Aga Khan IV caught sinning

[Ibn Murtuz]

Aga Khan IV is the current imam (49^th) according to millions of Nizari Ismailis. According to their belief, all Nizari Ismailis should give between 10% or 12.5% of their net income to the current imam. Aga Khan IV and his family are very rich.

 

They also believe that imams are infallible (never sins), and dressing immodestly is haram.

https://ask.ismailignosis.com/article/77-what-is-the-concept-of-halal-haram-in-ismailism

 

But then Aga Khan IV was caught dressing immodestly with his “friends”.

https://insideismailism.wordpress.com/aga-khan-vacation-2018/

[Sirius_Bright]

He sinned. How can one who sin stop others from sin. 

He is another fraud under garb of religion. 

[guest 2025]

Warning to men: In the second link some of these photos include very inappropriately dress women

 

Click on this link instead and be grateful that your milk rights aren't being trampled on like poor fat Beni

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by guest 2025

[eThErEaL]

12 hours ago, Rauf Murtuzov said:

Aga Khan IV is the current imam (49^th) according to millions of Nizari Ismailis. According to their belief, all Nizari Ismailis should give between 10% or 12.5% of their net income to the current imam. Aga Khan IV and his family are very rich.

 

They also believe that imams are infallible (never sins), and dressing immodestly is haram.

https://ask.ismailignosis.com/article/77-what-is-the-concept-of-halal-haram-in-ismailism

 

But then Aga Khan IV was caught dressing immodestly with his “friends”.

https://insideismailism.wordpress.com/aga-khan-vacation-2018/

That doesn't constitute "sin" for Nizari Ismailis.  They don't see all that as immoral deficiencies. 

You know what I am saying?    lol

[Ibn Murtuz]

5 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

That doesn't constitute "sin" for Nizari Ismailis.  They don't see all that as immoral deficiencies. 

You know what I am saying?    lol

They don't believe in praying, fasting ... and other commands of Allah.

Their website says it is haram to dress "immodestly". I don't know what that means according to them. Do you know?

https://ask.ismailignosis.com/article/77-what-is-the-concept-of-halal-haram-in-ismailism

Edited July 4, 2020 by Rauf Murtuzov

[eThErEaL]

1 hour ago, Rauf Murtuzov said:

They don't believe in praying, fasting ... and other commands of Allah.

Their website says it is haram to dress "immodestly". I don't know what that means according to them. Do you know?

https://ask.ismailignosis.com/article/77-what-is-the-concept-of-halal-haram-in-ismailism

Even in the secular culture one dresses immodestly if they wear a swimming costume / bikini to work.  But wearing a swimming costume / bikini to the beach is not necessarily seen as immodest but pretty normal.  It would be like going to the tribal people in Africa and saying that all those women who have their chest exposed are immodest.  

[Ali_Hussain]

At university his son's nickname was Jesus, get the analogy? 

Edited July 4, 2020 by Ali_Hussain

[Ashvazdanghe]

36 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

 It would be like going to the tribal people in Africa and saying that all those women who have their chest exposed are immodest.  

Salam you are comparing Apples with Oranges anyway his custom is immodest based on belief of his creed that as leader of this creed he did many sins that makes him unqualified  for being it's  leader but his position is based on inheriting  of this position  not following codes of their creed that I don't understand why you defend him like defending  of Salafis & wahabists from their corrupt rulers but the way @Rauf Murtuzov at least is honest about making joke & his anti shia proxy.

Edited July 4, 2020 by Ashvazdanghe

[Ibn Murtuz]

I asked an Ismaili and he said it is the same for Ismailism. (That it is haram to reveal leg to navel for men in front of non-mahrams).

Edited July 6, 2020 by Rauf Murtuzov

[eThErEaL]

4 hours ago, Rauf Murtuzov said:

I asked an Ismaili and he said it is the same for Ismailism. (That it is haram to reveal leg to navel for men in front of non-mahrams).

What kind of Ismaili friend do you have?  Bohora or Nizaris?

Bohoras are very conservative in this respect.  Nizaris. Not so much...

 

so who is your friend? Nizari or Bohora?

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by eThErEaL

[Ibn Murtuz]

6 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

What kind of Ismaili friend do you have?  Bohora or Nizaris?

Bohoras are very conservative in this respect.  Nizaris. Not so much...

 

so who is your friend? Nizari or Bohora?

 

He is Nizari.

What about you? Do you belong any sect?

Edited July 7, 2020 by Rauf Murtuzov

[eThErEaL]

On 7/7/2020 at 3:31 AM, Rauf Murtuzov said:

He is Nizari.

What about you? Do you belong any sect?

No.  The Quran forbids sects.  

 

Edited July 12, 2020 by eThErEaL

[Ibn Murtuz]

One can argue by saying that it doesn't that doesn't constitute a sin for Nizari Ismailis, but still, he is entertaining with non-mahram girls half-naked. 

[BleedKnee]

Don't really think it matters that he dressed immodestly or anything like that. Can we imagine an Imam that takes ridiculous amounts of money just to live a lavish lifestyle? 

[Cherub786]

52 minutes ago, BleedKnee said:

Don't really think it matters that he dressed immodestly or anything like that. Can we imagine an Imam that takes ridiculous amounts of money just to live a lavish lifestyle? 

He’s more of a cult leader than an Imam. Imams are by definition men of extreme personal piety and exemplars of a moral lifestyle. The Aga Khan is the exact opposite of an Imam.

Muslim leaders generally respect the Aga Khan, giving him VIP treatment and diplomatic protocols when he visits their countries. After all he’s a billionaire and people are respected for money, not their personal merits. As a religion, the Nizari Isma’ilis are perhaps the most heterodox sect there is, yet they are recognized as Muslims. From my perspective, anyone is a Muslim who testifies to the Oneness of Allah and the Prophesy of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, and who claims to be a Muslim. But the “Islamic Republic” of Pakistan does not consider this sufficient. According to its constitution, the Ahmadis or Qadianis are a non-Muslim minority because they allegedly deny the Finality of Prophesy (a whole discussion in itself). Yet Ahmadis/Qadianis are much closer to orthodox, Sunni Islam than the Nizari Isma’ilis, who don’t even pray nor recognize the Shari’ah, but worship the Aga Khan. This smacks of pure hypocrisy.

[Guest Karamite]

8 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

He’s more of a cult leader than an Imam. Imams are by definition men of extreme personal piety and exemplars of a moral lifestyle. The Aga Khan is the exact opposite of an Imam.

Muslim leaders generally respect the Aga Khan, giving him VIP treatment and diplomatic protocols when he visits their countries. After all he’s a billionaire and people are respected for money, not their personal merits. As a religion, the Nizari Isma’ilis are perhaps the most heterodox sect there is, yet they are recognized as Muslims. From my perspective, anyone is a Muslim who testifies to the Oneness of Allah and the Prophesy of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, and who claims to be a Muslim. But the “Islamic Republic” of Pakistan does not consider this sufficient. According to its constitution, the Ahmadis or Qadianis are a non-Muslim minority because they allegedly deny the Finality of Prophesy (a whole discussion in itself). Yet Ahmadis/Qadianis are much closer to orthodox, Sunni Islam than the Nizari Isma’ilis, who don’t even pray nor recognize the Shari’ah, but worship the Aga Khan. This smacks of pure hypocrisy.

Not really........mr mirza ghulamite did say/insinuate he is the Mahdi leading to he is the prophet!?!?

whereas the Aga khanis are NOT coming with new prophecy etc.

your THINKING smacks of pure hypocrisy if you ask me.

[ahlulbayt_72]

Ismailis don't really have a concept of mehram/ namehram. And covering up is not necessary for their women. So this is not a sin according to them. 

[Guest ServantofRabbilAalimeen]

12 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

He’s more of a cult leader than an Imam. Imams are by definition men of extreme personal piety and exemplars of a moral lifestyle. The Aga Khan is the exact opposite of an Imam.

Muslim leaders generally respect the Aga Khan, giving him VIP treatment and diplomatic protocols when he visits their countries. After all he’s a billionaire and people are respected for money, not their personal merits. As a religion, the Nizari Isma’ilis are perhaps the most heterodox sect there is, yet they are recognized as Muslims. From my perspective, anyone is a Muslim who testifies to the Oneness of Allah and the Prophesy of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, and who claims to be a Muslim. But the “Islamic Republic” of Pakistan does not consider this sufficient. According to its constitution, the Ahmadis or Qadianis are a non-Muslim minority because they allegedly deny the Finality of Prophesy (a whole discussion in itself). Yet Ahmadis/Qadianis are much closer to orthodox, Sunni Islam than the Nizari Isma’ilis, who don’t even pray nor recognize the Shari’ah, but worship the Aga Khan. This smacks of pure hypocrisy.

Its not alleged.  Mirza ghulam in his books claims he is jesus and Mahdi all in one. His books contain blasphemy against our holy imams as well, thats enough reason to hate mirza. And the biggest proof that hes a fraud, he challenged someone that if they died before him then he is truthful. But if he dies first then the other guy is truthful. Well guess what mirza died first that too by slipping in his washroom

[Haji 2003]

An Ismaili friend of mine once told me of his leader's special powers of knowledge.

I was reminded of that by the following story:

Quote

For two years from late 2015, an individual or individuals impersonating France's defence minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, scammed an estimated €80m (£70m; $90m) from wealthy victims including the Aga Khan and the owner of Château Margaux wines.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48510027

[Cherub786]

13 hours ago, Guest ServantofRabbilAalimeen said:

Its not alleged.  Mirza ghulam in his books claims he is jesus and Mahdi all in one. His books contain blasphemy against our holy imams as well, thats enough reason to hate mirza. And the biggest proof that hes a fraud, he challenged someone that if they died before him then he is truthful. But if he dies first then the other guy is truthful. Well guess what mirza died first that too by slipping in his washroom

[ShiaChat Mod]

On 9/23/2020 at 6:05 PM, Cherub786 said:

According to its constitution, the Ahmadis or Qadianis are a non-Muslim minority because they allegedly deny the Finality of Prophesy (a whole discussion in itself). Yet Ahmadis/Qadianis are much closer to orthodox, Sunni Islam than the Nizari Isma’ilis, who don’t even pray nor recognize the Shari’ah, but worship the Aga Khan. This smacks of pure hypocrisy.

 

On 9/24/2020 at 6:14 AM, Guest ServantofRabbilAalimeen said:

Its not alleged.  Mirza ghulam in his books claims he is jesus and Mahdi all in one. His books contain blasphemy against our holy imams as well, thats enough reason to hate mirza. And the biggest proof that hes a fraud, he challenged someone that if they died before him then he is truthful. But if he dies first then the other guy is truthful. Well guess what mirza died first that too by slipping in his washroom

 

19 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Not off-topic. Don't bring something up if you don't want replies discussing it. 

[Cherub786]

8 hours ago, ShiaChat Mod said:

Not off-topic. Don't bring something up if you don't want replies discussing it. 

I only mentioned the Qadianis to draw attention to the hypocrisy of Pakistani government in declaring them non-Muslim while the Nizari Isma’ilis, who don’t even pray or consider it necessary to follow the Shari’ah – but who worship the shameless Aga Khan – are technically Muslim according to Pakistani law. So the topic is Nizari Isma’ilis and their Aga Khan, not the Ahmadiyyah or Qadianis.

[Haji 2003]

7 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I only mentioned the Qadianis to draw attention to the hypocrisy of Pakistani government

It's not hypocrisy. Whatever else they believe/don't believe in, Nizari Isma'ilis believe in the finality of the Prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).) message in the way that the Ahmadiyyah find it difficult to do. This issue pre-dates the founding of Pakistan.

Look, I'm sorry that when the British were making up religions decades ago they chose Sunnism for the Ahmadiyya heterodoxy. But that's the way the colonialism cookie crumbles.

[Cherub786]

8 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

It's not hypocrisy. Whatever else they believe/don't believe in, Nizari Isma'ilis believe in the finality of the Prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).) message in the way that the Ahmadiyyah find it difficult to do. This issue pre-dates the founding of Pakistan.

The Nizaris believe in finality of Prophesy (I would actually dispute that, the concept of Imamate is contrary to the spirit and rationale of finality of Prophesy), but they disbelieve in other fundamental articles of Islam which are even more critical than finality of Prophesy – such as the observance of the Shari’ah, the obligation of the Five Pillars of Islam, and Tawhid al-Ibadah (worshipping Allah alone).

So it doesn’t make sense to me that Ahmadis are declared non-Muslim because they allegedly deny finality of Prophesy, while there are many other sects that are considered Muslim yet deny things that are more fundamental – apart from the Nizari Isma’ilis, you have Zikris who deny the Shari’ah and don’t pray (they refer to non-Zikri Muslims as “Namazi Muslims”), you have Nusairi and Ghali Shi’ah who believe sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه is God, or God incarnate, or superior to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, or that the text of the Quran has been corrupted, and so forth. You have certain religious cults in Pakistan, who self-profess Islam, that literally prostrate toward tombs, and like the Batini Isma’ilis, deny the necessity of observing the Shari’ah like praying five times a day, fasting in Ramadan, etc. While in Pakistan, I myself sat down with one such malang in a public park and confirmed from his own mouth that he and his followers do not believe it is necessary to follow the Shari’ah.

Now why has the Pakistani State declared one sect (Qadianis) non-Muslim though their supposed heresy is extremely minor in comparison to these other sects and tendencies I have briefly outlined that self-profess Islam. It is obvious that the 2nd amendment of the Pakistani constitution during Bhutto's government was a political decision, to appease a political agenda of certain "Islamist" political parties, but was by no means a principled or consistent decision.

8 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Look, I'm sorry that when the British were making up religions decades ago they chose Sunnism for the Ahmadiyya heterodoxy. But that's the way the colonialism cookie crumbles.

The British had more important things to do than create religions. This is typical conspiratorial thinking of so many Muslims. Yes, the British may have, as a matter of unofficial policy, favored certain religious groups and religious leaders for their own interests, but they never actually sat down in a drawing room and set about creating a new religion for the benefit of the Empire.

The greatest heresies and deviations from Islam were all planted and sprouted centuries before the British came along.

Edited September 26, 2020 by Cherub786

[Haji 2003]

18 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

The British had more important things to do than create religions. This is typical conspiratorial thinking of so many Muslims.

It's not conspiratorial when there are contemporary British documents pointing out the geo-political usefulness of these people. And then them being rewarded for their services to the Empire with various titles. The latter includes Ibn Saud, by the way, he's a 'Knight Commander of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire'.

And the claim isn't that they had a room in Whitehall where they made up Islamic doctrine. These were indigenous initiatives but whether they would have survived without outside help is another matter.

There are analogies today, with 'liberal/progressive' Islam being promoted. You'll have seen the Bro.Tawhidi thread. How far would he have got amongst Muslims without the incessant promotion by non-Muslims wishing to influence Muslim belief?

[AmirioTheMuzzy]

@Cherub786 Pakistan takes the popular contemporary Sunni umbrella criteria of being Muslim, which is simply the Shahada. It has nothing to do with belief in the Shar'iah.

[AmirioTheMuzzy]

On 9/26/2020 at 6:59 AM, Haji 2003 said:

Look, I'm sorry that when the British were making up religions decades ago they chose Sunnism for the Ahmadiyya heterodoxy. But that's the way the colonialism cookie crumbles.

6 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

These were indigenous initiatives but whether they would have survived without outside help is another matter.

Exactly. Same thing with Shi'ism and the Baha'i heterodoxy, which the British promoted. 

[Haji 2003]

57 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Exactly. Same thing with Shi'ism and the Baha'i heterodoxy, which the British promoted. 

And Aga Khan I got an annual pension of £2,000 from the British for services rendered.

[Cherub786]

4 hours ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

@Cherub786 Pakistan takes the popular contemporary Sunni umbrella criteria of being Muslim, which is simply the Shahada. It has nothing to do with belief in the Shar'iah.

Then why were Ahmadis/Qadianis declared non-Muslim? They testify to the Shahadah.

Please read my article I wrote last year Why Pakistan Declared Ahmadis/Qadianis Non-Muslim

Let me emphasize that I do not consider Isma’ilis Aga Khanis non-Muslim. My Madhhab is that whoever testifies to the Shahadatain is a Muslim full stop. Whoever claims Islam is a Muslim full stop. If such a person is not a Muslim in the Sight of Allah, that is not our concern, we cannot judge people’s hearts.

Certainly, if there are Muslim individuals or groups that have extreme deviations and heresies like the Isma’ilis/Aga Khanis and others, we are to deal with them as ahl al-Bid’ah who are still within the fold of Islam.

In other words, though I technically consider an Isma’ili to be Muslim, I will never marry my daughter to an Isma’ili, I will not pray behind an Isma’ili, I will probably not even initiate Salam to him, or participate in his funeral. But from the perspective of the State, an Isma’ili and other innovators who self-profess Islam have inviolable legal rights as Muslims. For example, they have a right to be buried in a Muslim cemetery, they have a right to make Hajj and Umrah to Makkah, they cannot be charged Jizyah, and so forth.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Cherub786

[Cherub786]

9 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

It's not conspiratorial when there are contemporary British documents pointing out the geo-political usefulness of these people. And then them being rewarded for their services to the Empire with various titles

The conspiracy theory is that the British created various religious groups, which is totally baloney.

I already affirmed it is true that the British may have favored certain religious groups over others for their colonial interests. BTW, that includes Muslims in general, the British preferred us over the Hindus in many respects.

9 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

The latter includes Ibn Saud

The British certainly favored the Saudis historically in the political sense, but that has nothing to do with favoring a religious group or sect.

[Haji 2003]

37 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

The conspiracy theory is that the British created various religious groups, which is totally baloney.

If crazies who would otherwise have been forgotten suddenly acquire legitimacy because of the geo-political interests of outsiders whether the latter came up with the new ideology or simply helped it along provides us with the same net result.

[Cherub786]

On 9/27/2020 at 3:35 PM, Haji 2003 said:

If crazies who would otherwise have been forgotten suddenly acquire legitimacy because of the geo-political interests of outsiders whether the latter came up with the new ideology or simply helped it along provides us with the same net result.

This is an arguable proposition. We will have to discuss it on a case by case basis. Two groups are usually accused of being under British sponsorship “Wahhabis” and “Qadianis”. There may be an element of truth to it – however miniscule – but I would dispute the idea that “Wahhabism” for example could not have survived or thrived without alleged British patronage, and likewise the same is true of “Qadianism”

Consider also the fact that British or other foreign powers may have or still are patronizing other religious groups that are quite old, came into existence centuries before European colonialism, like the Ghali Shi’ah, Isma’ili Aga Khanis, eclectic Sufis and so forth.

I would also like to point out that during the 1990s the British facilitated and gave asylum to radical “Islamists” and Kharijites. How did individuals like Abu Hamzah, Abu Qatadah, Omar Bakry Mohammed and others all end up in Britain, none of them were born there, they’re all Middle Eastern Takfiris and radicals.

[Haji 2003]

14 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I would also like to point out that during the 1990s the British facilitated and gave asylum to radical “Islamists” and Kharijites.

There are a number of different levels at which the above could be answered:

1. This is a general law (asylum) to which people can appeal and there is a legal process and these people got in the same way as anyone else would OR
2. The UK was quite happy to facilitate their arrival since it would allow better monitoring of their activities OR
3. They are actually British (double) agents, their role is to act as a lightning rod for other crazies OR
4. They're a useful resource with which the British can pressure Gulf monarchies

The above are based on varying levels of evidence and at the extreme some could be labelled conspiracies. 

But there is rock solid proof how after the fall of Saddam people like Iyad Allawi and Abdul Majid al-Khoei were actively sponsored by the U.S. and the U.K. as being pliant potential rulers of Iraq. I've previously mentioned how Allawi's election TV ads aired in Iraq looked straight out of a U.S. presidential election.

Of course in the years leading up to the invasion they would have been seen with varying levels of suspicion and irritation and of course in the Iran/Iraq war anti-Saddam Iraqi Shias in the west would likely have been seen with some level of suspicion.

In summary there are lots of different ways Qatadah and co. could be useful and if they are not they are a cheap resource to cast aside.

But what is definitely different about the examples I have cited and yours is that mine are to do with the British going out of their way to give pensions and honours to foreigners.

[dragonxx]

On 7/4/2020 at 5:01 AM, eThErEaL said:

Even in the secular culture one dresses immodestly if they wear a swimming costume / bikini to work.  But wearing a swimming costume / bikini to the beach is not necessarily seen as immodest but pretty normal.  It would be like going to the tribal people in Africa and saying that all those women who have their chest exposed are immodest.  

Ah. You have a point. We shouldn't be calling it immodesty. Like those tribal people you referenced, those people who wear bikinis... we should call it savagery.

[Guest SomeRandomMuzzy]

I read this thread with great interest and plan to use it as an example of why unity in the Ummah will never be achieved.

In no way am I am Ismaili, but I could take all the good deeds, from every person who has ever posted in ShiaChat, multiply it by 100 and it still wouldn't compare to what the Aga Khan has done for the Ummah. I can not even think of a name of a Muslim leader that has done more for the Ummah.

The schools that have been built, the food given to those in need, and the hope he has brought to the hopeless.

But please continue to nit pick someone who continues to do good as you sit in your homes and help no one, but your own ego.