwa just as he intercedes for God to forgive them. ....otherwise why will God forgive you ?

And so are you all now under chastisement?

Quran says that you are unless you followed what Allah has sent down ! do you want me to show you the ayah?

And so do you accept and acknowledge that Ali (as) was the Rightful successor of the beloved Prophet? Yes or No ? First and foremost it is important that you confirm that you accept the notion of Imamat ! So please I want both of you Ruwadee and yourself to tell us that you accept Ali's Imamat...lets continue with the theme..

The first words of the verse place these functions of Muhammad as expressions of the Mercy of God (rahmatin mina Allah) as he is the embodiment of Divine Mercy and the locus of manifestation (Mazhar) of God’s Merciful Names such as al-Rahman, al-Rahim, and al-Ghafur..and so was Muhamad (saw) a mazhar? and what is this "nur" or Light? tell us if you know?

The Qur’an uses the term ‘afwa to denote the forgiveness of God on several occasions.

But most interestingly, the word ‘afwa is also used several times in reference to the forgiveness granted by the Prophet Muhammad himself. ..and so what does this then make the prophet? a Copy manifest? a Replica? a partner? a vicar? a legatee? a Hujjat?

How was the Quran revealed to the Nabi? When? Remember I have said "Nabi" and NOT Rasool...Rasool revealed this overtime in a span of 23 years...but what about the Nabi? and who was the "Manifest Imam" at the material time when Sura Yaseen was revealed? and I am simply, at this time, talking of "revealed" Imams and so lets keep this matter simple...had the prophets in the line of Abraham, been raised to the station of "Imams"? yes or No !

033.046

YUSUFALI: And as one who invites to Allah's (grace) by His leave, and as a lamp spreading light.

PICKTHAL: And as a summoner unto Allah by His permission, and as a lamp that giveth light.

SHAKIR: And as one inviting to Allah by His permission, and as a light-giving torch.

In the Qur'an, Surah 33, ayat 46, the Holy Prophet Muhammad is described as "sirajam­-munira" or the "Luminous Lamp".

".......We also realize that nothing comes into being on its own.."

Any continuous acts or operation of the tools of creation cannot be separated from any initial act of creation and so if the creator of man and the universe is just one, the governance is not questionable as there exists a link between creation and governance and so nobody has the right to judge what God has commanded and 'whoso judgeth not according to that which God hath revealed, such are the disbelievers.." (Sura al Ma'ida)...

HE is the LIGHT of the Heavens and the Earth and "unto God belongs the east and the west wherever ye turn, you will see HIS face...! maybe you can help members understand what this implies then if Maherally is trying to confine God in a specific place or area ?..."

God is Light (Noor) - so why is HE talking about some "physical attributes" and confinement ?

Maybe you can explain to the membership or maybe human intellect cannot actually interpret or understand as using any conventional terms would be leading to conceiving God differently and one may misconceive just the way Maherally is doing this on purpose and others are peddling !

Why does God use plural for HIs own First Person? HE is One - the Eaxlted ! correct? then why does HE refer to Himself as WE/US/OURs and not just "I" in the Quran and so many times ?

Kindly explain ! How did God establish Himself (Istiwa) on the Throne?

" And if when they had wronged themselves they had but come unto thee and asked for forgiveness of God and the Messenger had sought forgiveness for them, they would have found God Forgiving, Merciful.." (Sura al Nisa)...even the angels had to bow down before Adam !

"And when it is said unto them: Come ! The Messenger of God will ask forgiveness for you, they avert their faces and thou seest them turning away, disdainful..." (Sura al Munafiqun) - it is thus clear that refusing to seek any such intercession is the sign of a hypocrisy .

Next time don't show Maherally's lies to anyone as you are merely sending innocent folks towards the path of "Nar" !

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Dear Ruwadyee....

I find your language towards a Sh'ia Imam disconcerting...it seems to hinge on hatred and bias - perhaps Gheebah....I believe it is also against the guidelines of this august group...

The Sunni historians have bestowed upon Uthman the grandiloquent title of Dhun-Noorayn which means "the owner of Two lights," Uthman became the owner of Two lights after marrying Ruqayya and Umm Kulthoom. ..but both of these girls were married to Two idolaters, i.e., Utba and Utaiba, the sons of Abu Lahab, before they were married to Uthman. Therefore, should each of the two sons of Abu Lahab also be called Dhun-Noor – the owner of one light.

After all each of them, Utba and Utaiba, was the owner of "one light" which he passed on to Uthman, thus making him the owner of Two lights. After all, the lights remained the same; only the ownership changed!

Now at one time there were three girls living in the household of Prophet. Their names were Zainab, Ruqayya and Umm Kulthoom.

Zainab, the eldest of the three, was married to one Kaffir Abul-'As ibn er-Rabi' of Makkah.

This man fought against the Prophet in the battle of Badr, and was captured by the Muslims. To ransom his freedom, his wife sent to the Prophet, a necklace which at one time had belonged to Khadija, and she had given it to her as a present on her marriage.

Abul-'As was set free; he returned to Makkah, and sent Zainab to Medina as he had promised to do. Zainab, however, died soon after her arrival in Medina.

Later, Abul-'As also went to Medina, accepted Islam, and lived with the Muslims.

The other two girls, Ruqayya and Umm Kulthoom, were married to Utba and Utaiba, the sons of Abu Lahab and Umm Jameel.

Umm Jameel was the sister of Abu Sufyan, the chief of the clan of Umayya. Abu Sufyan, therefore, was the maternal uncle of Utba and Utaiba.

Most of the historians claim that they were the daughters of Muhammad and Khadija...ofcourse some Sh'ias disagree...quite understandable... but what is your take on this then? how come some "daughters" of the Prophet and Khadija Bibi had married Kaffirs?

Also how do you explain the fact that the Quran is silent when it comes to muslim women marrying a non-muslim man...either bring me an ayah which supports your argument or drop the argument as today there are thousands of muslim women married to non-muslims...

As long as the spouse is not an atheist I do not find sufficient evidence as having been presented...

Also did the prophet also have a Jewish and a Christian wife? do you have an issue with it? And if the TEXTS say a man is allowed one, two, three or four conditionally then kindly explain to me why the Prophet (saw) had some 12 wives? surely he would NOT go against the very Quran he brought to mankind ? I am not asking you to justify why he married 12 wives? I am asking a simple question here.....if the TEXTS restricts a man to just 4...did the Prophet (saw) and Ali (as) also have the same number? I need to know please...and you need to tie up certain loose ends...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

There are some people who interpret the word ghanimtum as 'whatever

of a thing that you acquire as spoils of war', thus confining the

obligation of khums to the spoils of war only.

The interpretation is based on ignorance of

* the Arabic langauage

* the history of khums

* the Islamic laws

* and the interpretation of the Quran

Please bear in mind that the word ghanimtum has been derived from al-

ghanimah.

=================================

The meaning of the word Ghanimtum

=================================

The famous Arabic dictionary of al-Munjid (Father Louis Maluf of Beirut)

states, al-ghanim and al-ghanimah means

* what is taken from the fighting enemies by force

* all earnings generally

Furthermore the saying "al-ghunm bil ghurm" means that profit stands

against expenses, i.e, the owner is the sole proprieter of the profit and

nobody shares it with him, therefore only he bears all the expenses and

risk.

For the readers satisfaction, they are also encouraged to look up

dictionaries like Lisan al-Arab and al-Qamus.

This implies that in the Arabic langauge ' al-ghanimah ' has two meanings,

one is the spoils of war, and the other is profit.

The above quoted proverb also proves profit is not an uncommon meaning. When a word in the Quran can interpreted in more than one way, it is incumbent upon the muslims to seek guidance from the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF) and the Ahl al-Bayt.

Salat and Zakat,Ushr,Khums - go together ! Even in the Quran one may find that Salat and Zakat has been often mentioned !

Almost all religions have made this Obligatory...As per the Bible :

" And all the TITHE of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the family of the Tree, is the Lord'sIt is holy unto the Lord..and if a man will at all redeem ought of this Tithe, he shall add thereto the FIFTH PART thereof.."
and so this One-Fifth is Khums mentioned in the Quran...

Prophets Abraham, Moses and Ishmael were also ordered to pay...Zakat is NOT "Sadaqa" !

"Maal e Wajib" is Ushr and Khums and those who do not pay are NOT steadfast ! The 2.5% which the Sunni Jurists have fixed is NOT based on the Quran...

The condition however is that this must be payed only from Halal earnings and NOT haram earnings...the earnings must be honest !

Also pay your debt first even if it is a farthing, to your Lord ! I heard some folks argue about why? or how Muhamad (saw) was sent as a Mercy or how he was a Mercy to all mankind?...if you do not pay his share and that of
Allah
, this mercy will not benefit or touch you at all...the faithful return of the "amanat" (Trust)
will activate the power of such Mercy
....there is no automatic qualifications....submission by itself isn't enough...faith too must enter your hearts....practice Islam correctly and be loyal to Islam....lip service is just a sham and a farce !

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Uthman was slain by murderous men who seemed driven insane.

And the crime that they did was a sin, clear and plain.

But what of those who rose to take the law in their hand;

Who raised ranks of young soldiers to rebel and then stand

Against Ali, the elected leader of The Nation?

Is this not a crime; a gross deviation? We are ungrateful to our Lord Who has created and sustains us by continuously sending His blessings and favours upon us.

We show this ingratitude by thoughts, words and deeds. In our love for material things and worldly pleasures, we forget God and lead a life unworthy of our noble and high status.

The Qur’an says:

“Truly Man is to his Lord ungrateful; and to that (fact) he bears witness (by his deeds); and violent is he in his love of wealth.” (Holy Qur’an, 100:6-8)

Our tendency is to pin our faith on transitory things that come and go, and neglect the things of lasting moment. The end is sad and dismal.

As the Qur’an says:

“Those who desire the life of the world and its pomp, We shall repay them their deed herein, and therein they will not be wronged. These are they for whom there is nothing in the Hereafter, save the Fire. All that they contrive here is vain and all that they are wont to do is fruitless.” (Holy Qur’an, 11:15-16)

The Qur’an says: “These are the people who buy the life of this world at the price of the Hereafter…” (Holy Qur’an, 2:86)

The impious ones fail in their allegiance they have sworn.. only increasing in their impiety and wrong deeds. Blinded by the evil, they turn away from all the spiritual bounties and Grace which is ever present . Thus they become the losers.

Mowlana Rumi, calls out and says:

“Look not in the world for bliss and fortune, since thou wilt not find them;

Seek bliss in both worlds by serving Him.

Put away the tale of love that travellers tell;

Do thou serve God with all the might.

From the Sun who is the glory of Tabriz seek future bliss,

For he is a sun, possessing all kinds of knowledge, on the spiritual throne.”— XLIV

Many of us spend our time in acquiring material wealth and fulfilling ambitions and we do not pay heed to the approaching death.

The Qur’an warns: “Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement, and are deceived by the life of this world.” (Holy Qur’an, 6:70)

“…And whatever good you send forth for your souls before you, you shall find it with God, for God sees well all that you do.” (Holy Qur’an, 2:110)

“Upon them will be Green Garments of fine silk and heavy brocade, and they will be adorned with Bracelets of silver; and their Lord will give to them to drink of a Wine, Pure and Holy.

“Verily this is a reward for you, and your endeavour is accepted and recognised. “ (Holy Qur’an, 76:20-22)

They were in the habit of sleeping but little by night, and in the hours of early dawn they (were found) praying for Forgiveness.” (Holy Qur’an, 51:15-18)

What the Lord loves and desires most is helplessness, humility and a weeping heart.

May the Muslims offer to HIM.... Amen !

Who will dare read the story from our point of view?

Or will you laugh and applaud on mechanical cue

Like you've been doing in ignorance and bigotry?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

"..INNAL QURAN ONZILLA ALA SAB'ATU AHROFIN MA MINHA HARFON ILLA WALLAHU ZAHERON WA BATANON WA INNA ALI IBNE ABI TALEB, INDAHU MINHO ZAHERO WAL BATIN ! .."

At the time when Hazrat Ali took the office of the 4th Caliph of the islamic Umma, in a sermon presenting his credentials to the people he said...

" FI ISMI FI TORAT E ELIAH FIL INSIL E ELIE, VA FIL QURAN E ALIYUL AZIM, VA IND UMMIE HAIDERA, VA IND ABI SABDER VA IND NABI MURTAZA, VA IND MUSALMAN KARARIN GAYR FARAR"....

Copyright © James W. Morris).

Do not seek to know the Truth (al-Haqq) according to other people. Rather first come to know the Truth — and only then will you recognize Its people.

Whereas the divine Essence is absolutely unknowable, the cosmos as a whole is the locii of manifestation of all God's attributes....

The
mazhar
(Arabic:
ãÙåÑ
‎; plural
mazāhar
, ãÙÇåÑ) is a large, heavy tambourine used in Arabic music...and so what is the metaphor ?

In the orchestra, and within the percussion ...it provides a variety of rhythms, textures and tone colors.

And Maherally thinks it is "God incarnate" ! how naive ? and so you all believe him? and from where did he get this interpretation" and meaning? I find this rather amusing !

"..He who is dead, then We granted him life and gave him a light by which he may walk among people better than someone like him who is a multitude of darkness from which he will not come out?(Al-Anaam-122)..."

"And had WE made him the Prophet (an angel), WE would have certainly made him a man and disguised him before them in garments like their own" (6:9)....

"..Verily came to you from
Allah
Noor and the Clear book. (Al-Maidah-15)..."

The great mystery of existence, its eternal origin and infinite permanence is described in the most comprehensive and eloquent parable of light, which contains layer upon layer of allegorical comparisons to make apparent to man the purpose of the great author of the universe.

The performance of light is to Manifest. It is
Allah
who manifests the universe.

The light emanating from a source may pass through transparent or opaque mediums.

Generally it is not serviceable when it passes through an opaque medium but is profitable when it goes through a transparent medium.

Transparent mediums have different degrees of transparency.

Better conductivity depends on the degree of refinement and purification of the medium.

There may be a source or cause which produces the light. It may also be self-illuminating .

The human beings can only think of the factors of the spiritual world in terms of the phenomenal experience obtainable through physical senses; and in the phenomenal world light is the purest thing known to man.

Due to the limitations of human experience man cannot see the real light but perceive only the lighted objects. ...also this subject is not for all to easily understand....

It is dependent upon some source external to itself...

The perfect light of
Allah
is free from any such defects. It prevails everywhere. It envelops everything. It is independent of time and space.

The niche (mishkat) is the recess in the wall, high from the ground in the houses elevated.

The divine light, according to the parable, is placed high above everything, all that which has been created, the whole universe.

The divine light passed through the purest transparent chain of Prophets, without any detour, and manifested itself in its full glory in the Holy Prophet, to illuminate the human society for ever.

All the mediums-lamp, glass etcetera-which are the various stages between the original source and the final spreading of the light should be of the highest transparency so as not to affect the purity of light passing through them.

It implies that the minds, hearts, loins and wombs of the ancestors of the Holy Prophet were free from the dirt of polytheism.

The house in which the niche always remained is described in verse 36 Sura tul Nur. ...these houses are NOT the Masjids...but are called Bayt
Allah
al-Haram ! Go and do some Research !

This shows that externally Ali and the Qur'an are separate from one another but internally they are not only together, they are one light." ..and so what is a Mazhar now? Ask Maherally to explain?

"Externally Ali is a pure personality and internally a light.

Externally the Qur'an is a glorious heavenly Book and internally (in the Prophet and/or the Imam) it is a light....

Just as the waves cannot exist for themselves and are ever a part of the heaving surface of the ocean, so are the Prophets and Imams of the Ahl al Bayt, and the Saints and the Sages, who do not exist except in the essence and experience of
Allah
's "Pillars" in regards to HIS Oneness.

People call them "Waves" ...now drops of water when they recede into the Waves and when the waves recede into the Ocean , what is the transformation ?....What then is the end result of the "ebb and the flow"...

"And for whom
Allah
hath NOT appointed Light, for him there is no Light" (Sura al Nur)

" And they say we believe in
Allah
and the Prophet and we obey, then after that a faction of them turn away. Such are NOT the believers" ( Sura al Nur)

The niche is the source of light, and the oil of the blessed tree is a pure "light above light".

There is not a slightest trace of darkness.

Darkness or evil exists outside the sphere of the houses in which the niche is located and cannot enter into it. ...

And majority do not have access to it perhaps as "
Allah
guides unto HIS Noor whomsoever HE Wills"

Also refer to the commentary of al Baqarah: 275; Nisa: 175 ; Ma-idah: 1 5 and Yunus: 87.

The lamp is the core of the real illumination....and so the "Lamp" is the "Mazhar" and in the Quran who was referred to as the Lamp?

Read the Quran...

It is placed inside a glass which protects it from any outside interference or disturbance The illumination shines bright like a star...what is placed inside a glass? and which glass? (This is in Sura Nur)

In this world, governed by the laws of cause and effect, it becomes natural to know what makes the lamp burn, as no lamp burns without oil.

So to give man the idea of causative factor of the generation of light, it is said that the oil of the blessed tree of olive keeps the lamp alive. ..and so what is this OIL? and the Lamp?

It is said that after the great flood, the olive tree was the first to grow on the earth.

This mystic olive is not localised. It is neither of the east nor of the west.

It is universal like the light of
Allah
.

The light of wisdom (the Quran) in the heart of the Holy Prophet was as protected as the lamp in the glass....and so who was then a Mazhar here and in this context and what did it encompasss?

Verses 77 to 79 of al Waqi-ah clearly state that the Quran is a protected book; and no one can touch it save the thoroughly purified, the Ahl ul Bayt, according to the verse 33 of Ahzab.

Therefore the true interpretation of "light upon light" is the Holy Prophet and his Ahl ul Bayt (pure progeny). ..

It is further made clear in the next verse. "
Allah
guides whom He wills to His light" see the commentary of al Baqarah: 256 and 257-he who believes in
Allah
, indeed, has taken hold of the firmest handhold (or rope) which will not break off.....

Allah

brings them out of the darkness into light- It is obvious that those who are guided unto His light are the thoroughly purified ones.

They alone are the manifestations of the real light. ..and so are the "Mazharis" ? The Purified ones? why? what does Sura al Hamd say to you?

Those who follow these reflection of the divine light receive guidance from the grace of
Allah
to the extent or degree of their sincere attachment to them.

24:35]
Allah
is the light of the heavens and the earth; a likeness of His light is as a niche in which is a lamp, the lamp is in a glass, (and) the glass is as it were a brightly shining star, lit from a blessed olive-tree, neither eastern nor western, the oil whereof almost gives light though fire touch it not-- light upon light--
Allah
guides to His light whom He pleases, and
Allah
sets forth parables for men, and
Allah
is Cognizant of all things.

Light as a symbol of guidance is one of the attributes of
Allah
. It is manifested in both the realms of creation and legislation.

Allah

is the light through which every created being comes into evidence, and every being is guided toward the destination where it should reach...as long as you follow the path of THOSE UPON WHOM
Allah
HAS BESTOWED HIS FAVOURS...choice is left to each to make....so don't bark like alley urchins...just follow what you like and let others follow what they prefer !

To reach to the destination of salvation, bliss and satisfaction it has to do that which guidance points out.

In every realm and sphere there is a point in which the light of creation or guidance manifests itself originally, and then illuminates the surroundings.

Niche {mishkat) refers to this "point" as the exalted holy place chosen for the manifestation of
Allah
's name and attributes...and so what then is the other name for Mazhar?...?

There should be an entity whose cognitive self becomes the focus of light.

Such entities have been pointed out clearly in Ahzab: 33 and Ali Imran: 61 as the first and the foremost in receiving the light of existence in the arc of descent and the-last in the arc of ascent.

In the realm of creation they are the best entities or "points" in which the light of creation manifested itself originally.

In the realm of legislation and guidance too they are the best models

Since God is at the source of creation, there is nothing in creation that does not reflect some aspect of God.

The cosmos considered as a single whole is the locus of manifestation for all the divine names, or what comes down to the same thing, for the name
Allah
, which is the name that brings together all the other names.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

<p><p>

Prophet ORDERED all people to follow Imam Ali (as) as his agent during his life time, and as his Caliph after him. Prophet wished everybody does that...majority reneged and ran away !

But unfortunately those who heeded him were few and were known as "Shia of Ali" who were subject to all sort of discrimination and prosecution, and suffered from day one of the demise of the Mercy to Mankind, Muhammad (PBUH&HF). <p>

If every one (or say the majority Muslims) had obeyed what prophet wished, then there wouldn't exist any group or school within Islam. Allah said in Quran:

"Hold fast to the Rope of
Allah
, all of you together and do not separate" (Quran 3:103)"

The Rope of Allah which we should not separate from, are the Ahlul-Bayt. In fact, some Sunni scholars narrated from Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (as) saying:

"
We are the Rope of
Allah
about whom
Allah
has said: 'Hold fast to the Rope of
Allah
, all of you together and do not diverge (3:103)'"

Sunni references:

  • al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami , Ch. 11, section 1, p233
    • Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Tha'labi, under commentary of verse 3:103

    Thus, if Allah denounces the sectarianism, He denounces those who separated from His Rope, and not those who hold fast to it !

    Also some said the Rope of Allah is the Book. This is also true. But by looking at the following tradition narrated by Umm Salama who said:

    The Messenger of
    Allah
    said: "Ali is with Quran, and Quran is with Ali. They shall not separate from each other till they both return to me by the Pool (of Paradise)."

    Sunni references:

    • al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p124 on the authority of Umm Salama
      • al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 9, section 2, pp 191,194
        • al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani; also in al-Saghir
          • Tarikh al-Khulafa, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p173

          Also WE have confined EVERYTHING in the Manifest Imam !

          075.017 YUSUFALI: It is for Us to collect it and to promulgate it:

          PICKTHAL: Lo! upon Us (resteth) the putting together thereof and the reading thereof.

          075.018 YUSUFALI: But when We have promulgated it, follow thou its recital (as promulgated): 075.019 YUSUFALI: Nay more, it is for Us to explain it (and make it clear):

          The study of the Holy Qur’an reveals that there are two ‘books’ to which Allah refers, in 56:77-80:

          “Verily it is a Qur’an most honourable... In a Book well-guarded.... None touches it save those who are pure..... Sent down by the Lord of the worlds.”

          "..The light that lights the heart is the light of God." Rumi

          Holy Quran 4:174O - Mankind! Verily, there hath come to

          you a convincing proof from your Lord, for we have sent

          unto you a Light (that is) Manifest.

          The Book (Qur’an) is an honourable book and it is "in" a well-guarded Book...do you read it ? a Book within a Book which is well guarded !!!

          "The Light that emanates from the Lamp obviously is not the

          Lamp Itself; but, if there is no Light, would you know what a

          Lamp is, and where it stands? ..and so is the Lamp not a Locii? And so if Allah says HE has sent it, where is it? please show me !

          Thus, it is (only) through the Light that you can perceive the lamp; and you know the lamp

          through the Light."

          Then we can conclude that Imam Ali is * the Quran verbatim *...and so was he a "Mazhar" - Yes or No? and how ? and why?

          If as per Sh'ia belief, Imam Ali is the Strong Rope of Allah also, because they (Quran and Ali) are non-separable as per Sh'ia belief then can someone explain how this happens

          In fact, there are a huge number of traditions in authentic Sunni sources where Prophet said Quran and Ahlul-Bayt are inseparable and if Muslims want to remain in the right path, they should stick to BOTH of them...and so does the Ahl al Bayt move around physically holding the Book? No !

          And so they are a Locii? but of what? Comprehend !

          Therefore, one can conclude that those who separated from Ahlul-Bayt are the sectarian ones who divided Islam and the Muslim into sects and were denounced by Allah and His prophet due to their divergence.

          In fact, the opinion of majority is not a good criteria to distinguish the false from the truth.

          The majority could also mean that all the Fools are on one side....If you look at the Quran, you will see that Quran severely denounces the majority of by frequently saying that

          "the majority do not understand", "the majority do not use their logic", "the majority follow their whims"...

          The Prophet has said: "Only a small Jamat of mine will remain on Sirat ul Mustaqeem"

          In another verse, Allah said:

          "You are the best nation (Ummah) that has been raised up for the (benefit of) people. You enjoin the good and forbid the evil..." (Quran 3:110).

          The best nation is also the Ahlul-Bayt. Let us remember that according to Quran, "nation" does not mean the whole people.

          This is even clear from the above verse that such Ummah (nation) are raised FOR benefiting the people.

          Thus Ummah can be only a subset of people and not the whole people.

          In fact one person can be a nation. Sometimes the act of a single person is worthier than the deeds of the whole nation.

          This was the case for Prophet Muhammad, Imam Ali, as well as the case for Prophet Abraham, peace be upon them all. Quran states that Abraham (as) was a nation (Ummah), meaning that his deeds was more valuable than all other people. Allah stated:

          "Lo! Abraham was a nation (Ummah) who was obedient to
          Allah
          , by nature upright, and he was not of the idolaters" (Quran 16:120)

          Thus, one single individual can be a nation in the language of Quran. As for the Verse 3:100, it is interesting to note that some Sunni scholars have narrated from Abu Ja'far (Imam Baqir (as)) that:

          Abu Ja'far (as) said about the verse 'You are the best nation raised up for the (benefit of) people...(3:110)': "
          The Members of the House of the Prophet
          ."

          Sunni references:

          • Ibn Abi Hatam, as mentioned in:
            • al-Durr al-Manthoor, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti under commentary of verse 3:110 of holy Quran.

            Also Allah mentioned in Quran:

            "O' you who believe! Fear
            Allah
            and
            be with the truthful
            "

            (Quran 9:119)

            According to some Sunni Commentaries, "the truthful" means Imam Ali (as):

            Sunni reference:

            • Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, two reports: one from Ibn Mardawayh by Ibn Abbas and the second from Ibn Asakir by Abi Ja'far (as).

            This means that people should have feared Allah and should not have separated from Imam Ali (as) after the demise of Prophet (PBUH&HF).

            This unfortunately did not happen at large, and therefore, unfortunate divisions followed it.

            With respect to the world al-Siddeeq -- "The Truthful", there are many Sunni narrations in which the Messenger of Allah said:

            The Truthful are three: Hazqeel (who was) the believer of the family of Pharaoh (see Quran 40:28), and Habeeb al-Najjar (who was) the believer of the family of Yaasin (see Quran 36:20), and Ali Ibn Abi Talib who is the most virtuous one among them (see Quran 9:119)."

            Sunni references:

            • Abu Nu'aym and Ibn Asakir, on the authority of Abu Layla
              • Ibn al-Najjar, on the authority of Ibn Abbas
                • al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 9, section 2, pp 192-193

                In conclusion, we have shown in this article that the term Shia has been used in Quran for the followers of the great servants of Allah, and in the traditions of the Prophet for the followers of Imam Ali (as).

                One who follows such divinely appointed Guide is safe from the disputes in the religion and has grasped the Strong Rope of Allah, and has been given the glad tiding of Paradise. ..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Do you think literalists like you can ever or will ever understand the parable or the mataphors or the symbols or the relation of "light to light" or that of "isme Zikr" to "Isme Azam" when both are part of and originate from the essence of Al-Asma Al Husna?

"SAY: Cry unto Allah OR cry unto the Beneficient, unto whichsoever ye cry, it is the same...HIS are the most beautiful names....did you understand what this says?

Don't you know that if there was a sensible entity here without a corresponding "Intelligible entity", then the appearance becomes defective.

It becomes a hallucination or a mirage from which delirious melancholics would suffer ! ...

Just as a derivation cannot exist without a basic principle or "asl" from which the derivation is derived, one must know and especially folks like you who wasted 50 long years committing fraud, that if the "Intelligible entity" did not have a "sensible enity" here corresponding to it, all else would be purely fanciful or imaginary with no reality at all...

As no "existent" is left or can be left floating free and so both are "Shahadat" and they are together the "imperceiptible realm" ( ghaybat)...i.e. the Creation and HIS Command (amr) i.e. again the spiritual and the physical disclosed effectively to mankind.

If ever the Exalted Creator had no connection of "ta'aaluq" to the sensible world, then the sensible world cannot exist and since there is such a connection evident, it becomes perceptible to the senses and the Command and the Word must inevitable manifest and have a locii that is relative...to mankind !

In the world of spirituality the Command is the possessor of the infinite Knowledge and power and all forms of perfections and knowledge pour forth upon the lesser intellects and souls...everything is subservient to HIS Command (amr)...

"None is there in the heavens and the earth but he comes to the All_Merciful as a servant...(19:93)....

God is above all else and is absolved....Glory be to HIM ....HE the Supreme One is above what you describe HIM (37:180)...

All potentiality is brought to actuality only by HIS command and by the light of HIS illumination and the guidance HE has sent......"AND WE have sent you a New Light and a Perspicous Book" !!!!

"OUR Lord is HE who gave everything its existence, then guided it..." (20:50)....

And so the existents come forth from the Command...

It is it's origin (mabda) and to it is everyone's return (ma'ad)....

The Command is the First and the last and in it the circle of existence (da'ira yi wujud) is completed...."HE is the first and the last, the Manifest and the Hidden...HE has knowledge of all things..." (57:3)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Interesting debate ...Ruwayd....Khalil is not wrong....in Shii Islam Tawassul is important !

The Shii Muslims affirm that the Prophet beqeathed and entrusted his religious and spiritual authority to His progeny (itrat) and family (ahl al-bayt) through Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib and his descendants - the Imams. For the Shia, each Imam in his own time serves as the intercessor and mediator between Allah and the mumins (believers) and the functions that the Quran commands the Prophet to perform are taken over by the Imam of

the Time, with the exception of revelation since Muhammad is the last of the prophets.

The above is a principle which is then reflected in Ismaili practices. Shias do invoke the help and intercession of their Imam when they seek the help and bounties of Allah. In fact, the Holy Quran encourages believers

to seek the Means of Approach (al-wasilah) unto Allah:

"O ye who have faith! Do your duty to Allah, seek the means of approach ( al-wasila) unto Him, and strive with might and main in his cause: that ye may prosper." - Holy Quran 5:35...

I suggest that you don't place reliance on Maherally's confabulations...he himself depends on MIHIR Bose...and Marco Polo !

The key word here is "Wasilah" which means "medium" or "means of approach". The Wasilah of Allah is the Prophet in his age and the Imam in his time.

This concept of Wasilah is reflected in their Holy Dua (Salat)...if you are Sh'ia, you will easily understand me....if you are NOT then ofcourse your anxiety is understandable...

Ali means the MOST HIGH ! This is also Allah own Attribute...and so Allah is Ali ! So can you argue that Allah is not "Ali" ? The important thing is the underlying intent and if Allah has so many beautiful names and if the Quran allows someone to call HIM by any of HIS names, then would you have an issue with me if I called Allah as Ali? if so why? The named and the name is one and the same ! where is then the duality? OR "partnering?

Only purifiied souls such as Prophet Muhammad and the Imams of his Ahl al-Bayt (whom God has purified by Quran 33:33) are "muslim" in the true sense; they are perfectly submitted to God's Will and only they can truly possess a direct, unmediated relationship with Allah by virtue of the divine closeness (walayah) of their souls with Allah. ...What does Sura al Hamd ask you muslimeens to do? why? It is so logical...don't believe Maherally....Thank you !

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Ruwayd,

1. Which one is it? The Imam is the manifestation of Allah or the Imam is Allah? There is a BIG difference between these two positions and you yourself are inconsistent on what exactly you are arguing – you keep shifting from one position to another. My position is clear – Ismaili Shi’i theosophy from the beginning has maintained that the Imam is the locus of manifestation of the Names/Attributes of Allah.

This is evident in the teachings of Imam al-Baqir and Imam al-Sadiq (who said “We are the Most Beautiful Names of Allah; We are the Face of Allah; We are the Hand of Allah; We are the Tongue of Allah; We are the Eye of Allah). This also continued in the Fatimid da’wah according to which the Imams are the locus of manifestation or the mathal (likeness, symbol, similitude) of the Universal Intellect and the Living Names of Allah on earth. None of this is shirk or against the Qur’an – as everything in the Universe, to one degree or another, is the locus of manifestation of the Names of Allah. This has always been the Shi‘a Isma‘ili position from the beginning.

Your argument that the Ismailis say that the Imam is Allah from the time of Aga Khan I to 1956 is simply false. Now, if you want to quote an unnamed Ismaili saying “Our Imam, His Highness the Aga Khan, is like your Jesus Christ” – that is simply not credible by any standards. One unnamed Ismaili Muslim does not speak for the community of Ismailis, nor does he speak for the Imam. If you want to be a real researcher on what is official Ismaili doctrine, then you must either quote an Ismaili Imam or an official Ismaili source – and there are many being published by academia today. Here is what the Ismaili Imams or other official sources from Aga Khan I to 1956 have said:

a) Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah’s guidance at the 1945 Mission Conference held in Dar es Salaam – which should be considered the official Ismaili position on these issues. I am going to quote this again for you:

“You read my farmans that I made in Bombay in 1905/06, interpreted by Kamadia Hajee, where I explained fully that there is a fundamental difference between Ismailism and Christianity. In Christianity they believe that Jesus the man was God Almighty. For the Ismailis, during the 60 years of his life, ‘Ali on earth was the prisoner of the material world, limited by it and suffering constantly. When we think of ‘Ali, it is not the man during these 60 years, but the eternal that came from God and returned to God direct… These are the things which must be understood, that according to the Ismaili religion Allah is the ocean. Ali, during his life on earth, was the river, separated from the ocean of the Almighty - separated from it and running towards it - overcoming all material resistance and running towards its origin… the Imam is the Commander of the Faithful, the khalifa of God and the Messenger on earth.”

(Aga Khan III, Mission Conference 1945, Dar es Salaam)

Your only response to this was I don't know what the Mission Conference is or where you're taking this quote from. YOU YOURSELF QUOTED FROM THIS DOCUMENT IN YOUR LAST POST. Look at the image you posted at the end of your post – it begins with “Extract from the Address of Hazrat Imam Mawlana Sultan Muhammad Shah at Ismailia Mission Conference (Dar es Salaam, 1945). The quote above is taken from the minutes of this same Mission Conference – you have only quoted one part of it, I have the entire document and what you see above is from there. You are either a complete ignoramus for not knowing this or you do know this and chose to only quote parts of it that suited your misleading purpose. So either you are an poor researcher or a simple liar.

According to the above quote of Aga Khan III made in 1945 (pre-1956), the Imam leads the Murid to Allah – as the intermediary and intercessor to Allah - just as the River leads to the Ocean. Furthermore, the Imam defined himself as Commander of the Faithful, Khalifa of God (khalifat Allah) and the Khalifa of the Messenger (khalifatu Rasul Allah) on earth. That is a far cry from Imam = Allah. So by this one statement, your entire hypothesis – misleading and inaccurate as it as - is completely invalidated.

b )In the Khoja Case which took place during the Imamat of Aga Khan I, the Aga Khan claimed the following as stated by the Summary of the Judgement: (http://www.ismaili.n...ource/khoj.html)

“…the first defendant Aga Khan, who on his part alleges that he is and his ancestors in the long line of hereditary descent have successively been the Imams or spiritual chiefs of the Shia Imami Ismailis.”

So even Aga Khan I claims to be the Spiritual Chief of the Shia Imami Ismailis, he does not claim to be God Himself. The summary also reads:

“The defendant the Imam and the other defendants who were in the same interest, maintained that Pir Sadardin was a Shia of the Imami Ismaili persuasion, a Dai (missionary) of one of the direct lineal descendants of the Imam. That from the time of the first conversion till now the Khoja community has been and still is of the Shia Imami Ismaili persuasion and is and always has been bound in close ties of spiritual allegiance to the ancestors of the Aga Khan the Imam, whom the Khoja community have always regarded and still regard as their Moorsheds or spiritual heads.”

The Aga Khan I declared himself as the Spiritual Guide (murshid) of the Ismailis. He never defined himself as God. He wrote:

“The connection between a Spiritual Guide and his disciples depends on the sincerity and purity of mind. This business between a Spiritual Guide and his disciples is not compulsory or imperative. I too do not require anything from any person by compulsion, but only from love and good will.”

(Imam Aga Hasan ‘Ali Shah, The Times of India, April 22, 1866)

So your entire statement is complete hogwash and must be dismissed.

2. The term mazhar has a defined meaning – there is no room for interpretation that strays from this meaning. Once again, what a bunch of individual Nizari Ismailis think is irrelevant. If you want to have a discussion about what are Nizari Ismaili beliefs officially, then we can only go to official sources. The official source in this case is Aga Khan IV and Aga Khan III.

“Even with the "mazhar" proclamation that was made in 1975, there is no one right interpretation that your Imam has mandated for the term "mazhar."

The Imam has mandated the word and definition itself. There is no “interpretation” to be sought here – the word mazhar is clear in its meaning as “locus of manifestation” – a noun of place in Arabic just as masjid is the “place of sujud”. I have shown you four scholarly definitions of the term mazhar, all of which converge, and in none of them does mazhar mean “manifest” or “copy”. A mazhar of God is not identical to God. The mazhar is just a mirror, a locus of manifestation, a place where an object reveals itself without itself being contained or constrained by the locus – that is the technical, grammatical and etymological meaning of the word.

You seem to lack any background in theology and philosophy. Either you incredibly ignorant or you are purposely dismissing scholarly evidence and sources which I have put before your eyes on this forum because they completely destroy your argument on this.

Let me add that there is no one correct interpretation of the vast majority of Nizari Ismaili doctrines...not even close! There is nothing you, Khalil / Ismailite, can point to that explicitly lays out what "is" and "isn't" in Nizari Ismailism

By virtue of your statement above, then everything you are been arguing and saying here is wrong and incorrect. What right do you have to speak on official Ismaili beliefs? You are judging by a double standard – its okay for you to define Ismaili beliefs, but it’s not okay for anyone else to? I have been quoting you statements from the Aga Khans which are official but it’s clear that any piece of evidence that does not conform to you agenda, you totally ignore.

While it is true that Shia Ismaili Islam is not a dogmatic faith and belief is not enforced upon anyone, the Ismaili Imams do provide guidance on matters of belief and doctrine which are essential and general parameters within which the Murid is free to form his personal understanding of faith. Indeed, it is the mandate of the Imam to safeguard the Murid’s right to personal intellectual search and not merely to dictate cut and dry positions.

“Ismailism has survived because it has always been fluid. Rigidity is contrary to our whole way of life and outlook.”

(Aga Khan III, Memoirs: World Enough and Time)

In esoteric Shia Islam, each Murid has their own personal spiritual bond and relationship with the Imam – in what Henry Corbin calls a “One for One” relationship. How the Murid perceives the Imam in this relationship is his or her personal matter. That being said, the Aga Khan III has stated:

“But anybody who considers me God at a Shariati level is no better than an idol worshipper.”

(Aga Khan III, quoted in Dr. Hasan Nathoo, My Glorious Fortnight with Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah, London 1988)

3. The quotes I provided show without a doubt that Imam Nizar had male progeny and descendants. We know from the historical record that Imam Nizar was survived by at least two sons and grandsons – because some of them staged revolts against the Mustalian Caliphs in Cairo. With regard to the Nizari descendants, the scholar Paul Walker writes:

"Several members of the caliphal family, however, fled to the far West, among them specifically three of Nizar's brothers, Muhammad, Ismail, and Tahir, and a son of his named al-Husayn… Thus a small coterie of dissidents and Nizari supporters gathered somewhere in the West (the Maghrib) waiting for an opportunity to reassert their claim(s) to the Imamate.”

(Paul Walker, Fatimid History and Ismaili Doctrine, 32)

With regard to Daftary’s statement – I hope you can see that he affirms Nizari progeny most explicitly. The Imam Nizar died in prison - obviously there will was no public record of his designating a successor as he probably could not even leave a will and if he did, it was not available due to the circumstances. However, we know without a doubt that Imam Nizar was survived by progeny (at least two sons and a grandson) and we know that they were powerful enough to set up a base in the Magrhib.

Furthermore, the document from Hasan-i Mahmud (“Haft Bab Baba-yi Sayyedna) who was contemporary to Imam Hasan ala-dhikrihi salaam refers to special correspondence between the Nizari Imams and Hasan-i Sabbah which took place and was recorded in books which are no longer extant today.

Finally, I have referenced both Nizari and non-Ismaili historians and scholars who AFFIRM THE NIZARID LINEAGE OF IMAM HASAN ALA-DHIKRIHI AL-SALAAM. They are: Hasan-i Mahmud (“Haft Bab Baba-yi Sayyedna”, “Diwan-i Qa’imiyyat”), Jamal al-Din Ibn ‘Inaba (“Umdat al-talib fi ansab al-Abitalib”), Ibn Qalanisi (“Dhay tarikh Dimishq”), and Ibn Zafir (“Akhbar duwal al-munqat’a”). Peter Lamborn Wilson and Hakim Bey are not scholars in this specific area, they don’t reference any primary sources and what they have written is their mere personal interpretation to fit with their own agendas. It is also worth noting that Nasir al-Din Tusi wrote a horoscope for the Nizari Imam Ala al-Din Muhammad which traces the Nizari lineage of Imam Hasan ala-dhikrihi al-salaam back to Imam Nizar – and this is a very early source which predates even what the later historians have written.

So you cannot maintain that there is no evidence of the Nizari descent of the Alamut Imams because several historians and sources – some of them contemporary to that time – affirm the Nizarid lineage of the Alamut Imams. As for Daftary and his credibility – your claim that he is bias is totally false and not credible because YOU YOURSELF ARE BIASED. You do not have any qualifications in the study of Islamic history or Ismaili theology, nor do you have any research publications on any of these subjects. Obviously, since you merely a hate mongerer, you will claim that anyone who says something against your agenda must be biased. Of course, the real world does not work that way and most people are not as stupid as you are.

4. You are outright lying when you say the Imam personally profits from the community’s offerings. The Aga Khan has said countless times in interviews that the funds from the community are separate from his personal assets. In the 1979 interview quoted in my last post, the Aga Khan clearly stated that although he can retain 10% of the community’s offerings, in reality 150% of the funds he receives are returned to the community. So that puts the 1949 Life quote in context. The Will of Aga Khan III read in 1957 also clearly differentiated the Imamat assets which were bequeathed to Aga Khan IV and the personal assets of the Aga Khan III which were inherited by his two sons and his wife.

The following words of Aga Khan III in his Memoirs speak to the silly and exaggerated claims people have made of his personal wealth:

About my own personal wealth a great deal of nonsense has been written. There must be hundreds of people in the United States with a larger capital wealth than mine; and the same is true of Europe. Perhaps not many people, in view of the incidence of taxation, even in the United States, have the control over an income that I exercise; but this control carries with it -- as an unwritten law -- the upkeep of all the various communal, social and religious institutions of my Ismaili following, and in the end only a small fraction of it -- if any – is left for members of my family and myself. When I read about the "millions of pounds a year" I am supposed to possess, I know only that if I had an income of that size I should be ashamed of myself. There is a great deal of truth in Andrew Carnegie's remark: "The man who dies rich, dies disgraced." I should add: The man who lives rich, lives disgraced. By

(Aga Khan III, Memoirs of the Aga Khan: World Enough and Time)

5. The Aga Khan is the Murshid of the Tariqah and thus he does not perform the practices done by the Murids. The Murshid is different from Murid and everyone acquainted with Sufism knows that the Murshid is not subject to the practices which the Murids must perform. The Murshid prescribes practices for the spiritual health of the Murids but he himself does not have to take his own medicine. Spiritual medicine is for the sick, not for those in proper health. Would you tell her your doctor to ingest the pills that he has prescribed for you?

Marriage in Islam is a social contract. It does not matter if the Aga Khan or his children are married by Shia maulvis or Sunni imams. It has nothing to do with Tariqah matters at all. And you don’t know and cannot prove that the Aga Khan’s children do not perform Ismaili rituals. On the contrary the Aga Khans children were instructed in Shia Ismaili Islam and do perform Ismaili rituals – they just don’t do it publically – but people have witnessed them directly performing Ismaili rituals such as the Dua. The Ismaili missionary Kamaluddin Ali personally instructed the Aga Khan’s children in Ismaili Muslim doctrines and beliefs.

6. Regarding the Ali-Allah matter – the term Ali-Allah or Aliyyullah means Exalted of Allah. It does not mean Ali is Allah. The quote from Aga Khan III in the Mission Conference 1945 refers to Ali-Allah (Exalted of God). The Old Du’a as far back as at least 1905 contained the line Ali-Allah (Exalted of God). Furthermore, some of the tasbihat and supplications begin with Ali-Allah (Exalted of God) even today and the Haji Babi Case document quotes one of these supplications which begins with Ali-Allah.

As for the statement Ali sahi Allah (Ali truly Allah) – such a statement and other statements must be taken in the general context of Shi’ite Muslim theology. All of your arguments FAIL to take into account this context. You claim that myself or others are giving our own interpretation to statements about mazhar, etc, but in reality you are the one giving your own SUBJECTIVE and ERRONEOUS understanding to them because all of Shia Ismaili Islam in the modern period and in the past must be seen in the context of its history and doctrine.

In Shi’a Muslim theology, God Himself – that is, the Divine Essence is absolutely transcendent, unknowable and beyond all positive description. Nothing describes God’s Essence and He is simply greater than all else. Below the level of the Essence there are the Names and Attributes (asma wa sifat) of God which are describable and conceivable via the Most Beautiful Names which have been revealed in the Qur’an and other Scriptures. These are theological points which Sunni Islam, Sufi Islam, Shia Twelver Islam and Shia Ismaili Islam all subscribe to albeit in different ways. For example, in Sunni Asharite theology, the Names of God are not God and not other than God but they are clearly distinct from the Essence of God.

In Shia Islam, the metaphysical Reality of the Imam – what is known as the “Light” of the Imam is equivalent to the Level of God’s Names and Attributes while the Essence of God remains absolutely transcendent and exalted above all things and realities including the Light of the Imam.

When it is said that Ali sahi Allah, the word ‘Ali refers to the eternal Light of the Imam and not the historical Imam and thus ‘Ali refers to the Names/Attributes of God – precisely because the Light of the Imam = Divine Names and Attributes. Even when the Ginans speak of ‘Ali, they are not speaking of the historical Imam; they are speaking of ‘Ali as the Light of God’s Names and Attributes. This ties back to the quote of Aga Khan III in 1945:

“For the Ismailis, during the 60 years of his life, ‘Ali on earth was the prisoner of the material world, limited by it and suffering constantly. When we think of ‘Ali, it is not the man during these 60 years, but the eternal that came from God and returned to God direct… These are the things which must be understood, that according to the Ismaili religion Allah is the ocean. Ali, during his life on earth, was the river, separated from the ocean of the Almighty - separated from it and running towards it - overcoming all material resistance and running towards its origin.” (Aga Khan III, Mission Conference, Dar es Salaam 1945)

The historical Imams on earth – the Imams who are born, live and die and who are themselves the purest servants of God – are the terrestrial loci of manifestation (mazahir) of the Light - the Divine Names and Attributes. So let us simply as follows:

  1. The Essence of God – absolutely transcendent and unknowable
  2. The Divine Names and Attributes = Light of the Imam = Ontological Imam
  3. The historical Imam = locus of manifestation of the Divine Names/Attributes

Your entire critique is based upon a CONFUSION of these different levels and planes of theology. However, you wish to remain ignorant of these theological points in order to advance a misleading agenda and through positing a “strawman” argument which you then try and argue against.

In reality, your whole argument and hypothesis is based on a false and childish understanding of Shia Ismaili Muslim theology – so the only thing you are proving wrong are your own ignorant opinions.

The Essence of God is forevermore and absolutely unknowable. What can be knowable in God, the unknown wishing to be known, are His Names and Attributes. The Imam, in the metaphysical and ontological sense, is the locus of manifestation, the epiphanic place, of the divine Names. As for the terrestrial Imam, the wali, he is the locus of manifestation of the cosmic Imam... The terrestrial imam, Friend or Ally (wali) of God is, on the perceptible level, a manifestation of the celestial, archetypal, cosmic Imam.”

(Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, The Spirituality of Shi’i Islam, 388, 198)

In this light, the Imam Jafar al-Sadiq, has declared:

“It is because of us that God is known and because of us that He is worshipped… God made us His Eye among his worshippers, His Speaking Tongue among His creatures, His Hand of kindness and mercy stretched out to His servents, His Face by which one is led to Him, His Gate that leads to Him, His Treasure in heaven and on earth…It is by our worship that God is worshipped. Without us, God would not be worshipped.”

(Imam Jafar al-Sadiq, quoted in Moezzi, The Divine Guide in Early Shi’ism, 46)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Isma`ilis (Nizaris, Agha Khanis I mean here, not the Musta`lis like the Bohra) can be considered Muslims, then so could Baha'is or even Hare Krishnas for that matter.. Despite their protestations to the contrary, and someone like "Ismailite"'s trying to dress up in the nice language he's lifted from a few Western academic books, their kufr is as clear as daylight. Not only in their rejection of the Imams (serious enough), but in their rejection of the daruriyat of the deen itself which all Muslims accept. For instance, not only not doing salat, but rejecting that salat is even an obligation now since they belief the Shari`a was abrogated when one of their "imams" declared that yawm al-qiyama had occurred, and so ordered his followers to break their month of Ramadan fast (and thereafter those found observing such things as salat and such were to be punished for it). Add to that their strange beliefs such their ghulw, then what's left of Islam in them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

If Isma`ilis (Nizaris, Agha Khanis I mean here, not the Musta`lis like the Bohra) can be considered Muslims, then so could Baha'is or even Hare Krishnas for that matter.. Despite their protestations to the contrary, and someone like "Ismailite"'s trying to dress up in the nice language he's lifted from a few Western academic books, their kufr is as clear as daylight. Not only in their rejection of the Imams (serious enough), but in their rejection of the daruriyat of the deen itself which all Muslims accept. For instance, not only not doing salat, but rejecting that salat is even an obligation now since they belief the Shari`a was abrogated when one of their "imams" declared that yawm al-qiyama had occurred, and so ordered his followers to break their month of Ramadan fast (and thereafter those found observing such things as salat and such were to be punished for it). Add to that their strange beliefs such their ghulw, then what's left of Islam in them?

I just have a question...I can kind of understand the argument for Baha'i being considered Muslim (though I don't agree with it), but Hare Krishna?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just have a question...I can kind of understand the argument for Baha'i being considered Muslim (though I don't agree with it), but Hare Krishna?

I meant just as it would be absurd to consider Baha'is and Hare Krishnas as Muslims, so would it be to consider this group Muslim as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(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.gif 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.

If Shi'as and Sunnis dont Salli, they acknowledge that Salah and Saum is Wajib at least! Which means they accept they are doing wrong and can be called Fasiqeen. But Aga Khanis reject it is Wajib, thus not only disobeying Hukm Allah, but changing it!!! Thus can be called Kafireen, or Murtadeen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

can u please translate it in english?

Here is the translation of non english matter :

Interviews of people whose lives have been touched by the grace of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin Saheb, TUS

Following interview of Bahen Jumana Vasi, Dubai, by Sakina Sh Noman Miyajiwala and Mudar Patherya

I was 18, carefree, rebellious, outgoing and member of the Ithna Ashara sect when I met Saifuddin Vasi at Teheran in 1969. We married a year later following my ritualistic misaaq. I will be honest; I did not believe in it. We stayed in Iran for three years; during this period, a number of people impressed upon me the teachings of the Dawoodi Bohra faith including Syedi Mazoon e Dawat, who advised my husband to move out of Iran as there was no mumineen environment in that country to nurse my faith. We moved to Dubai in 1973.

It was in Dubai that I attended my first mumineen majlis during Ashara. Something happened…I felt an inexplicable stirring. Then a few days later, on the night of Ashura 1394 (2.1.1974) I had a dream, which turned out to be the turning point of my life. I saw myself sitting in an open ground in Dubai with other mumineen waiting for Imam Husain to arrive. Imam Husain!

Suddenly I saw ‘Imam Husain’ on a white horse riding towards the gathering. He kept nearing and when I could finally see clearly, it was none other but Maulana Mohammad Burhanuddin Saheb (T.U.S.). He rode, looked at me and went out of my sight.

I awoke dazed and in denial. Here I was, believed in none but Aqa Husain and I was seeing him impersonated by the Dai of the Dawoodi Bohras, a faith that I had consistently resisted. I was confused. Show me the right path immediately, I demanded of Allah! Yes, I demanded.

I didn’t have to wait long. Three days later, unfolded Dream Two. And this time I round I saw a wizened and venerable old man – I identified this as Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb (AQ) as seen in the photographs on the walls – who told me “Aa sahee raasto chhey”- 'This is right path'.

I awoke, attended to my daughter, slept again, only to see Muqaddas Maula emerge in my dream again to tell me “Aa Dawat-aj sahee raasto chhey!”-' This 'Dawat' is only right path'

Saifuddin and I went to Huzurala immediately after. Even before either of us had even spoken a word, he looked up and said, “Hu tamara khwab ma aayo hatho ne? (I came in your dream, isn't it?) Hawe tamne kai shaq chhey? (Did you have any doubts now ?) Hawe to tamne shaq nathi ne?”(Now you don't have any doubts, isn't it?)

My first reaction: I wept. Not wept, sobbed. Not sobbed, but put my head on his qadam( feet) and purged myself emotionally. I could hear people saying ‘Su karo chho, behen?’(what are you doing, sis?), ‘Utho, behen!’ and ‘Aam na thai, behen’ but Huzurala( Moula Burhanuddin) asked them to let things be. ‘Ehne rehva dav’( let her remain), I heard him say.

When I looked up, others around me in Saifee Mahal were fishing for their handkerchiefs. Maula asked my daughter’s name. I replied ‘Tasneem’. He replied: “Naam baraaber chhey”( name is OK ). Huzurala then instructed Shaikh Ebrahim Yamani to record my dream for the benefit of the daawat archives. On the following day, Syedi Mazoon Saheb told us that Huzurala had mentioned my dream and my ‘ikhlaas’( Faith) over thaal ( group dining plate).

Since that day in January 1974, I have been a devout believer.

Note. Jumanaben’s great grand father was killed while defending the shrine of Imam Husain in 1801, following which her family name became ‘Shaheedi’.

Copy ends

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Here is the translation of non english matter :

Interviews of people whose lives have been touched by the grace of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin Saheb, TUS

Following interview of Bahen Jumana Vasi, Dubai, by Sakina Sh Noman Miyajiwala and Mudar Patherya

I was 18, carefree, rebellious, outgoing and member of the Ithna Ashara sect when I met Saifuddin Vasi at Teheran in 1969. We married a year later following my ritualistic misaaq. I will be honest; I did not believe in it. We stayed in Iran for three years; during this period, a number of people impressed upon me the teachings of the Dawoodi Bohra faith including Syedi Mazoon e Dawat, who advised my husband to move out of Iran as there was no mumineen environment in that country to nurse my faith. We moved to Dubai in 1973.

It was in Dubai that I attended my first mumineen majlis during Ashara. Something happened…I felt an inexplicable stirring. Then a few days later, on the night of Ashura 1394 (2.1.1974) I had a dream, which turned out to be the turning point of my life. I saw myself sitting in an open ground in Dubai with other mumineen waiting for Imam Husain to arrive. Imam Husain!

Suddenly I saw ‘Imam Husain’ on a white horse riding towards the gathering. He kept nearing and when I could finally see clearly, it was none other but Maulana Mohammad Burhanuddin Saheb (T.U.S.). He rode, looked at me and went out of my sight.

I awoke dazed and in denial. Here I was, believed in none but Aqa Husain and I was seeing him impersonated by the Dai of the Dawoodi Bohras, a faith that I had consistently resisted. I was confused. Show me the right path immediately, I demanded of Allah! Yes, I demanded.

I didn’t have to wait long. Three days later, unfolded Dream Two. And this time I round I saw a wizened and venerable old man – I identified this as Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb (AQ) as seen in the photographs on the walls – who told me “Aa sahee raasto chhey”- 'This is right path'.

I awoke, attended to my daughter, slept again, only to see Muqaddas Maula emerge in my dream again to tell me “Aa Dawat-aj sahee raasto chhey!”-' This 'Dawat' is only right path'

Saifuddin and I went to Huzurala immediately after. Even before either of us had even spoken a word, he looked up and said, “Hu tamara khwab ma aayo hatho ne? (I came in your dream, isn't it?) Hawe tamne kai shaq chhey? (Did you have any doubts now ?) Hawe to tamne shaq nathi ne?”(Now you don't have any doubts, isn't it?)

My first reaction: I wept. Not wept, sobbed. Not sobbed, but put my head on his qadam( feet) and purged myself emotionally. I could hear people saying ‘Su karo chho, behen?’(what are you doing, sis?), ‘Utho, behen!’ and ‘Aam na thai, behen’ but Huzurala( Moula Burhanuddin) asked them to let things be. ‘Ehne rehva dav’( let her remain), I heard him say.

When I looked up, others around me in Saifee Mahal were fishing for their handkerchiefs. Maula asked my daughter’s name. I replied ‘Tasneem’. He replied: “Naam baraaber chhey”( name is OK ). Huzurala then instructed Shaikh Ebrahim Yamani to record my dream for the benefit of the daawat archives. On the following day, Syedi Mazoon Saheb told us that Huzurala had mentioned my dream and my ‘ikhlaas’( Faith) over thaal ( group dining plate).

Since that day in January 1974, I have been a devout believer.

Note. Jumanaben’s great grand father was killed while defending the shrine of Imam Husain in 1801, following which her family name became ‘Shaheedi’.

Copy ends

No disrespect, but what was the point in posting that story...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...