Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
RayanJ

Ismaili's Don't Believe In Hazrat Ali's Imamat?

Recommended Posts

Not exactly, Ismaili Nizari do believe that Imam Ali was the first Imam, but they do not believe that Imam Hasan was the second Imam. However, Ismaili Bohra believe that Imam Ali was the first Imam and Imam Hasan was the second Imam.

Hope this helps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the Ismaili sect generally refer to Ali (as) as the successor of the Prophet. They don't addressed him as the Imam. They don't believe in twelve Imams like we do.

Also, there is another Ismail sect that recognize Imam Ali and Imam Husayn as the first and second Imam. They treat Imam Hassan as the custodian of the Imamah.

This is from the top of my head. I don't have available reference for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ismaili's Don't Believe In Hazrat Ali's Imamat

then how do they call themselves as shias ???

I do think most of the old Ismaili sects did believe that Ali(as) was the successor of the Holy Prophet (pbuh).

They don't refer to themselves as Shia. Even Zaydis don't generally refer to themselves as Shias. Ithna Asharis are referred to, by themselves and others, as Shia Ithna Ashari or Shia Imamiah.

Some scholars have used the Shia label for anyone who harbor love towards Ali (as) and the family of the Holy Prophet or think that Ali (as) was the rightful successor to the Holy Prophet (pbuh). That would include a lot of Muslim sects.

Labeling sects is not as straightforward as you think. It's confusing to me.

Edited by Gypsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think most of the old Ismaili sects did believe that Ali(as) was the successor of the Holy Prophet (pbuh).

They don't refer to themselves as Shia. Even Zaydis don't generally refer to themselves as Shias. Ithna Asharis are referred to, by themselves and others, as Shia Ithna Ashari or Shia Imamiah.

Some scholars have used the Shia label for anyone who harbor love towards Ali (as) and the family of the Holy Prophet or think that Ali (as) was the rightful successor to the Holy Prophet (pbuh). That would include a lot of Muslim sects.

Labeling sects is not as straightforward as you think. It's confusing to me.

meet them they will say

YA ALI MADAD

yes there are aga khanis , dawoodi bohras ..........who claim to be shias

but their practises are quite different than the ithna ashari

my question was that when they dont believe in the imammat of imam ali (as) how can they claim to be shias ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current Aga Khanis or followers of Aga Khan, if they are even religious, have mostly adopted the Sunni fundamentals. But you can still find some of his followers who still holds Ali (as) in high regards and deemed him as the rightful heir to the Holy Prophet (pbuh). But it is hard to figure out what their religious belief is in the 20th and 21th century because most of them or a very significant number of them are very secular. Even the Aga Khan and his family do not appear to be holding to some of the traditional Islamic values that are heavily emphasized in Islam.

Their practices are quite different, not only from us, the Shia, but also from other Muslims. I remember seeing a cultural video of them performing arts and dances wondering if they have been heavily influenced by the cultural aspect of other religion.

I don't know what you mean by they are claiming themselves as being Shia? We don't really consider anyone other than us as Shia. Unfortunately, we cannot stop people using the label Shia.

Think of this way. The Sunnah wal-Jamaah claim that they are living and following the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) and even refereed to themselves as Sunni. But we know that isn't true.

Edited by Gypsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes there are aga khanis , dawoodi bohras ..........who claim to be shias

but their practises are quite different than the ithna ashari

my question was that when they dont believe in the imammat of imam ali (as) how can they claim to be shias ??

As macisaac already mentioned, the early Isma'ilis and the current Bohra/Musta'ali Isma'ilis believe that Imam 'Ali (as) held a station higher than that of Imam. They believe(d) him to be the Asas (Foundation) of the current cycle (dawr) of Prophecy which began with Rasool Allah (saws). Their first Imam is Hasan ibn 'Ali (as).

OTH, the Nizari Isma'ilis (aka Agha Khanis today) have actually removed Hasan (as) as an Imam altogether and have forgone the classification of Asas, simply starting the line of Imams with 'Ali (as). They believe Imam Hasan (as) was a mustawda (temporary or trustee) Imam only. After Imam 'Ali (as), they only regard Husayn ibn 'Ali (as) and his descendents as mustaqarr (permanent) Imams.

yes there are aga khanis , dawoodi bohras ..........who claim to be shias

but their practises are quite different than the ithna ashari

Actually, Dawoodi Bohra are, in many way, similar to Ithna 'Ashariyya when it comes to their outward practices. Nizaris are a different matter altogether ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are u sure they dont beleive on his a.s imamat?

i was refering to the title and posed the question

The current Aga Khanis or followers of Aga Khan, if they are even religious, have mostly adopted the Sunni fundamentals. But you can still find some of his followers who still holds Ali (as) in high regards and deemed him as the rightful heir to the Holy Prophet (pbuh). But it is hard to figure out what their religious belief is in the 20th and 21th century because most of them or a very significant number of them are very secular. Even the Aga Khan and his family do not appear to be holding to some of the traditional Islamic values that are heavily emphasized in Islam.

Their practices are quite different, not only from us, the Shia, but also from other Muslims. I remember seeing a cultural video of them performing arts and dances wondering if they have been heavily influenced by the cultural aspect of other religion.

I don't know what you mean by they are claiming themselves as being Shia? We don't really consider anyone other than us as Shia. Unfortunately, we cannot stop people using the label Shia.

Think of this way. The Sunnah wal-Jamaah claim that they are living and following the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) and even refereed to themselves as Sunni. But we know that isn't true.

zaidis , dawoodi bohra , aga khani , seveners .....all claim to be shias

isnt it

but they deviated at some point in history

The current Aga Khanis or followers of Aga Khan, if they are even religious, have mostly adopted the Sunni fundamentals. But you can still find some of his followers who still holds Ali (as) in high regards and deemed him as the rightful heir to the Holy Prophet (pbuh). But it is hard to figure out what their religious belief is in the 20th and 21th century because most of them or a very significant number of them are very secular. Even the Aga Khan and his family do not appear to be holding to some of the traditional Islamic values that are heavily emphasized in Islam.

Their practices are quite different, not only from us, the Shia, but also from other Muslims. I remember seeing a cultural video of them performing arts and dances wondering if they have been heavily influenced by the cultural aspect of other religion.

I don't know what you mean by they are claiming themselves as being Shia? We don't really consider anyone other than us as Shia. Unfortunately, we cannot stop people using the label Shia.

Think of this way. The Sunnah wal-Jamaah claim that they are living and following the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) and even refereed to themselves as Sunni. But we know that isn't true.

true

As macisaac already mentioned, the early Isma'ilis and the current Bohra/Musta'ali Isma'ilis believe that Imam 'Ali (as) held a station higher than that of Imam. They believe(d) him to be the Asas (Foundation) of the current cycle (dawr) of Prophecy which began with Rasool Allah (saws). Their first Imam is Hasan ibn 'Ali (as).

OTH, the Nizari Isma'ilis (aka Agha Khanis today) have actually removed Hasan (as) as an Imam altogether and have forgone the classification of Asas, simply starting the line of Imams with 'Ali (as). They believe Imam Hasan (as) was a mustawda (temporary or trustee) Imam only. After Imam 'Ali (as), they only regard Husayn ibn 'Ali (as) and his descendents as mustaqarr (permanent) Imams.

Actually, Dawoodi Bohra are, in many way, similar to Ithna 'Ashariyya when it comes to their outward practices. Nizaris are a different matter altogether ...

okay got it

but bohras differ from the 7 th imam right

and they dont do zanjeer matam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but bohras differ from the 7 th imam right

and they dont do zanjeer matam

Not sure what you mean re: Bohras and the 7th imam. As with all Isma'ilis, they believe that Isma'il ibn Ja'far was the imam after as-Sadiq (as) and that his son Muhammad ibn Isma'il was the imam after him. Since Imam 'Ali (as) is the Asas and Imam Hasan (as) is their 1st imam, in their reckoning Imam Ja'far was the 5th imam, Isma'il was the 6th, and Muhammad ibn Isma'il was the 7th imam.

As for matam and zanjeer, many individual Bohras also take part in those Azadari rituals, sometimes alongside Ithna 'Asharis strangely enough, as it's not something that is organised in their masajid and religious centres.

Hope that made some sense ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean re: Bohras and the 7th imam. As with all Isma'ilis, they believe that Isma'il ibn Ja'far was the imam after as-Sadiq (as) and that his son Muhammad ibn Isma'il was the imam after him. Since Imam 'Ali (as) is the Asas and Imam Hasan (as) is their 1st imam, in their reckoning Imam Ja'far was the 5th imam, Isma'il was the 6th, and Muhammad ibn Isma'il was the 7th imam.

As for matam and zanjeer, many individual Bohras also take part in those Azadari rituals, sometimes alongside Ithna 'Asharis strangely enough, as it's not something that is organised in their masajid and religious centres.

Hope that made some sense ...

yes u r right

i also meant that they dont accept imam musa al khadim (as)

as far as i know they dont do zanjir matam

but beat their chest with hands daily after every prayer

in remembrance of hussain (as)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes u r right

i also meant that they dont accept imam musa al khadim (as)

as far as i know they dont do zanjir matam

but beat their chest with hands daily after every prayer

in remembrance of hussain (as)

Salam Brother,

Yes we Bohras avoid doing Zanjir matam. AQA Ali is the father of all Imams. He is the Vasi of prophet Muhammed. We Bohras are Shias who do matam of Imam Hussain after every prayer with our hands. I am not sure who Imam Musa was but Imam Ismail was the true successor of his father from whom the imamate continued.

Vassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure who Imam Musa was but Imam Ismail was the true successor of his father from whom the imamate continued.

Salams bro,

What historical evidence do our Bohra Brothers put forward that Ismail was the true successor?

Similarly, how did Imam Musa Ibn Jaffer (as) feel about his brother generating his own following? Surely they mst have discussed this. Did this not cause tension amongst the Holy Imam (as) and Ismael?

It's an interesting issue

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salams bro,

What historical evidence do our Bohra Brothers put forward that Ismail was the true successor?

Similarly, how did Imam Musa Ibn Jaffer (as) feel about his brother generating his own following? Surely they mst have discussed this. Did this not cause tension amongst the Holy Imam (as) and Ismael?

It's an interesting issue

Thanks

Isma`il b. Ja`far (ra) had already died before his father Imam Sadiq (as) passed away, so there wouldn't have been anything for him and his brother Musa (as) to discuss..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their practices are quite different, not only from us, the Shia, but also from other Muslims. I remember seeing a cultural video of them performing arts and dances wondering if they have been heavily influenced by the cultural aspect of other religion.

You mean this?

Aga Khan can be seen clapping for the dance in front of him, at 5:46.

Edited by thinking100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isma`il b. Ja`far (ra) had already died before his father Imam Sadiq (as) passed away, so there wouldn't have been anything for him and his brother Musa (as) to discuss..

Please read the matter below from a book written by an English author who has done complete research and study on the topic to clarify the subject :

"The great schism of Shi’ism arose on the grounds of succession rather than doctrine: Ismailis believe that the imamate was passed to the de scendants of Jafar al-Sadiq’s son Ismail, while Ithna-Asharis believe it was inherited by the descendants of Ismail’s brother Musa. Doctrinal divergence followed, but initially the split centered on avenue of spiritual authority. Ismail was born circa 100/720, and was about twenty-five years older than Musa. He received nass from his father, and this nass was never clearly revoked. As Daftary notes, “There can be no doubt about the authenticity of this designation, which forms the basis of the claims of the Isma’iliyya.” According to a theologian of the high Fatimid period, Imam Jafar made his nass in public, declaring of Ismail: “He is the Imam after me, and what you learn from him is just the same as if you have learnt it from myself.” The crisis for Shi’a occurred when Ismail, having been declared the next imam by infallible predeceased his father Jafar by about a decade. During Jafar’s lifetime this cast doubt on the imam’s own infallibility, and laid the seeds of a bitter struggle for succession on jafar’s death.’ Three of Jafar’s surviving sons claimed the imamate, but none had clear evidence of nass. Musa emerged as the consensus candidate backed by a majority of the Shi’a notables, but a determined group of partisans championed the cause of Ismail’s son Muhammad: nass was irrevocable (this camp held), and the imam is infallible in his choice of successor. Modern Bohra clerical sources do not dispute Ismail’s premature death, but they contend that this event did not change the legitimacy of succession. This position has been articulated by Musta’li theologians for at least eight centuries (possibly much longer). The third da’i al-mutlaq after the occul tation of the twenty-first imam, Syedna Hatim Shamsuddin (d. 596/1199), wrote that according to prophesies attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib himself, “The eldest of these [ of Imam Jafarl shall die in the lifetime of his father, appointing as his successor the seventh imam.” The early Bohra cleric Hasan ibn Nuh of Broach (d. 939/1533) is even more explicit: “The sixth imam was Mawlana Isma’il b. Jafar, Abu Muhammad, surnamed al-Wafi. He died during the lifetime of his father, but not before the latter had appointed him as his successor. . . [ bequeathed his position to his son. Muhammad b. Isma’il, with the consent of his father, transferring to him the office of the imamate by his father’s, Imam Ja’far’s, order, and in his Another Ismaili view—as articulated in later centuries, at least—was that Ismail had not died before his father, but that his death had been staged as a scheme to protect the true line of imams from Abbasid plots. In the words of the ninth/fifteenth century Mustali da’i al-mutlaq Idris Imad al-Din, “ time came for Isma’il to dissemble death, using this ruse against his enemies who were full of hatred, enmity and the ardent desire to extinguish the Light of God”; the imam permitted Musa’ to be acknowledged only “as a ‘screen’ for the real successor.” Jafar ibn Mansur, writing during the Fatimid ascendency, expresses the same belief: “His body was made to disappear during the lifetime of his father, as a mystery intended to protect him from his enemies and as a test for his followers.” Imam Jafar alSadiq is said to have gone to extraordinary lengths to “prove” Ismail’s death, even parading a procession of witnesses past the open coffin to testify that the body it contained was that of his son. Five years later, Ismail is said to have appeared in Basra— 20 and even to have cured a paralytic. Whether or not the ruse succeeded in fooling the Abbasids, it certainly succeeded in confusing the Shi’a. Some accounts claim that Jafar withdrew his nass from Ismail on discovering that his son was a drunkard, but such speculation appears to be Ithna-Ashari and Sunni polemic rather than history. If nass was revoked during Ismail’s lifetime, a more plausible charge would have been associ ation with heretical ghulats. Lewis and other scholars argue that Ismail was closely linked to Abu al-Khattab, a ghulat who made such extreme claims that ImamJafar was forced to curse him. In addition to raising issues of ba tini ta’wil and numerology that would later find their way into orthodox Ismaili belief, al-Khattab is said to have placed himself outside the bounds of Islamic doctrine by preaching the divinity of the imams. He was even tually crucified by the Abbasids, expressing his loyalty to Jafar and Ismail to the very end. After the death of Jafar al-Sadiq, Muhammad ibn Ismail fled Medina and settled in Kufa. Early Ismaili devotion centered on Imam Muhammad rather than on his father Ismail: to a sect called the Qarmatis, and perhaps to most Ismailis prior to the Fatimid caliphate, he was referred to as a! Mahdi or al-Qaim (The Riser), and expected to return from seclusion to usher in a new cycle of prophesy. While Mahdism is a concept dating back to the first century of Islam, Ismailis have tended to prefer the term a! Qaim. Muhammad ibn Ismail was succeeded (modern Ismaili doctrine holds) by his son Abdullah al-Mastur, the first of the “hidden imams.” Dur ing this dawr al-satr (period of concealment), the imams carried out their spiritual duties while living lives disguised as simple merchants. They traveled from place to place, or tended to business in one site for as long as was safe, communicating with their followers through a secret network of da’is.* Early in the Fatimid caliphate, Imam al-Muizz billah is said to have searched out the remains of all the hidden imams and transported them to Cairo for reburial. Modern scholars have noted that the idea of an imamate passed down in secret from the second/eighth to the fourth/tenth centuries seems to have been first articulated during Fatimid times: if such a doctrine was propagated contemporaneously, the veil of taqiyya prevented it from appearing in the documentary record. During these two embattled centunes, Ismailism was primarily a peasant and Bedouin movement with little urban presence. In such a context, and particularly when laboring under the burden of Sunni oppression, a certain vagueness in doctrinal theory is to be expected. Abbasid vigilance forced the movement deep underground, and according to legend Imam Abdullah alMastur concealed himself so well that for several years he was completely lost to his followers. After an exhaustive search throughout much of the Muslim world, Ismaili loyalists are said to have found the imam at a site named “the monastery of sparrows.” The second hidden imam, Ahmad al-Mastur ibn Abdullah, is said to have authored the Ismaili theological text Rasa’il Ikhwan al-Safa. He was succeeded by Husain al-Mastur ibn Ahmad, during whose tenure missionaries are said to have had great success in the dissemination of the faith. His representatives gained a firm foothold in Yemen, and among the Berbers of the Maghrib his da’i Abu Abdullah al-Shii laid the foundation for what would soon become the Fatimid empire. According to Syedna Idris Imad al-Din, “He organised the propaganda, spread it further afield, broadcast instructions to his 21 followers, making it manifest . . . and dispatched his dais everywhere. He thus made the true religion visible to those who were in search of it.” The policy of satr protected the imamate from external Abbasid threats, but exposed it to threats from within. The next (and last) hidden imam, Husain ibn Ahmad, had to rely on his brother Muhammad Habib to communicate his directives to the community at large. As Husain’s death approached, Muhammad Habib tried to transfer the imamate to his own line by claiming that nass had been conferred on his own son. Soon after, the son died of mysterious causes. The regent claimed nass for his next son, and that candidate also passed away. In all, according to legend, Muhammad Habib anointed ten of his sons, and watched all of them die before he acknowledged Husain’s son Abdullah al-Mahdi as the legitimate imam. It is with Abdullah al-Mahdi (268—322/881—934), the eleventh imam, that the dawr alsatr ends and the Ismaili community reemerges into a period of open, verifiable history. During the terms of the preceding imams, da’i Abu Abdullah al-Shii had succeeded in converting the Berbers of what is now Tunisia to the Ismaili cause. He had already established a rigid theo cratic rule, with strictures including death for the sale or use of alcohol, and invited Abdullah al-Mahdi to rule over the kingdom that had been set up in his name. The imam was publicly proclaimed caliph in 297/910, and with his arrival in the Maghrib the Fatimid period of Ismaili history begins."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes there are aga khanis , dawoodi bohras ..........who claim to be shias

but their practises are quite different than the ithna ashari

my question was that when they dont believe in the imammat of imam ali (as) how can they claim to be shias ??

Brother, who said that Dawoodi Bohra's don't beleive in Ali. We Bohra's are Ali's Shias. We are true lovers of AQA Ali and the Ahlebayt. We beleive Ali is the successor of prophet Muhammed and is above the Imams. The first imam is Imam Hasan.

Does this help?

Salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Nizari 100% believe Ali was Imam, YA ALI MADAD is our cry.

meet them they will say

YA ALI MADAD

In fact, younger Nizari Ismailis are being taught that "Ya Ali Madad" ("O Ali, help") is the official greeting method in Ismailism as well as Islam more generally. Their primary school religious curriculum has a whole subject on just using this greeting. So, all Nizari Ismailis use this greeting when meeting with each other and often also when meeting with Shia Muslims.

Nizari Ismailis use this greeting instead of the salaam ​greeting used by the Muslims, despite the fact that the only greeting that Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) and Hazrat Ali (as) and the Imams ever used was the salaam greeting. Also, "Ya Ali Madad" is (at least in my opinion) shirk, as there is no mention of intercession in this statement nor any mention of Allah. I also believe that many of the earlier Shia scholars would definitely think using this phrase of "Ya Ali Madad" to be extremism (ghuluww). There are also at least a few Shia scholars today who regard it as ghuluww as well, I think.

The salaam greeting has a great significance in Islam and it is the greeting that all the Prophets of the past used, and that all Muslims have historically used, may peace be upon them all.

In fact, Jews say "Shalom Aleicum" - which is the Hebrew version of "Salaam Alaikum." They believe this greeting was the one used by Prophet Musa (as).

Let me add that saying "peace be upon you" makes a whole lot more sense when meeting someone than saying something like "O Ali, help." This is common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, younger Nizari Ismailis are being taught that "Ya Ali Madad" ("O Ali, help") is the official greeting method in Ismailism as well as Islam more generally. Their primary school religious curriculum has a whole subject on just using this greeting. So, all Nizari Ismailis use this greeting when meeting with each other and often also when meeting with Shia Muslims.

Nizari Ismailis use this greeting instead of the salaam ​greeting used by the Muslims, despite the fact that the only greeting that Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) and Hazrat Ali (as) and the Imams ever used was the salaam greeting. Also, "Ya Ali Madad" is (at least in my opinion) shirk, as there is no mention of intercession in this statement nor any mention of Allah. I also believe that many of the earlier Shia scholars would definitely think using this phrase of "Ya Ali Madad" to be extremism (ghuluww). There are also at least a few Shia scholars today who regard it as ghuluww as well, I think.

The salaam greeting has a great significance in Islam and it is the greeting that all the Prophets of the past used, and that all Muslims have historically used, may peace be upon them all.

In fact, Jews say "Shalom Aleicum" - which is the Hebrew version of "Salaam Alaikum." They believe this greeting was the one used by Prophet Musa (as).

Let me add that saying "peace be upon you" makes a whole lot more sense when meeting someone than saying something like "O Ali, help." This is common sense.

Ismailis do use this amongust themselves and other Shias as a greating. I would not consider this shirk. If Rasool-e-Khuda (saw) called for the help of Imam Ali (as) in the battle at the Fort of Khyber, I do not see why it can be Shirk for us to ask for his help. "Ya Ali Bilutfika Adrikani!" "O Ali! Help me with thy kindness!" did the Beloved Prophet (saw) call.

Ya Ali Madad

Khuda Hafiz

As-Salamu Alaykum

Edited by princevisram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Rasool-e-Khuda (saw) called for the help of Imam Ali (as) in the battle at the Fort of Khyber, I do not see why it can be Shirk for us to ask for his help. "Ya Ali Bilutfika Adrikani!" "O Ali! Help me with thy kindness!" did the Beloved Prophet (saw) call.

First of all, Nizari Ismailis do not use hadiths. They don't have hadith books and they have no records of what the Prophet (SAWS) said or did, as a result. As one might infer, they have no authentication system for hadiths, also. The knowledge that Nizari Ismailis have when it comes to hadiths and the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAWS) is, thereby, precisely zero. Thus, Nizari Ismailis have no way of knowing how the Prophet (SAWS) interpreted and implemented the Qur'an [i.e. what the Prophet (SAWS) said or did in his lifetime, and especially during Prophethood] - including anything that happened during the Battle of Khaybar (or whether events like Ghadir-e-Khumm even occurred, as a matter of fact). What about orientalist books on the life of the Prophet (SAWS), you ask? Well, the speculations of orientalists with regard to what the Prophet (SAWS) said or did in his lifetime - or even whether he lived at all (which some of them are now in fact questioning) - are just that: speculations. No Muslim worth the dust on the road is that interested in these speculations because they are not valid proof of anything. They are more like possibilities that may or may not have occurred. When it comes to talking about anything involving the Prophet (SAWS) and his life, including how he interpreted and understood the Qur'an, Muslims are interested in authentic hadiths. Do the Nizari Ismailis have any? Nope.

Secondly, please give us the hadith reference for your quote - from either Sunni or Twelver hadith books. Also, demonstrate to us that the hadith you are quoting is in fact authentic and reliable (meets the standards of a sahih or at least a hasan hadith). Most reported hadiths are not authentic (whether in Sunni or Twelver books) [and part of the reason for this is because hadith compilers wanted to keep track of anything reported about the Prophet (SAWS), even if it was false, so at least the fraudulent hadiths could be kept track of].

Thirdly, if this hadith you are quoting is indeed either sahih or hasan, then why do you accept it but reject all of the other sahih and hasan hadiths (be they in Sunni or Twelver hadith books)? For instance, what enables you, as a Nizari Ismaili, to differentiate between two sahih hadiths from either a Sunni or Twelver hadith book - accepting one but rejecting the other? There are many sahih hadiths in both Sunni and Twelver hadith books that would completely destroy the beliefs of Nizari Ismailis. Are you going to only accept the sahih hadiths that don't clearly disagree with the teachings of Nizari Ismailism? That would be irrational and unjustified.

Fourthly, you will need to demonstrate that, in the authentic hadith being referenced by you (if it is indeed considered authentic by Sunnis or Twelvers or both), the Prophet (SAWS) was calling Ali (as) but Ali wouldn't normally have been able to hear what the Prophet was saying. If Ali (as) was with the Prophet (SAWS) when this statement was made, then the context is that of a direct human-to-human discussion, and not what you're suggesting. You see, what you are suggesting is truly extraordinary. You are suggesting that Ali (as) can hear AND respond to a Muslim's summon of "Ya Ali" in the same way that Allah (SWT) can hear AND respond to a Muslim's summon of "Ya Allah." Sounds pretty preposterous right off the bat, and sounds like something that the Prophet (SAWS) was sent to eradicate and not encourage (given that Tawheed and La Ilaha Ilah Lah was what he spent more time preaching than anything else during his Prophethood). What you're talking about is beyond simply intercession, since you neither mention intercession nor Allah when saying "Ya Ali Madad." Let me add that it is not surprising to me that Imam Ali (as) never even so much as uttered a supplication like "Ya Rasulullah" after the Prophet (SAWS) passed away.

P.S. Let's be honest: Nizari Ismailism is a fairy tale with no foundation and no evidence behind it whatsoever. There is more evidence to indicate that Santa Clause is real then that Nizari Ismailism (or the Aga Khan) are true. And, from where do you derive the Prophet's interpretation of the Qur'an - or anything about the Prophet's (SAWS) life - without hadiths and the Sunnah? Go and look at what the Imams (as) said about the importance of the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAWS), starting with Imam Ali (as). Heck, you don't even need to do that because it's common sense. The whole Deen of Islam (including the concept of Imamat, for those of us who are Twelvers and use Twelver hadith books) stems from the utilization of the Sunnah to interpret the Qur'an - and this is something that both Sunnis and Twelvers (98% of the people on this planet claiming to be Muslim) have always accepted and understood. It is part and parcel of Islam. Without the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAWS), there is no way to know how the Prophet (SAWS) interpreted the Qur'an and implemented the Qur'an, and this is why the Sunnah is so tremendously important for all Muslims. Nizari Ismailis, without the Sunnah, are completely lost in the wilderness - just like the Christians, who have a religion that is based solely on faith (since, not only is the Bible corrupted, but, nobody knows how to interpret it either).

Sunnis have a right to their interpretation of the Qur'an because they have their version of the Sunnah (their own hadith books and their own hadith authentication system). Same goes for Twelvers, because Twelvers have their own version of the Sunnah as well (their own hadith books and their own authentication system). Do Nizari Ismailis have their own version of the Sunnah? Nope! They have no idea how the Prophet (SAWS) interpreted and implemented the Qur'an.

Ya Ali Madad

Khuda Hafiz

As-Salamu Alaykum

Only one of these phrases was used as the greeting of the Prophets and the Imams when dealing with other believers.

The first one represents ghuluww (extremism) - and is not even a greeting, but, rather an invocation that can neither be heard nor responded to without Allah's direct aid. Yet no mention of Allah is made.

The second one is cultural (used in the Indian subcontinent).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, Nizari Ismailis do not use hadiths. They don't have hadith books and they have no records of what the Prophet (SAWS) said or did, as a result. As one might infer, they have no authentication system for hadiths, also. The knowledge that Nizari Ismailis have when it comes to hadiths and the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAWS) is, thereby, precisely zero. Thus, Nizari Ismailis have no way of knowing how the Prophet (SAWS) interpreted and implemented the Qur'an [i.e. what the Prophet (SAWS) said or did in his lifetime, and especially during Prophethood] - including anything that happened during the Battle of Khaybar (or whether events like Ghadir-e-Khumm even occurred, as a matter of fact). What about orientalist books on the life of the Prophet (SAWS), you ask? Well, the speculations of orientalists with regard to what the Prophet (SAWS) said or did in his lifetime - or even whether he lived at all (which some of them are now in fact questioning) - are just that: speculations. No Muslim worth the dust on the road is that interested in these speculations because they are not valid proof of anything. They are more like possibilities that may or may not have occurred. When it comes to talking about anything involving the Prophet (SAWS) and his life, including how he interpreted and understood the Qur'an, Muslims are interested in authentic hadiths. Do the Nizari Ismailis have any? Nope. Secondly, please give us the hadith reference for your quote - from either Sunni or Twelver hadith books. Also, demonstrate to us that the hadith you are quoting is in fact authentic and reliable (meets the standards of a sahih or at least a hasan hadith). Most reported hadiths are not authentic (whether in Sunni or Twelver books) [and part of the reason for this is because hadith compilers wanted to keep track of anything reported about the Prophet (SAWS), even if it was false, so at least the fraudulent hadiths could be kept track of]. Thirdly, if this hadith you are quoting is indeed either sahih or hasan, then why do you accept it but reject all of the other sahih and hasan hadiths (be they in Sunni or Twelver hadith books)? For instance, what enables you, as a Nizari Ismaili, to differentiate between two sahih hadiths from either a Sunni or Twelver hadith book - accepting one but rejecting the other? There are many sahih hadiths in both Sunni and Twelver hadith books that would completely destroy the beliefs of Nizari Ismailis. Are you going to only accept the sahih hadiths that don't clearly disagree with the teachings of Nizari Ismailism? That would be irrational and unjustified. Fourthly, you will need to demonstrate that, in the authentic hadith being referenced by you (if it is indeed considered authentic by Sunnis or Twelvers or both), the Prophet (SAWS) was calling Ali (as) but Ali wouldn't normally have been able to hear what the Prophet was saying. If Ali (as) was with the Prophet (SAWS) when this statement was made, then the context is that of a direct human-to-human discussion, and not what you're suggesting. You see, what you are suggesting is truly extraordinary. You are suggesting that Ali (as) can hear AND respond to a Muslim's summon of "Ya Ali" in the same way that Allah (SWT) can hear AND respond to a Muslim's summon of "Ya Allah." Sounds pretty preposterous right off the bat, and sounds like something that the Prophet (SAWS) was sent to eradicate and not encourage (given that Tawheed and La Ilaha Ilah Lah was what he spent more time preaching than anything else during his Prophethood). What you're talking about is beyond simply intercession, since you neither mention intercession nor Allah when saying "Ya Ali Madad." Let me add that it is not surprising to me that Imam Ali (as) never even so much as uttered a supplication like "Ya Rasulullah" after the Prophet (SAWS) passed away. P.S. Let's be honest: Nizari Ismailism is a fairy tale with no foundation and no evidence behind it whatsoever. There is more evidence to indicate that Santa Clause is real then that Nizari Ismailism (or the Aga Khan) are true. And, from where do you derive the Prophet's interpretation of the Qur'an - or anything about the Prophet's (SAWS) life - without hadiths and the Sunnah? Go and look at what the Imams (as) said about the importance of the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAWS), starting with Imam Ali (as). Heck, you don't even need to do that because it's common sense. The whole Deen of Islam (including the concept of Imamat, for those of us who are Twelvers and use Twelver hadith books) stems from the utilization of the Sunnah to interpret the Qur'an - and this is something that both Sunnis and Twelvers (98% of the people on this planet claiming to be Muslim) have always accepted and understood. It is part and parcel of Islam. Without the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAWS), there is no way to know how the Prophet (SAWS) interpreted the Qur'an and implemented the Qur'an, and this is why the Sunnah is so tremendously important for all Muslims. Nizari Ismailis, without the Sunnah, are completely lost in the wilderness - just like the Christians, who have a religion that is based solely on faith (since, not only is the Bible corrupted, but, nobody knows how to interpret it either). Sunnis have a right to their interpretation of the Qur'an because they have their version of the Sunnah (their own hadith books and their own hadith authentication system). Same goes for Twelvers, because Twelvers have their own version of the Sunnah as well (their own hadith books and their own authentication system). Do Nizari Ismailis have their own version of the Sunnah? Nope! They have no idea how the Prophet (SAWS) interpreted and implemented the Qur'an. Only one of these phrases was used as the greeting of the Prophets and the Imams when dealing with other believers. The first one represents ghuluww (extremism) - and is not even a greeting, but, rather an invocation that can neither be heard nor responded to without Allah's direct aid. Yet no mention of Allah is made. The second one is cultural (used in the Indian subcontinent).

Ismailis do in fact take heed of the Beloved Prophet (saw) and the accounts in the life of Imam Ali (as)

BUT seriously, the next time you meet an Ismaili (and not one who doesn't practice their faith), then simply engage in discussion. You will come to know that they are aware of the major events that have taken place in the life of Muhammad (saw). The events that occurred at Ghadir-e-Khum is known by any Ismaili. Go on and click this link and see what Ismailis are learning from grades one to six. This curriculum has been translated in multiple languages and is used by Ismailis all over the world. If you go through the curriculum, you will learn that Ismailis do learn, from young, about the life of the Prophet (saw) and that of Imam Ali (as) and the rest of the Ismaili Imams (as) that followed.

Putting the above plead I quoted aside, have you not heard the Nad-e-Ali? Take a look at this site.

This incident known is not limited to Ismailis.

"It is reported through reliable sources that when all the notable companions of the Holy Prophet failed to make headway at Khaybar, Jibrail came with the text of Naadi Ali and asked the Holy Prophet to call Ali through this. The Holy Prophet accordingly recited this divine revelation, and Mawla Ali who was staying at home because of an eye infection, came and conquered the fort of Khaybar.

Naadi Ali, both large and small, are very affective for all purposes, particularly to overcome enemy, to come through tight situations, to withstand crises, to avoid accidents, and to have freedom from danger."

(Source)

IS it not also true that Ali is one of the 99 Names of Allah, meaning The Most High? So can Ya Ali Madad also be a prayer which is calling for the help of The Most High (i.e. Allah)?

Edited by princevisram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you not answering the questions I posed in my response to you? You just ignore them completely in your post. That is awfully ignorant and disrespectful of you. You make me feel like I'm wasting my time.

This curriculum has been translated in multiple languages and is used by Ismailis all over the world. If you go through the curriculum, you will learn that Ismailis do learn, from young, about the life of the Prophet (saw) and that of Imam Ali (as) and the rest of the Ismaili Imams (as) that followed.

And whose hadith books and hadith authentication system are the stories (that are reported in this curriculum) based on? That of the Sunnis? That of the Twelvers? Or none? How do you know that the stores that are taught about the Prophet (SAWS) in your curriculum really took place, in other words?

Forget the fact that I'm a Muslim. Pretend I'm an inquiring Agnostic that is asking: how do you know that the biographical material that is taught about the Prophet (SAWS) in your curriculum really took place and is not simply a bunch of made up hogwash?

You see, (knowledgeable) Sunnis and Twelvers can answer this question. If you cannot answer this question, then your religion is nothing more than a leap of faith, like Christianity. It seems to me that you agree with what I'm saying here, given your lack of response to the questions I posed in my previous post.

The problem is that there are many sahih hadiths in both Sunni and Twelver hadith books that completely contradict the beliefs of Nizari Ismailis. Yet, Nizari Ismailis are irrationally ignoring these hadiths, but, then claiming to believe in other hadiths from these very same books (that manage not to clearly contradict Nizari Ismailism) - like the hadith of Ghadir-e-Khumm, among many others.

Think about that! It makes no freaking sense! It makes your religion (Nizari Ismailism) look like a joke!

This means that you guys have no reliable sources or reliable historical information on how the Prophet (SAWS) interpreted the Qur'an (i.e. you have no documentation of the Sunnah of the Prophet) - essentially meaning, as well, that you guys have no evidence to support your interpretation of the Qur'an [including evidence for (among many other things) the concept of Imamat; or that the Prophet (SAWS) even remotely believed in Imamat in the same way that you guys do].

What evidence do you have (without referring to the hadith books that belong to Sunnis and Twelvers and thereby backup the beliefs of Sunnis and Twelvers and not Nizari Ismailis), that the Prophet (SAWS) interpreted the Qur'an in the same way that Nizari Ismailis do today, or in even a remotely similar fashion? The answer is none - since Nizari Ismailis didn't document the Sunnah of the Prophet (in the form of hadith books or otherwise), unlike the Sunnis and the Twelvers.

Putting the above plead I quoted aside, have you not heard the Nad-e-Ali? Take a look at this site.

This incident known is not limited to Ismailis.

"It is reported through reliable sources that when all the notable companions of the Holy Prophet failed to make headway at Khaybar, Jibrail came with the text of Naadi Ali and asked the Holy Prophet to call Ali through this. The Holy Prophet accordingly recited this divine revelation, and Mawla Ali who was staying at home because of an eye infection, came and conquered the fort of Khaybar.

Naadi Ali, both large and small, are very affective for all purposes, particularly to overcome enemy, to come through tight situations, to withstand crises, to avoid accidents, and to have freedom from danger."

(Source)

How do you know that the above is not a fabrication? Don't you realize that most of what is reported about the Prophets and the Imams is fabricated? Don't you realize that a system of authentication (like that used by Sunnis or like that used by Twelvers) is necessary to distinguish between fabricated hadiths and authentic hadiths?

Please demonstrate that the above report comes from an unbroken chain of trustworthy narrators going back to the Prophet (SAWS) or one of the 12 Imams. Please also demonstrate that each of the narrators was trustworthy and actually could have communicated with one another in an unbroken chain. A Sunni or a Twelver can answer these requests of mine. Why can't a Nizari Ismaili?

Here is an example of a Twelver response. Show me a Nizari Ismaili response.

Wait, that's going to be impossible - since the Nizari Ismailis never developed a system of authenticating hadiths. In fact, they don't have any compilations of hadiths in the first place.

IS it not also true that Ali is one of the 99 Names of Allah, meaning The Most High? So can Ya Ali Madad also be a prayer which is calling for the help of The Most High (i.e. Allah)?

No, because "Ali" refers to Imam Ali (as) whereas al-Ali refers to Allah.

Imam Ali (as) supplicated to al-Ali. Yet, you wish to ignore his example and supplicate to him.

In your backward thinking, you are supplicating to the one who himself had to supplicate to Allah. This is one of the things that Allah severely criticized the Christians for doing. Please learn from this instead of ignoring it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you not answering the questions I posed in my response to you? You just ignore them completely in your post. That is awfully ignorant and disrespectful of you. You make me feel like I'm wasting my time.

Wow it sounds like you are expecting — rather, demanding — an answer from me. I don't feel I'm the ignorant or disrespectful one.

Good luck on finding answers elsewhere. You aren't very inviting to a response, and don't seem to appreciate them anyways. QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS — Let's all learn about this guy so we can bash his beliefs!

I personally feel this has to do with the concept that since we are a minority, you treat us differently. Think about it — The Sunnis bash the Shias because they have a larger population. The larger sects of Shias go on to bash the smaller sects, simply because they are smaller. What is it that we are seeking? An act of importance? Can we not just act as an Ummah? Imagine if all the Muslims would work together and accept each other as Muslims. Or even just the Shia Muslims accepting all the minority Shia sects under their cover. Imagine how strong we would be together, united. And in case you are wondering, that is what my faith teaches. Work together, united.

I am a Muslim. If I say "La Ilaha Illa Allah" five times a day (which is true), then why can't you simply accept that I love the Prophet (saw) and accept Islam as my religion? I may practice it different than you. I may have different beliefs than you. But in the end, if I say I'm Muslim, I don't see what the big deal is.

In fact, if I say I'm Muslim, your judgement is already overruled because you wouldn't understand my relationship with Allah.

And just to be clear, religion is based on faith for a reason. All this authenticity is false anyways. The books of hadiths which lay at your house were given to you, or you bought them at some point. You simply have faith that they were once written that way. If I ask you how you know the ahadith are authentic, all you can say is that you have faith that the population who upheld the tradition of recording the sayings and actions of the Prophet (saw) did a really good job of it. AND I agree. Things were preserved extremely well, and this is why, Masha'Allah, we the Qur'an at our fingertips in this day and age. BUT it all started with this leap of faith.

I'm sorry that I did and will not answer your questions. I just feel that some people on this forum are not ready for it and others are simply immature. Like kids — let's argue about everything!

I don't enjoy debating. I have said this multiple times in multiple places on this forum when I was an active member a couple of years ago. I don't mind sharing my views to people who are willing to listen. I mean listen. Like listen, then accept that is who they are, then move on. I'm not going to go around and try and claim you are wrong in your beliefs — I don't believe in that. The Prophet (saw) always respected his enemies, and so too did Imam Ali (as) — to the extent of even giving a glass of milk, if you recall, to Ibn Muljam.

Anyways enough said on my part. Go on, take this as a 'surrender' if you wish. I see strength in my speech, because Allahu Alam, Allah knows best.

In the end it's not between you and I anyways. It's about me and my relationship with Allah.

What evidence do you have (without referring to the hadith books that belong to Sunnis and Twelvers and thereby backup the beliefs of Sunnis and Twelvers and not Nizari Ismailis), that the Prophet (SAWS) interpreted the Qur'an in the same way that Nizari Ismailis do today, or in even a remotely similar fashion? The answer is none - since Nizari Ismailis didn't document the Sunnah of the Prophet (in the form of hadith books or otherwise), unlike the Sunnis and the Twelvers.

And just to say something to clear up the confusion, I hope you realize that at one point we were one Ummah. So there is no you and I, in my opinion. As a Muslim, those ahadith which you speak of are rightfully mine as much as they may be yours.

And if you're looking for something more individualistic, teachings which have been perserved amongst us are the Kalam-e-Mawla, the teachings of Imam Ali (as). As for our Beloved Prophet (saw), we do rely on the rest of the Ummah, our fellow brothers and sisters of Islam, and of course, how our present Imam describes the life of the Prophet (saw).

Edited by princevisram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

princevisram, it is to your own detriment that you're unable to answer these questions. You're just re-affirming that your religion (Nizari Ismailism) has no evidence to support it, making it indistinguishable from ideas like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Clause. You're walking around like a blind sheep; like a Christian who worships Jesus (as) - except you worship the Aga Khan. I would respect you more if you were an Agnostic, because at least you would be asking hard questions and demanding evidence for your beliefs (perhaps eventually leading you to true Islam) - instead of falling prey to the beliefs of your forefathers, as the pre-Islamic Arabs did.

In Islam (as Sunnis and Twelvers understand it, at least), evidence precedes faith. Islam is not a religion that asks its followers to make a leap of faith, as in Christianity. All Muslim beliefs firstly stem from the immaculate and miraculous Qur'an. You cannot be a Muslim if you believe that the Qur'an comes from a fallible entity. Now, whose interpretation of the Qur'an is of primary importance and ultimate relevance when it comes to understanding and practicing Islam? Where do all concepts and principles in Islam ultimately stem from? The Prophet's interpretation of the Qur'an, of course. However, you can't know the Prophet's interpretation of the Qur'an without having documented his Sunnah (including compilations of hadiths and having a hadith authentication system). If you see concepts or ideas in the Qur'an that the Prophet didn't - or vice-versa - you can be sure that he is correct and you are incorrect, and that what he's seeing is Islam and what you're seeing isn't Islam. 98% of those who call themselves Muslims accept and understand this extremely rational and logical line of thinking, while the Nizari Ismailis somehow do not (except for an increasing few who are seeing the light and leaving Nizari Ismailism to become regular Muslims, thankfully).

As a Muslim, those ahadith which you speak of are rightfully mine as much as they may be yours.

Please understand that the Prophet (SAWS) interpreted the Qur'an completely differently from how you folks claim to, IF we are to accept the authentic hadiths of either the Sunnis or Twelvers. In other words, if you accepted either all of the authentic hadiths in Sunni hadith books or all of the authentic hadiths in Twelver hadith books, you would never be a Nizari Ismaili. I hope you realize how ridiculous you sound in your post above, therefore.

If not, well here: it is pure hypocrisy to pick-and-choose certain authentic hadiths out of Sunni hadith books or Twelver hadith books and then ignore (for no valid reason!) all the other authentic hadiths in these books. Yet, this is precisely what you and other Nizari Ismailis have been doing. Us regular Muslims can only roll our eyes when we see such silliness and misguided behavior, because if you guys actually bothered to accept all of the authentic hadiths that are reported, you would insha'Allah see how so very far Nizari Ismailism is from true Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe what you want, and let me believe what I wish. Besides I don't know who you are to judge how I am practicing my faith. Judgement is not in your hands. You can say I am practicing wrong, but in the end, Allahu Alam — and you can't change that. It is Allah who knows best, my dear friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

Islam is not a hippie free-for-all where you can just pick and choose any deen or stick to the one you were born in and add woolly phrases to it to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling.

This is the faith sent to us by Allah (JJH) via Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and Noble Quran then practiced by the Holy Imams (as) and captured in paak narrations.

If you have trouble understanding or accepting that then that is a problem for YOU. The Aga Khan Ismailis, based on my admittedly limited knowledge and information, are a seriously corrupted, deviant cult based on worship of the current leader.

You don't practice Islam and no amount of greeting each other with "Ya Ali Madad" (much as I love that) will cover the shocking deficiencies.

Please stop defending the indefensible. To me you are no less ignorant or brainwashed than sunnis who praise Muawiyah. You people honestly believe this Westernised playboy cavorting with semi-naked women on expensive yachts is (mazhallah) the embodiment of Maula Ali (as) or of the same Nur?

Even writing that fills me with rage yet you deviants actually BELIEVE this garbage. Lana'at on him and you.

ALI

Edited by Kismet110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

If you have trouble understanding or accepting that then that is a problem for YOU. The Aga Khan Ismailis, based on my admittedly limited knowledge and information, are a seriously corrupted, deviant cult based on worship of the current leader.

I don't have trouble understanding or accepting anything in my faith, Alhamdulillah. BUT it seems that all of you do though. And then you question the secrecy of my religion? Well, with the limited knowledge you have, look at how you criticize it. The more you know the more you will criticize. SO in the end, I have learned my lesson. There is no point in explaining to the ignorant who don't even wish to listen. I will let you sputter amongst yourselves with the limited knowledge each of you have about the Ismaili sect of Shia Islam, and Inshallah you can make conclusions on your own.

Don't be expecting another post in the thread authored by me.

Ya Ali Madad

Khuda Hafiz

As-Salamu Alaykum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe what you want, and let me believe what I wish. Besides I don't know who you are to judge how I am practicing my faith. Judgement is not in your hands. You can say I am practicing wrong, but in the end, Allahu Alam — and you can't change that. It is Allah who knows best, my dear friend.

I'm not the ultimate judge of you. But, I'm allowed to criticize you and your cult - and judge it thereby - both for the safety of my Deen and the Deen of fellow Muslims. Neither the Prophet (SAWS) nor Imam Ali (as) or any pious Muslim would tolerate extremists like you who ignore the Shariah and many of the pillars of Islam (including Namaz, Hajj, Fasting, Jihad, etc.) as well as deify a Dajjal like the Aga Khan.

I suggest you look into how Imam Ali (as) treated and dealt with the ghulaat (like the Nizari Ismailis, Nusayris, Druze, etc. in our modern day) during his lifetime, based on the authentic reports we have about his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

From my observation, Ruwayd is probably a Wahabi Sunni, rather than an Ithnaasheri.

Keeping that in mind, Ruwayd and his types will find any way possible to defame a Shia (Nizari Ismaili) Muslim Imam, and the mahdab he represents.

This is nothing new as the disbelievers heckled the Holy Prophet (pbuh) in the past, and are also presently doing so to the Imam of the Time (Imam Shah Karim Al-Hussaini Aga Khan IV) and his followers.

A Sunni theologian (Allamah Taftazani) records:

“He who dies without recognizing the Imam of his time dies the death of Jahiliyah” period.

Reference http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/imamate/en/chap2.php

You can mock, make fun, slander, do whatever to the Holy Imam, however are fundamentally missing the key element in Islam which is recognizing the Imam of the Time for Sunnis, and recognizing the present and visible Imam for the Ithnaasheris, Mustaali Ismailis, and other groups.

"Verily take it to your hearts that when an Imam openly declares his Imamate all sinners should know that proof of Allah (Hujuthullah) has arrived, and that Allah (swt) has fulfilled his promise, failure to adhere to it shall lead to the wrath of Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì, and sins and wrongdoing against the Imams shall take lead one to doom.”

Reference Munsub-e-Imamate, pages 106-107

If you are trying to compare Sunni Sunnah (exoteric) tradition with that of the Shia Imami Nizari Muslim (esoteric) tradition, there is no comparison at all. It is like comparing apple and oranges.

Ruwayd, whatever you have posted about the Nizari Ismailis (Muslims) is all baloney. You have not convinced me, nor other Muslims (Nizari Ismailis), or in that case many intellectual and intelligent individuals who have embraced our tariqah. There are many many learned individuals from both Sunni Sunnah & Ithnaasheri religions that have deep respect for our Imam and our Jamat (Community).

Your religion is that of the sword, and history has shown it. Even until today you guys Sunni Sunnahs and Ithnaasheris blow up each other in different parts of the world. What have your religions, which is obviously not Islam (which means peace btw), taught you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is judging anyone else, that is for Allah (jjh) to decide.

However, commenting on the deviancy of your cult is not only permissible but a duty to avoid simpletons getting sucked in to this seriously wayward sect.

You can't answer with logic, Noble Quran or Paak Narration so you pick superior 'knowledge' as your reason to run away.

Lana'at on your fake 'Imám' and his dusgraceful claim to this holiest of stations.

ALI

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...