Is Mawlana Hazar Imam a Muslim?

Activities of the Imam and the Noorani family.
kmaherali
Posts: 25106
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 3:01 pm

Post by kmaherali »

binom1 wrote: You said all perceptions of your imam are subjective. Then you said at a doctrinal (tariqa) level, there’s a view (or perception) of your imam as the perfect man or the ‘noor’. So I asked: whose view or perception, if anyone, of the imam is that (i.e. as the noor or perfect man)?
This is the perception of our Dais such as Nasir Khusraw and Tusi and our Pirs.
kmaherali
Posts: 25106
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 3:01 pm

Post by kmaherali »

binom1 wrote:Your imam informed them of approving a text, but he hasn’t approved it yet. It is not a standard Ismaili practice yet.
It has been approved by the Imam to be used as a Sharia practice according to the capacity and needs of individuals.
binom1
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:11 pm

Post by binom1 »

It has been approved by the Imam to be used as a Sharia practice according to the capacity and needs of individuals.
Then why aren’t Ismailis praying salaat/namaz reguraly 5 times day (like all other Muslims)? According to the capacity and needs of individuals? Again I ask you: why hasn’t he made it a standard, obligatory practice of Ismailis (like it is with all other Muslims)?
This is the perception of our Dais such as Nasir Khusraw and Tusi and our Pirs.
I don’t believe Tusi to be your dai, but let us leave that aside for now.

Now, these perceptions (of the Imam) by your dais must be (according to you) subjective. I wonder then: why are they (i.e. their perceptions of the Imam) made into the doctrinal view of him? Why not the perceptions of someone (who is either Ismaili or not) who does not believe your imam to be the ‘noor’ since both are subjective anyway? Why is one chosen over the other?
kmaherali
Posts: 25106
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 3:01 pm

Post by kmaherali »

binom1 wrote:Then why aren’t Ismailis praying salaat/namaz reguraly 5 times day (like all other Muslims)? According to the capacity and needs of individuals? Again I ask you: why hasn’t he made it a standard, obligatory practice of Ismailis (like it is with all other Muslims)?
As I said earlier each murid evaluates his capacity based upon his overall commitments in life. It is hard enough for murids to satisfy the requirements of the Tariqah. Nevertheless the Ismaili Namaz is available for those who can do both. Hence there is a complementarity between the Shariah practices and Tariqah practices. You may argue about the degree and the nature but there is a complementarity. Significant number of Ismailis fast during Ramadhan. Many Ismailis including Pir Sadardeen performed Hajj although it is not a Tariqah practice.

Most Muslims do not belong to a tariqah and hence they have a greater capacity to perform the Shariah practices in comparison to Ismailis. The fact that Ismailis have a lesser capacity to perform the Shariah practices does not mean that complementarity does not exist.
binom1 wrote: Now, these perceptions (of the Imam) by your dais must be (according to you) subjective. I wonder then: why are they (i.e. their perceptions of the Imam) made into the doctrinal view of him? Why not the perceptions of someone (who is either Ismaili or not) who does not believe your imam to be the ‘noor’ since both are subjective anyway? Why is one chosen over the other?
They established the basis for trust within the communities in which they preached through exemplary lives, persuasive arguments and/or supernatural powers developed through spiritual elevation. Hence whatever they told the people about the interpretation of faith and Imamat in particular convinced them. This led to the tradition and doctrine of the Imam as the Perfect Man.
binom1
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:11 pm

Post by binom1 »

It is hard enough for murids to satisfy the requirements of the Tariqah. Nevertheless the Ismaili Namaz is available for those who can do both. Hence there is a complementarity between the Shariah practices and Tariqah practices. You may argue about the degree and the nature but there is a complementarity. Significant number of Ismailis fast during Ramadhan. Many Ismailis including Pir Sadardeen performed Hajj although it is not a Tariqah practice.
Ismailis don’t satisfy the requirements of the sharia’ (i.e. salaat/namaz) not because they have ‘commitments in life’ but because they don’t believe they are required to. It is not obligatory on them. I’ve encountered countless Ismailis who, when asked about their ‘dua’ believe it to be obligatory, but when asked about salaat/namaz, don’t think they’re required to perform it. You keep on referring to this ‘Ismaili Namaz’ that’s supposedly available for them, but anytime I (or any other Muslim) asks them about the question of salaat/namaz, they don’t say that ‘oh we have other commitments in life, so we can’t perform it, but rather say that they don’t have salaat/namaz, they have their dua’ in its stead. Kmaherali, why do you keep insisting that there is one, when it’s so clear that there isn’t? In fact, Ismailis are so well-known for this, that is, not having a sharia’ that is common to all Muslims (i.e. praying the salaat/namaz). Btw, can you show me the text of this ‘Ismaili Namaz’? After all, it is an ‘Ismaili sharia’ practice’ (according to you), so I’m sure you wouldn’t have a problem with it.

Some Ismailis fast during Ramadan, but do they believe to be an obligatory part of Ismailism? No, they don’t. Their view of fasting is the same as their view of salaat/namaz. Do they believe that the performance of Hajj is an obligatory part of Ismailis? No, they don’t. Instead, they believe that what is obligatory for them is seeing the ‘didar’ of their Imam, which is their Hajj. All this i.e. the fact that they don’t believe these basic sharia’ rules (that are common to all Muslims) to be obligatory is problematic. Again, I’m not denying any complemetarity between Ismaili (sharia and tariqa) practices. I’m denying any complementarity between the sharia’ practices that are common to all Muslims and Ismaili practices. I’ve made that clear several times. There isn’t any because the two practice very different things.

Most Muslims do not belong to a tariqah and hence they have a greater capacity to perform the Shariah practices in comparison to Ismailis. The fact that Ismailis have a lesser capacity to perform the Shariah practices does not mean that complementarity does not exist.
So their (Ismailis) tariqa practices are getting in the way of their sharia' ones or making it had to perform them? What nonsense and what a lame excuse. The only reason why Ismailis don’t practice the sharia’ (that is common to all Muslims) is because they believe they are not required to. Ismailis have been/and are infamous for this and every Ismaili that I have come across has confirmed it. You know this.

They established the basis for trust within the communities in which they preached through exemplary lives, persuasive arguments and/or supernatural powers developed through spiritual elevation. Hence whatever they told the people about the interpretation of faith and Imamat in particular convinced them. This led to the tradition and doctrine of the Imam as the Perfect Man.
But their perceptions of the imam remain subjective regardless. This means that the doctrine of the imam as the ‘perfect man’ is also subjective. In other words, it is not that your imam is the ‘perfect man’; it is that he is the ‘perfect man’ to someone (i.e. the dai). So why is it that you believe in someone’s subjective perception of your imam (i.e. that he is the perfect man) and not, let’s say, someone else’s, who perceives him as an imperfect man? Since both are subjective, you can’t choose one and deny the other. If you do that, why would you when the imam is perceived as perfect or imperfect to that particular individual who perceives him (as one of the two) since it is true only to him? If this is a bit difficult to follow, let me try and simplify it:

• You stated that all perceptions of your imam are subjective.
• If there are two men, one of whom perceives your imam as the perfect man and the other perceives him as the imperfect man, and since both of their perceptions are subjective, would you choose one and deny the other i.e. believe him to be perfect and not imperfect? If so, why? Or would you say they are both right? If so, why? If one of them perceives him as perfect, then the imam is perfect to that person (subjective). But if the other perceives him as imperfect then the imam is imperfect to that person (subjective). Is one of them right and the other wrong? If so, why, when all perceptions of him are subjective (i.e. one is as good as the other) since there is no criterion except individual subjective perceptions? Or are they both right? If so, the imam is then both imperfect and perfect at the same time. But that is a contradiction. How would you try and explain it?
kmaherali
Posts: 25106
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 3:01 pm

Post by kmaherali »

binom1 wrote: Kmaherali, why do you keep insisting that there is one, when it’s so clear that there isn’t? In fact, Ismailis are so well-known for this, that is, not having a sharia’ that is common to all Muslims (i.e. praying the salaat/namaz). Btw, can you show me the text of this ‘Ismaili Namaz’? After all, it is an ‘Ismaili sharia’ practice’ (according to you), so I’m sure you wouldn’t have a problem with it.
As I said before that there was a mesage from the Imam in December last year that he has approved the text. I am not in possesion of one but would not mind sharing as it is a Sharia practice...
binom1 wrote: Some Ismailis fast during Ramadan, but do they believe to be an obligatory part of Ismailism? No, they don’t. Their view of fasting is the same as their view of salaat/namaz. Do they believe that the performance of Hajj is an obligatory part of Ismailis? No, they don’t. Instead, they believe that what is obligatory for them is seeing the ‘didar’ of their Imam, which is their Hajj. All this i.e. the fact that they don’t believe these basic sharia’ rules (that are common to all Muslims) to be obligatory is problematic. Again, I’m not denying any complemetarity between Ismaili (sharia and tariqa) practices. I’m denying any complementarity between the sharia’ practices that are common to all Muslims and Ismaili practices. I’ve made that clear several times. There isn’t any because the two practice very different things.
Those who observe the fasts believe it to be obligatory for them otherwise they would not do so. Similarly there are Ismailis who believe that attending Friday prayers with other Muslims is obligatory. Those who practice the Sharia believe it is obligatory to them. Our tariqah is open to diverse interpretations and traditions have evolved in diverse historical contexts. I will quote here the statement of the Imam with regard to complementarity..

"Throughout the Jamat's history, including during the Fatimid times, a consistent feature of the Ismaili Tariqah has been the complementarity between practices that are specific to our Tariqah, and those that are part of the Sharia, common to all Muslims, albeit with denominational specificities. Examples of this are the historic co-existence between Namaz and Du'a, and the concept of private prayer and personal search, which has an important place in Islam, since it concerns the relationship of faith with life."
binom1 wrote: So their (Ismailis) tariqa practices are getting in the way of their sharia' ones or making it had to perform them? What nonsense and what a lame excuse. The only reason why Ismailis don’t practice the sharia’ (that is common to all Muslims) is because they believe they are not required to. Ismailis have been/and are infamous for this and every Ismaili that I have come across has confirmed it. You know this.
As the Imam has explained above complementarity has existed throughout history. It is perhaps partly ignorance that there is a perception of the non requirement and combined with worldly commitments as well.
binom1 wrote: So why is it that you believe in someone’s subjective perception of your imam (i.e. that he is the perfect man) and not, let’s say, someone else’s, who perceives him as an imperfect man? Since both are subjective, you can’t choose one and deny the other. If you do that, why would you when the imam is perceived as perfect or imperfect to that particular individual who perceives him (as one of the two) since it is true only to him? ?
As I said they just did not say to the people 'the Imam is God to me so believe him to be God as well'. They first established the framework of trust through exemplary life, sound and persuasive arguments backed by the supernatural capacities acquired through spiritual elevation.
binom1
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:11 pm

Post by binom1 »

As I said before that there was a mesage from the Imam in December last year that he has approved the text. I am not in possesion of one but would not mind sharing as it is a Sharia practice...
No Ismaili seems to possess this namaz text. So according to you they are obliged to perform a namaz (by their imam) which they don’t know how to/or have access to.
Those who observe the fasts believe it to be obligatory for them otherwise they would not do so. Similarly there are Ismailis who believe that attending Friday prayers with other Muslims is obligatory. Those who practice the Sharia believe it is obligatory to them.
What about those Ismailis who don’t believe fasting and namaz (i.e. practicing the sharia’ common to all Muslims) to be obligatory? I guess they’re justified in that. This is exactly the problem with Ismailism. Does your imam say that practicing the sharia’ is obligatory on him who thinks it’s obligatory on him (and the converse of that)? If so, then, like I said, there’s no complementarity between what you (Ismailis) practice and what Muslims generally practice as that’s completely against what Muslims generally believe about the sharia’. According to them, it is obligatory on everyone, period. It is not up to the individual to decide whether the sharia’ is obligatory on him or not. The only up to him is whether to practice it or not.
Our tariqah is open to diverse interpretations and traditions have evolved in diverse historical contexts.
Please clarify something for me. What does your imam say about the status (i.e. whether it’s obligatory or not) of the sharia’ (common to all Muslims) with regards to Ismailis?
"Throughout the Jamat's history, including during the Fatimid times, a consistent feature of the Ismaili Tariqah has been the complementarity between practices that are specific to our Tariqah, and those that are part of the Sharia, common to all Muslims, albeit with denominational specificities."
Great. I never denied that complementarity in the past though. I’m talking about present Ismailism.
"Examples of this are the historic co-existence between Namaz and Du'a, and the concept of private prayer and personal search, which has an important place in Islam, since it concerns the relationship of faith with life."
Is he talking about the namaz that Muslims generally perform? If so, then can you provide me with a concrete example of this ‘historic co-existence’? As far as I’m aware, there hasn’t been any ‘historic co-existence’ between the dua’ of Ismailis and the salaat/namaz that Sunnis/Shias generally pray. On the contrary, other Muslims have generally been hostile to Ismailis because of their (unorthodox) beliefs and practices. This has continued up to our own day, because the majority of Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, regard your practices (i.e. dua’ in place of the salaat/namaz, etc) as heretical. So what ‘historic co-existence’ is your imam referring to? Maybe you can provide me with an example, but then again can a single example really be considered a “consistent feature of the Ismaili Tariqah [throughout history]”?
As the Imam has explained above complementarity has existed throughout history.
Give me concrete examples of this ‘complementarity’ throughout history.

As I said they just did not say to the people 'the Imam is God to me so believe him to be God as well'. They first established the framework of trust through exemplary life, sound and persuasive arguments backed by the supernatural capacities acquired through spiritual elevation.
So they first “established the framework of trust through exemplary life …” and only then said “Imam is God to me so believe him to be God as well?” What about people who did the same thing but believed your imam to an imposter i.e. Sunni/Shi’i figures? And why would they (the dais) want people to accept their subjective perceptions of who they thought the imam is anyway since every perception of him (by virtue of being subjective) is as good as any other? Here I refer you back to the questions (which you didn’t answer) in the scenario which I laid out for you in my previous post:

• You stated that all perceptions of your imam are subjective.
• If there are two men, one of whom perceives your imam as the perfect man and the other perceives him as the imperfect man, and since both of their perceptions are subjective, would you choose one and deny the other i.e. believe him to be perfect and not imperfect? If so, why? Or would you say they are both right? If so, why? If one of them perceives him as perfect, then the imam is perfect to that person (subjective). But if the other perceives him as imperfect then the imam is imperfect to that person (subjective). Is one of them right and the other wrong? If so, why, when all perceptions of him are subjective (i.e. one is as good as the other) since there is no criterion except individual subjective perceptions? Or are they both right? If so, the imam is then both imperfect and perfect at the same time. But that is a contradiction. How would you try and explain it?
kmaherali
Posts: 25106
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 3:01 pm

Post by kmaherali »

binom1 wrote:No Ismaili seems to possess this namaz text. So according to you they are obliged to perform a namaz (by their imam) which they don’t know how to/or have access to.
Perhaps it is not in circulation, but the fact is that some Ismailis have been practicing Sharia namaz albeit of Fridays using any of the exsting namaz from other denominations. The new Ismaili namaz will replace that. It is not meant to be a new practice....
binom1 wrote: What about those Ismailis who don’t believe fasting and namaz (i.e. practicing the sharia’ common to all Muslims) to be obligatory? I guess they’re justified in that. This is exactly the problem with Ismailism. Does your imam say that practicing the sharia’ is obligatory on him who thinks it’s obligatory on him (and the converse of that)?
I think the notion of complementarity does not mean that the complementary practice has to be obligatory, it only means something that is additional to a given practice. In our tariqah there are non-obligatory practices such as 'Baitul Khayal' which complement the Dua which is obligatory.
binom1 wrote: Great. I never denied that complementarity in the past though. I’m talking about present Ismailism.
The Imam mentions that complemetarity is meant with practices that are part of the Sharia and not the entire Sharia...
binom1 wrote: Is he talking about the namaz that Muslims generally perform? If so, then can you provide me with a concrete example of this ‘historic co-existence’? .
He is talking about the form of the namaz practiced by Muslims in general. During the Fatimid period we had our own Namaz but this namaz has notcome down to us and hence Ismailis use any namaz that suits their needs.
binom1 wrote: So they first “established the framework of trust through exemplary life …” and only then said “Imam is God to me so believe him to be God as well?” What about people who did the same thing but believed your imam to an imposter i.e. Sunni/Shi’i figures? And why would they (the dais) want people to accept their subjective perceptions of who they thought the imam is anyway since every perception of him (by virtue of being subjective) is as good as any other? Here I refer you back to the questions (which you didn’t answer) in the scenario which I laid out for you in my previous post:?
It is not just their experience but also the consistent and coherent theology, philosophy and interpretaion of faith that convinced people that the Imams were indeed Divine. No doubt spiritual charlatans have appeared here and there in history but have not produced solid consistent philosophy to back up their claims.

The Dias were convinced through their spiritual elevation that the Imam was indeed Divine and that he should be obeyed to attain happiness and salvation. This was backed up by correct theology and philosophy to establish long sustained traditions. Once the traditions had been established various other murids had also found the Light through the teachings of the Imams and hence confirmed the ideas of the Dais and the Pirs.
ShamsB
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 5:20 pm

Post by ShamsB »

well said Kmaherali.

However I don't think this will satisfy binom's purported curiousity - as the intent doesn't seem to be one of learning but rather of creating doubt.

Shams
binom1
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:11 pm

Post by binom1 »

Perhaps it is not in circulation, but the fact is that some Ismailis have been practicing Sharia namaz albeit of Fridays using any of the exsting namaz from other denominations. The new Ismaili namaz will replace that. It is not meant to be a new practice....
The fact is that the majority of Ismailis don’t pray the salaat/namaz because they don’t believe it to be obligatory. It doesn’t matter if a few Ismailis attend Friday prayers. So what? The fact that the salaat/namaz is not practiced by all Ismailis (like the dua’ is), coupled with what they themselves say regarding its obligatoriness on them (i.e. that it is not), proves that it is not obligatory on them. Of course it’s a new practice. You’re acting as if all Ismailis pray the salaat/namaz regularly 5 times a day. It will be a new practice for the majority of Ismailis who don’t pray (or never prayed) the salaat/namaz (because they don’t believe it to be obligatory).
I think the notion of complementarity does not mean that the complementary practice has to be obligatory, it only means something that is additional to a given practice. In our tariqah there are non-obligatory practices such as 'Baitul Khayal' which complement the Dua which is obligatory.
Great. But I’m not interested in what complements what in your tariqah. That’s irrelevant.

From the Oxford dictionary:
Complementary:
• adjective: combining so as to form a complete whole or to enhance each other.

Do you really think that Muslims believe that what you (Ismailis) practice in anyway completes or enhances (i.e. complements) what they practice? (I’m being rhetorical btw, the answer to it is obvious).
He is talking about the form of the namaz practiced by Muslims in general.
Then answer the questions that I posed to you. Why do you keep telling me things which I either already know or don’t have interest in knowing? Your imam was clearly talking about a ‘historic co-existence’ between the dua’ of Ismailis and the salaat/namaz that is common to all Muslims. Why then are you then telling me that during the Fatimid period you had your own namaz and this namaz hasn’t come down to you (something which is not only irrelevant, but also something which I already know and never asked you about)? As I asked you in my last post: can you provide me with a concrete example of this ‘historic co-existence’ (between, as your imam says, the salaat/namaz that Muslims perform and the dua’ of Ismailis)? As far as I’m aware, there hasn’t been any ‘historic co-existence’ between the dua’ of Ismailis and the salaat/namaz that Sunnis/Shias generally pray. On the contrary, other Muslims have generally been hostile to Ismailis because of their (unorthodox) beliefs and practices. This has continued up to our own day, because the majority of Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, regard your practices (i.e. dua’ in place of the salaat/namaz, etc) as heretical. So what ‘historic co-existence’ is your imam referring to? Maybe you can provide me with an example, but then again can a single example really be considered a “consistent feature of the Ismaili Tariqah [throughout history]”?

During the Fatimid period we had our own Namaz....
Great. I already knew that.
Ismailis use any namaz that suits their needs
Don’t say "Ismailis use" because that is a categorical statement which implies ‘all Ismailis’ - something which is not true. By far the majority of Ismailis don’t pray any salaat/namaz that ‘suits their needs’. They don’t pray the salaat/namaz period.
It is not just their experience but also the consistent and coherent theology, philosophy and interpretaion of faith that convinced people that the Imams were indeed Divine.
Kmaherali, you seem to be missing the point. Let’s, therefore, go through this step by step. If two men have contradictory views (perceptions) of your imam i.e. that he is divine and not divine, is one of them right and the other wrong? Or are they both right?
No doubt spiritual charlatans have appeared here and there in history but have not produced solid consistent philosophy to back up their claims.
Spiritual charlatans? Do you say that because they didn’t believe (perceive) your imam to be what your dai’s believed (perceived) him to be?

Believe me, those who deny your imam have produced a solid case for their views. If you want, we can discuss it.
kandani
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:55 am

Post by kandani »

Dear Binom1,

The Salat for Isma'ili Muslims is the Du'a which is the obligatory prayer of the Isma'ilis. It serves the same function as the namaz practiced by Sunnis and Twelver Shi'a. There is absolutely nothing heretical about the Isma'ili Dua and it is practiced 3 times a day in accordance with the verses of the Qur'an which command the times of Prayer (salat).

The Isma'ili view of the Shari'ah is an evolving and fluid Shari'ah which is continuously interpreted by the Imam of the time. The Isma'ili Madhab is the Jafari Madhab as well as other Madahib of close affinity (for example, the Isma'ilis even adopted the Shafi madhab at a certain time), but always under the guidance and interpretation of the Isma'ili Imam.

For hundreds of years, the Isma'ili practice of Shari'ah did have many commonalities with the practice of other Muslims. The Fatimid period and the periods thereafter are examples of this. Many changes were brought during the last 100 years during the Imamat of Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah where many Isma'ili practices were changed.

Today the Isma'ili Shari'ah of worship consists of the Du'a and the Dasond (zakat) and the Isma'ili Shari'ah for daily life consists of the practice of ethical principles of Islam which the Isma'ili Imamat continuously emphasises in his guidance to his Jamats. There is no Isma'ili fiqh today as in the Fatimid period and there is no such need for a device in accordance with today's circumstances.

During the age when Isma'ili Muslims did follow the classical shari'ah, the Isma'ili Da'is had foretold that in later periods, closer to the conclusion of the present cycle, the classical shari'ah practices would no longer have to be observed and there would be a shift from exoteric practices to knowledge and contemplation in the practice of the faith.

The Prophet's hadith - which says that during his time, he who neglects 10% of what is ordered will be ruined, and after him there will come a time when he who follows 10% of what was then ordered will be redeemed - speaks to this same reality.
kmaherali
Posts: 25106
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 3:01 pm

Post by kmaherali »

binom1 wrote: The fact is that the majority of Ismailis don’t pray the salaat/namaz because they don’t believe it to be obligatory. .
I am not denying it and I said it could be due to ignorance. Perhaps the introduction of the Ismaili Namaz will serve as a wake up call for those who are not aware that one could also pracice the Namaz if he had the capacity to do so in addition to Dua.
binom1 wrote: Great. But I’m not interested in what complements what in your tariqah. That’s irrelevant.

From the Oxford dictionary:
Complementary:
• adjective: combining so as to form a complete whole or to enhance each other.

Do you really think that Muslims believe that what you (Ismailis) practice in anyway completes or enhances (i.e. complements) what they practice? (I’m being rhetorical btw, the answer to it is obvious). .
To me it is irrelevant what other Muslims perceive, what matters to me is what parts of the Sharia complement my Tariqah practices.
binom1 wrote: So what ‘historic co-existence’ is your imam referring to? Maybe you can provide me with an example, but then again can a single example really be considered a “consistent feature of the Ismaili Tariqah [throughout history]”?....
As I have continued to say there has been a relationship between Dua and Namaz albeit even as Namaz for Friday. This does not negate the coexistence.
binom1 wrote: Don’t say "Ismailis use" because that is a categorical statement which implies ‘all Ismailis’ - something which is not true. By far the majority of Ismailis don’t pray any salaat/namaz that ‘suits their needs’. They don’t pray the salaat/namaz period. .
OK correction, some Ismailis use, but it does not change the coexistence if all Ismailis do not use.
binom1 wrote: Kmaherali, you seem to be missing the point. Let’s, therefore, go through this step by step. If two men have contradictory views (perceptions) of your imam i.e. that he is divine and not divine, is one of them right and the other wrong? Or are they both right?.
Both are right according to their perceptions. As I said before the Imam appears according to the capacity of individuals. For an undeserving he would appear not divine wheras to the deserving he would appear divine.
So the next question you would ask, who is right? I would answer by their integrity and strength of their ideas and the trust they have established.
binom1 wrote: Spiritual charlatans? Do you say that because they didn’t believe (perceive) your imam to be what your dai’s believed (perceived) him to be?
Because they have not been able to produce enduring traditions that our Dais have established. They were like shooting stars who disappeared fast...
sereya
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:43 am

Post by sereya »

Dear Bison 1,
could you please tell us who is your imam?
aminhooda
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 10:12 pm

Post by aminhooda »

Kmeharali - Unfortunately, I perceive that the user binom1 is dead set to declare Ismailis as heretics. Bionm1 perceives that Ismailis do not practice sharia and therefore are doomed. And there is no place or need for Imam-e-Zaman, who Ismailis believes gives divine guidance according to the times. No matter, how many ethical, intellectual or spiritual arguments are provided, bionm1 is all decided on what he wants.

binom1, pls. try to learn to respect Ismailis as brothers/sisters in Islam, or at least as humans who have right to their belief, to live a peaceful existence with others. They share and exercise their consciousness of Islam through the great and exemplary works of Aga Khan Development Network.

Ismailis cherish the diversity and respects all traditions of Islam as we are all bounded by same Shahada. The ethics of Islam does not allow us to live in hatred. Let's rise to our humanity and as humanity is our strongest bond.
binom1
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:11 pm

Post by binom1 »

Dear Kandani,
The Salat for Isma'ili Muslims is the Du'a which is the obligatory prayer of the Isma'ilis. It serves the same function as the namaz practiced by Sunnis and Twelver Shi'a. There is absolutely nothing heretical about the Isma'ili Dua and it is practiced 3 times a day in accordance with the verses of the Qur'an which command the times of Prayer (salat).
Kmaherali does not agree with you. He doesn’t think that salaat and dua’ are one the same thing. He thinks that for the Ismaili tariqa there’s the dua’ and for the ‘Ismaili sharia’ (whatever it is) there’s the salat/namaz. You two should make up your minds as to which is it and then we can discuss the matter. I’m not going to address two different views about what the salat/namaz is in Ismailism.
The Isma'ili view of the Shari'ah is an evolving and fluid Shari'ah which is continuously interpreted by the Imam of the time. The Isma'ili Madhab is the Jafari Madhab as well as other Madahib of close affinity (for example, the Isma'ilis even adopted the Shafi madhab at a certain time), but always under the guidance and interpretation of the Isma'ili Imam.
So is the Sunni and Shia view of the sharia’. But, unlike Ismailis, they don’t mistake interpretation of the sharia’ with changing the sharia’. Ismaili ‘madhab’ is not the Jafari madhab - because you don’t follow what the Twelver Shi’is follow (who are Jafaris), nor other madhahib of close affinity - because adopting (temporarily) Shafi madhab at a certain time does not mean you belong to that madhab now. Do you follow Shafi madhab now? No. You might have been Shafi at the time you adopted it, but not now. If that was true, then I guess Ismailis are as much Qarmati or Druze as they are Jafari or Shafi. Wouldn’t you say?
For hundreds of years, the Isma'ili practice of Shari'ah did have many commonalities with the practice of other Muslims. The Fatimid period and the periods thereafter are examples of this. Many changes were brought during the last 100 years during the Imamat of Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah where many Isma'ili practices were changed.
I know.
Today the Isma'ili Shari'ah of worship consists of the Du'a and the Dasond (zakat) and the Isma'ili Shari'ah for daily life consists of the practice of ethical principles of Islam which the Isma'ili Imamat continuously emphasises in his guidance to his Jamats. There is no Isma'ili fiqh today as in the Fatimid period and there is no such need for a device in accordance with today's circumstances.
Precisely because of today’s circumstances, you need fiqh.

During the age when Isma'ili Muslims did follow the classical shari'ah, the Isma'ili Da'is had foretold that in later periods, closer to the conclusion of the present cycle, the classical shari'ah practices would no longer have to be observed and there would be a shift from exoteric practices to knowledge and contemplation in the practice of the faith.
Well your dai’s were wrong. Knowledge and contemplation in the practice of the faith does not ever imply not observing the practices of the faith (i.e. sharia’). That is an absurd thing to believe. How on earth did they come to that conclusion?
The Prophet's hadith - which says that during his time, he who neglects 10% of what is ordered will be ruined, and after him there will come a time when he who follows 10% of what was then ordered will be redeemed - speaks to this same reality
No it does not. The hadith is “He who omits one tenth of the Law in the beginning of Islam will be damned; but he who accomplishes one tenth of the Law at the end of Islam will be saved.” It implies that the whole of the sharia’ is still obligatory, but the minimum amount to redeem yourself, if you can’t follow the whole thing, is one tenth. It’s not an excuse to not follow however much of the sharia’ as you can though. Furthermore, how do you know that the time the Prophet (alayhi salatu wa salaam) had in mind when he said ‘at the end of Islam’ (or in your words ‘there will come a time’) is now? I wouldn’t think so because the majority of Muslims still try to observe more than one tenth of the sharia’.
binom1
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:11 pm

Post by binom1 »

I am not denying it and I said it could be due to ignorance. Perhaps the introduction of the Ismaili Namaz will serve as a wake up call for those who are not aware that one could also pracice the Namaz if he had the capacity to do so in addition to Dua.
Read what the user Kandani has said above. He thinks, unlike you, that the dua’ is the salaat/namaz for Ismailis. The majority of Ismailis think that as well. So are you accusing them all of ignorance?
To me it is irrelevant what other Muslims perceive, what matters to me is what parts of the Sharia complement my Tariqah practices.
Do you mean the sharia’ that is common to all Muslims? If you do, then there aren’t any as you (Ismailis) don’t practice the sharia’ common to all Muslims. Just read what the user Kandani wrote.
As I have continued to say there has been a relationship between Dua and Namaz albeit even as Namaz for Friday. This does not negate the coexistence
I said (in my last post): your imam was clearly talking about a ‘historic co-existence’ between the dua’ of Ismailis and the salaat/namaz that is common to all Muslims. Can you provide me with concrete examples of this ‘historic co-existence’ (between, as your imam says, the salaat/namaz that Muslims perform and the dua’ of Ismailis) and not between some Ismaili namaz (there isnt’ one) and Ismaili dua’? As far as I’m aware, there hasn’t been any ‘historic co-existence’ between the dua’ of Ismailis and the salaat/namaz that Sunnis/Shias generally pray. On the contrary, other Muslims have generally been hostile to Ismailis because of their (unorthodox) beliefs and practices. This has continued up to our own day, because the majority of Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, regard your practices (i.e. dua’ in place of the salaat/namaz, etc) as heretical. If you can’t give me concrete examples, then that does negate the so-called ‘historic co-existence’.
… but it does not change the coexistence if all Ismailis do not use.
What?
Both are right according to their perceptions. As I said before the Imam appears according to the capacity of individuals. For an undeserving he would appear not divine wheras to the deserving he would appear divine.
If both of them are right, why do you label one undeserving and the other deserving? I don’t think you can do that. One person’s perception (i.e. he is noor) is no better and no truer than the others’ (i.e. he is not nor) because both are subjective. They are both equally right to those individuals i.e. the claim that your imam is not the noor is as true as the claim that he is noor. Wouldn’t you agree?

So the next question you would ask, who is right? I would answer by their integrity and strength of their ideas and the trust they have established.
I’m not sure I understand.
binom1
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:11 pm

Post by binom1 »

Kmeharali - Unfortunately, I perceive that the user binom1 is dead set to declare Ismailis as heretics.
I don’t declare Ismailis to be heretics. I just have certain disagreements with them (on some issues).
Bionm1 perceives that Ismailis do not practice sharia and therefore are doomed.
I don’t think that Ismailis are doomed.
And there is no place or need for Imam-e-Zaman, who Ismailis believes gives divine guidance according to the times.
I don’t think he is necessary for salvation.

No matter, how many ethical, intellectual or spiritual arguments are provided, bionm1 is all decided on what he wants.
No one (I think) has provided any ethical, intellectual or spiritual arguments here.
binom1, pls. try to learn to respect Ismailis as brothers/sisters in Islam, or at least as humans who have right to their belief, to live a peaceful existence with others. They share and exercise their consciousness of Islam through the great and exemplary works of Aga Khan Development Network.
Although I have certain disagreements with Ismailis, I nevertheless respect them. They have the right to believe in what they believe (as does everyone). I haven’t said otherwise. I think what the AKDN is doing is great.
Ismailis cherish the diversity and respects all traditions of Islam as we are all bounded by same Shahada. The ethics of Islam does not allow us to live in hatred. Let's rise to our humanity and as humanity is our strongest bond.
I would agree. And let me add that I don’t have any ‘hate’ for Ismailis because of my disagreements with them over certain doctrinal matters. I just simply have certain disagreements with them, that’s all.
kmaherali
Posts: 25106
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 3:01 pm

Post by kmaherali »

binom1 wrote: Read what the user Kandani has said above. He thinks, unlike you, that the dua’ is the salaat/namaz for Ismailis. The majority of Ismailis think that as well. So are you accusing them all of ignorance?.
There are diverse interpretations of our faith even within our Jamat. Most Ismailis are ignorant of the diverse traditions and practices within our Jamat. For example I was ignorant about the tradition of Chirag-i Rawsham which has been practiced by the Ismailis of Central Asia, until the Imam intoduced the standard text to the Jamat. Similarly most Ismailis are ignorant of the fact that they may recite Namaz albeit on Fridays only and that the Imam has authorized a standard text for it.
binom1 wrote: Do you mean the sharia’ that is common to all Muslims? If you do, then there aren’t any as you (Ismailis) don’t practice the sharia’ common to all Muslims. Just read what the user Kandani wrote.

As I mentioned many Ismailis practice Namaz albeit on Fridays, many fast during Ramadhan, some go for Hajj. These are all parts of Sharia common to all Muslims. They may not be obligatory but that does not negate the complementarity with the Tariqah practices.
binom1 wrote: I said (in my last post): your imam was clearly talking about a ‘historic co-existence’ between the dua’ of Ismailis and the salaat/namaz that is common to all Muslims. Can you provide me with concrete examples of this ‘historic co-existence’ (between, as your imam says, the salaat/namaz that Muslims perform and the dua’ of Ismailis) and not between some Ismaili namaz (there isnt’ one) and Ismaili dua’? .
The fact that Ismailis have been practicing Namaz albeit on Fridays only, shows the coexistence of the Namaz common to all Muslims and the Dua. They are using a Namaz available from other denominations.
binom1 wrote:
… but it does not change the coexistence if all Ismailis do not use.
What?.
The Namaz on regular basis.
binom1 wrote: If both of them are right, why do you label one undeserving and the other deserving? I don’t think you can do that. One person’s perception (i.e. he is noor) is no better and no truer than the others’ (i.e. he is not nor) because both are subjective. They are both equally right to those individuals i.e. the claim that your imam is not the noor is as true as the claim that he is noor. Wouldn’t you agree?.
When I say deserving or undeserving I mean the level or capacity to recognise the Imam as the Noor. The majority of humanity does not have the background knowledge to recognize the Imam as the Noor and hence the Imam in the material world does not appear as such. He appears as an ordinary human. Hence if they(the majority) said that the Imam is human, they are right in their judgement.

A child with no knowledge of the solar system would think that the moon is the source of light. According to his knowledge, he is right. An adult with the knowledge of the solar system will consider the sun to be the source of light which the moon reflects. Clearly both are right according to their capacity, however clearly the person with the knowledge of the solar system is objectively correct based on more knowledge.

In the same manner the majority does not have the appropriate background to recognize the Imam as the Noor and hence they are right according to their understanding of considering the Imam as a human.

The Ismailis who have a deeper understanding of Imamat see or recognize him as the Noor.
binom1 wrote:
So the next question you would ask, who is right? I would answer by their integrity and strength of their ideas and the trust they have established.
I’m not sure I understand.
I am trying here to resolve the dilemma of two perceptions being right. If one person says that the Imam is human and the other says he is Noor, how do I determine what is the truth. I am saying that I would evaluate each person knowledge, ideas and the basis of trust they have established. A Pir's statement would carry more weight for me than another persons statement.
abkb110
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:25 pm

Post by abkb110 »

binom1 wrote:
.<BR>• If there are two men, o&shy;ne of whom perceives your imam as the perfect man and the other perceives him as the imperfect man, and since both of their perceptions are subjective, would you choose o&shy;ne and deny the other i.e. believe him to be perfect and not imperfect? If so, why? Or would you say they are both right? If so, why? If o&shy;ne of them perceives him as perfect, then the imam is perfect to that person (subjective). But if the other perceives him as imperfect then the imam is imperfect to that person (subjective). Is o&shy;ne of them right and the other wrong? If so, why, when all perceptions of him are subjective (i.e. o&shy;ne is as good as the other) since there is no criterion except individual subjective perceptions? Or are they both right? If so, the imam is then both imperfect and perfect at the same time. But that is a contradiction. How would you try and explain it?
In physics are you aware of the "double slit experiment"? Basically, there are two slits and you shoot electrons through the slit, if you don't make an observation as to which slit the electron is going through it will behave as a wave and you will see a wave spectrum. The minute you add a detector and try to make a determination as to which slit the electron is going through the wave spectrum will disappear and the electron will behave as a particle. It is relative, if you see an electron as a particle it will behave as that and if you see the electron as a wave it will behave as that. This is known as particle-wave duality. So both the observers are right. So there is no real contradiction. It is all in your observation which actually changes the outcome!

Similarly, a person who perceives the Imam of the time, as the perfect man, the Imam will be that to him/her. And I don't mean just in words, you will experience qualities of the Imam of the time that will show you he is perfect/divine. If you don't see him as that you will not experience those qualities of his. So to answer your question in short yes they both are right! To the man who views him as perfect, he is perfect with divine qualities and the one who views him just as a human he is just a human. Again, no contradiction. It is relative to the observer.
kmaherali
Posts: 25106
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 3:01 pm

Post by kmaherali »

abkb110 wrote: Similarly, a person who perceives the Imam of the time, as the perfect man, the Imam will be that to him/her. And I don't mean just in words, you will experience qualities of the Imam of the time that will show you he is perfect/divine. If you don't see him as that you will not experience those qualities of his. So to answer your question in short yes they both are right! To the man who views him as perfect, he is perfect with divine qualities and the one who views him just as a human he is just a human. Again, no contradiction. It is relative to the observer.
This reinforces the fact that the Imam appears according to the capacity of the audience. To illustrate the point, below is the description of the first physical encounter between the great Fatimid Ismaili Dai Shirazi with the Imam in his own words. While he was dumb and awe-struck by the experience, the others around him experienced nothing unusual!

"I was taken near the place wherefrom I saw the bright Light of the Prophethood. My eyes were dazzled by the Light. I shed tears of joy and felt as if I was looking at the face of the Prophet of Allah and of the Commander of the Faithful, Hazrat Ali. I prostrated myself before the one who is the fittest person to bow to. I wanted to say something, but 1 was awe-struck... I tried to speak but my tongue refused to move. People asked me to say what I wished to say. I could say nothing. The Imam said, 'Leave him. Let his fear and awe subside.' After this, I rose. I took the holy hand of the Imam, placed it on my eyes and on my chest and then kissed it. I left the place with immense joy."
binom1
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:11 pm

Post by binom1 »

Similarly most Ismailis are ignorant of the fact that they may recite Namaz albeit on Fridays only and that the Imam has authorized a standard text for it.
I think it’s not that most Ismailis are ignorant that they may recite salaat/namaz. Rather, I think that you are ignorant of the fact that salaat/namaz is not obligatory on Ismailis. Their dua’ is their salat/namaz as the user Kandani has said. No Ismaili, with the exception of you, is in possession of any standard text of salaat/namaz from your imam.
As I mentioned many Ismailis practice Namaz albeit on Fridays, many fast during Ramadhan, some go for Hajj. These are all parts of Sharia common to all Muslims. They may not be obligatory but that does not negate the complementarity with the Tariqah practices.
It does not matter if a few Ismailis pray salaat/namaz ‘on Fridays’, fast, etc? Do you think that on account of that you can assert with confidence that Ismailis as a whole perform the salaat/namaz, fast, etc, (i.e. perform the sharia’ common to all Muslims)? No, of course not. By the far the majority of Ismailis don’t do those things because they don’t believe them to be obligatory on them. And it’s not that they are ignorant that it is obligatory on them, it’s that you are ignorant that it is not obligatory on them. I mean you said it yourself; despite the fact that a few Ismailis do those things, the fact still remains that those things i.e. requirements of the sharia’, are not obligatory on all Ismailis.
The fact that Ismailis have been practicing Namaz albeit on Fridays only, shows the coexistence of the Namaz common to all Muslims and the Dua. They are using a Namaz available from other denominations.
Again here you make an unwarranted categorical statement about all Ismailis which is simply not true. Ismailis i.e. all Ismalis, don’t practice salaat/namaz, even on Fridays. Only a very few Ismailis do. But that is no reason for you to say that there’s a co-existence between Ismailis practices and the practices common to all Muslims. If anything, I’m more correct in what I say (i.e. that there isn’t any co-existence between their practices) not only because (1) the majority of Ismailis don’t practice the sharia’ common to all Muslims, but also (2) because the majority of Ismailis don’t believe (because of what their imam says) the sharia’ common to all Muslims to be obligatory on them.
When I say deserving or undeserving I mean the level or capacity to recognise the Imam as the Noor. The majority of humanity does not have the background knowledge to recognize the Imam as the Noor and hence the Imam in the material world does not appear as such. He appears as an ordinary human. Hence if they(the majority) said that the Imam is human, they are right in their judgement.
My point is simply that the person’s perception of your imam as the noor is no truer than the perception of the person who sees him as not the noor since both of their perceptions are subjective. Would you agree with that? Since all perceptions of him are subjective, it does not matter what capacities one has to recognize him as the noor’ and another to recognize him as not the noor since it does not make a difference as to which one of them is correct. If a man has all the knowledge of Ismailism and sees the imam as noor, and another man has no knowledge and sees him as not the noor, his (the second man’s) perception is just as true as the first man’s.
A child with no knowledge of the solar system would think that the moon is the source of light. According to his knowledge, he is right. An adult with the knowledge of the solar system will consider the sun to be the source of light which the moon reflects. Clearly both are right according to their capacity, however clearly the person with the knowledge of the solar system is objectively correct based on more knowledge.
The child who thinks that the moon is the source of light is wrong. It is not that he is right according to his knowledge. You’re assuming this issue i.e. the source of the light of our solar system, to be a subjective matter like the perception of your imam. But it’s not, it’s an objective matter. There’s a correct answer i.e. the sun is the source of light, and every other answer i.e. the moon is the source of light, is incorrect. So your analogy does not work. You even contradict yourself toward the end of your paragraph by saying that the person with the knowledge of the universe is “objectively correct”. If he is objectively correct, then how is the child correct in thinking what is contrary to what the man who knows astronomy thinks? The child is plainly wrong and it does matter what it is to him according to his knowledge (because is not a subjective matter).

In the same manner the majority does not have the appropriate background to recognize the Imam as the Noor and hence they are right according to their understanding of considering the Imam as a human.

The Ismailis who have a deeper understanding of Imamat see or recognize him as the Noor.
They don’t need to recognize the imam as the noor as if that’s the correct understanding of him. It’s not that they don’t have appropriate background and that’s why they don’t recognize him as the noor. There isn’t any appropriate background needed to recognize him as this but not that as if one is more correct than the other. All perceptions of him, according you, are subjective and therefore as true and as valid as any other perception. It seems that people don’t need any deep understanding of the imam to recognize him as the noor either, because, even if they did have this deep understanding, what difference would it make? Their perceptions are still subjective even with this so-called deep understanding and as good and as true as the perceptions of those who don’t have that deep understanding. The matter is subjective so a deep understanding does not mean that one person’s perception of your imam will be truer than someone else’s (who doesn’t have that deep understanding).
I am trying here to resolve the dilemma of two perceptions being right. If one person says that the Imam is human and the other says he is Noor, how do I determine what is the truth. I am saying that I would evaluate each person knowledge, ideas and the basis of trust they have established. A Pir's statement would carry more weight for me than another persons statement.
You cannot determine the truth in favour of one (i.e. your pir) and not the other when both are subjective. They both weigh the same no matter how much knowledge, trust, etc, one has and the other doesn’t because they are subjective and only true to the individuals. So a person who believes your imam to not be the noor is just as correct as what your pir believes. All other considerations are irrelevant. If a man likes a certain dish and another does not like that same dish, who is correct? They both are. It does not matter if the man who likes the dish is the best human being and the other person the worst, they are both as correct as each other in liking/not liking the dish, and one can't be more correct than the other because the matter is subjective.
binom1
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:11 pm

Post by binom1 »

Similarly, a person who perceives the Imam of the time, as the perfect man, the Imam will be that to him/her. And I don't mean just in words, you will experience qualities of the Imam of the time that will show you he is perfect/divine. If you don't see him as that you will not experience those qualities of his. So to answer your question in short yes they both are right! To the man who views him as perfect, he is perfect with divine qualities and the one who views him just as a human he is just a human. Again, no contradiction. It is relative to the observer.
So you would agree with me that the person who perceives the imam as imperfect is just as correct as the person who perceives him as perfect (and the same with all other contraries), correct?
abkb110
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:25 pm

Post by abkb110 »

binom1 wrote:
<BR>So you would agree with me that the person who perceives the imam as imperfect is just as correct as the person who perceives him as perfect (and the same with all other contraries), correct?
I think you are missing the point. Let's say the person who percieves him as imperfect was to start seeing him as perfect/divine, they would experience those qualities of his. But if someone were to start seeing you or me as perfect/divine they would not experience anything. And this property of being able to experience his divinity based on your faith is what makes him special. Its not about who is correct or incorrect. Its about elevating yourself to a level to see this. So yeah the person who doesn't experience anything is correct but thats because of their own limitation not because of the Imam's limitation.
binom1
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:11 pm

Post by binom1 »

I think you are missing the point. Let's say the person who percieves him as imperfect was to start seeing him as perfect/divine, they would experience those qualities of his. But if someone were to start seeing you or me as perfect/divine they would not experience anything. And this property of being able to experience his divinity based on your faith is what makes him special. Its not about who is correct or incorrect. Its about elevating yourself to a level to see this. So yeah the person who doesn't experience anything is correct but thats because of their own limitation not because of the Imam's limitation.
I think it is you that is missing the point. If someone perceives your imam as imperfect then he experiences him as imperfect i.e. his imperfect qualities, etc., (something which you yourself believe) and is correct is his perception of him. How someone perceives me or you is irrelevant to the point. What difference does elevating yourself make to the truth of a person’s perceptions of the imam when all perceptions of him are subjective anyway? If one man is elevated and perceives him as perfect and another is not elevated and perceives him as imperfect, and since all perceptions of the imam are subjective, they are/must be equally correct. one person’s perception is as true as the other's, regardless of the level of their spiritual elevation because, again, it makes no difference to the truth of their perceptions (since they’re subjective) but only to the kind of perception they have (i.e. perfect or imperfect, which is besides the point). So I ask you again: would agree that the person who perceives the imam as imperfect is just as correct as the person who perceives him as perfect (and the same with all other contraries)? Just a yes or no answer would be fine.
sheza
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:03 am

Post by sheza »

binom, not sure where you are going with this, but how can anyone say that my perception is right or wrong, my perception can't be judged by your perception of my perception.

the only thing that could be up for debate is whether my perception is based on logic or faith? and if its not based on logic, thats the end of that discussion aswell.
sunnydays
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:31 pm

Post by sunnydays »

Bionom 1

There are many phrases and concepts that we use that are abstract, poetic, and esoteric. And even these words don't always do justice in reflecting what we believe and feel.

So, you probably wouldn't understand or accurately understand these concepts if you took them on face value.

You said you respect the AKDN - here's on example of the kinds of physical/real things that manifest from our beliefs. Our beliefs are private, but our actions and contributions to the world around us as a result of our beliefs speak for us.
abkb110
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:25 pm

Post by abkb110 »

binom1 wrote:
I think it is you that is missing the point. If someone perceives your imam as imperfect then he experiences him as imperfect i.e. his imperfect qualities, etc., (something which you yourself believe) and is correct is his perception of him. How someone perceives me or you is irrelevant to the point. What difference does elevating yourself make to the truth of a person’s perceptions of the imam when all perceptions of him are subjective anyway? If one man is elevated and perceives him as perfect and another is not elevated and perceives him as imperfect, and since all perceptions of the imam are subjective, they are/must be equally correct. one person’s perception is as true as the other's, regardless of the level of their spiritual elevation because, again, it makes no difference to the truth of their perceptions (since they’re subjective) but only to the kind of perception they have (i.e. perfect or imperfect, which is besides the point). So I ask you again: would agree that the person who perceives the imam as imperfect is just as correct as the person who perceives him as perfect (and the same with all other contraries)? Just a yes or no answer would be fine.
It's funny how you give paragraphs after paragraphs of response but expect us to answer with a simple "yes" or "no". Unfortunately, this subject isn't a binary matter. It goes beyond logic\reasoning and requires detailed explanation (for someone who is new to this like yourself). Now to make the point much more clear to you (obviously you are missing it), I am again telling you just cause you experience the Imam as imperfect it's your own limitation not the Imams. of course how you and me are perceived is relevant to the point because if a person who is capable of showing perfection /divinity based on others observation of him must be superior than someone who doesn't display such attributes (like me and yourself). And coming to the matter of who is correct. It's like me asking you is the person who is seeing the electron as a particle (with mass and charge) correct or the person who is seeing the electron as a wave (displays a spectrum) correct? How does one answer that? All we know is that it is both (duality) and its wave nature is far more superior than its particle nature. And you decide what you want to see. And again I will tell you what you want to see is in your hands and what you don't see is due to your own limitation.
ShamsB
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 5:20 pm

Post by ShamsB »

abkb110 wrote:
binom1 wrote:
I think it is you that is missing the point. If someone perceives your imam as imperfect then he experiences him as imperfect i.e. his imperfect qualities, etc., (something which you yourself believe) and is correct is his perception of him. How someone perceives me or you is irrelevant to the point. What difference does elevating yourself make to the truth of a person’s perceptions of the imam when all perceptions of him are subjective anyway? If one man is elevated and perceives him as perfect and another is not elevated and perceives him as imperfect, and since all perceptions of the imam are subjective, they are/must be equally correct. one person’s perception is as true as the other's, regardless of the level of their spiritual elevation because, again, it makes no difference to the truth of their perceptions (since they’re subjective) but only to the kind of perception they have (i.e. perfect or imperfect, which is besides the point). So I ask you again: would agree that the person who perceives the imam as imperfect is just as correct as the person who perceives him as perfect (and the same with all other contraries)? Just a yes or no answer would be fine.
It's funny how you give paragraphs after paragraphs of response but expect us to answer with a simple "yes" or "no". Unfortunately, this subject isn't a binary matter. It goes beyond logic\reasoning and requires detailed explanation (for someone who is new to this like yourself). Now to make the point much more clear to you (obviously you are missing it), I am again telling you just cause you experience the Imam as imperfect it's your own limitation not the Imams. of course how you and me are perceived is relevant to the point because if a person who is capable of showing perfection /divinity based on others observation of him must be superior than someone who doesn't display such attributes (like me and yourself). And coming to the matter of who is correct. It's like me asking you is the person who is seeing the electron as a particle (with mass and charge) correct or the person who is seeing the electron as a wave (displays a spectrum) correct? How does one answer that? All we know is that it is both (duality) and its wave nature is far more superior than its particle nature. And you decide what you want to see. And again I will tell you what you want to see is in your hands and what you don't see is due to your own limitation.
Well put.

Binom - just because you have your eyes closed and have a blindfold over them - and keep insisting you can't see the sun at high noon - doesn't mean the sun isn't out or up, just means you can't see the sun....

Does that take anything away from the Sun? or from the others who can see the Sun?

Shams
ShamsB
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 5:20 pm

Post by ShamsB »

Binom,

You're trying to reason with a bunch of fanatics - we're not going to get what you're saying..even though it makes perfect sense and logic to you - just doesn't make sense or logic to us. We have lost our sense of reason and balance - or as they say..we've drunk the Kool-Aid. You should escape before we pull you into our whirlpool and get you confused as well.

Shams
kmaherali
Posts: 25106
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 3:01 pm

Post by kmaherali »

binom1 wrote:[I think it’s not that most Ismailis are ignorant that they may recite salaat/namaz. Rather, I think that you are ignorant of the fact that salaat/namaz is not obligatory on Ismailis. Their dua’ is their salat/namaz as the user Kandani has said. No Ismaili, with the exception of you, is in possession of any standard text of salaat/namaz from your imam. .
I said "they may recite Namaz albeit on Fridays" so where is the ignorance about the Namaz not being obligatory. In other words I have maintained that Namaz is not obligatory. The Imam has approved the text whether is is available or not. In any case it is not meant to be obligatory.
binom1 wrote:I mean you said it yourself; despite the fact that a few Ismailis do those things, the fact still remains that those things i.e. requirements of the sharia’, are not obligatory on all Ismailis. .
Yes and I said that they are not obligatory, yet my point is that there is complementarity even though it is not obligatory. A complemetary practice need not be obligatory.
binom1 wrote:Again here you make an unwarranted categorical statement about all Ismailis which is simply not true. Ismailis i.e. all Ismalis, don’t practice salaat/namaz, even on Fridays. Only a very few Ismailis do. But that is no reason for you to say that there’s a co-existence between Ismailis practices and the practices common to all Muslims. .
Even if a few Ismails practice it, it shows a coexistence however weak it may appear to be. If I have a choice of performing Namaz in addition to my Dua, it still shows coexistence. On the occasions of Eid, the entire congregartion recites Idd Namaz....
binom1 wrote: My point is simply that the person’s perception of your imam as the noor is no truer than the perception of the person who sees him as not the noor since both of their perceptions are subjective. Would you agree with that? Since all perceptions of him are subjective, it does not matter what capacities one has to recognize him as the noor’ and another to recognize him as not the noor since it does not make a difference as to which one of them is correct. If a man has all the knowledge of Ismailism and sees the imam as noor, and another man has no knowledge and sees him as not the noor, his (the second man’s) perception is just as true as the first man’s. .
Yes true but relative to their own capacity, I will elaborate this below when talking about the child's perception of the light of the moon.
binom1 wrote: The child who thinks that the moon is the source of light is wrong. It is not that he is right according to his knowledge. .
As far as the child is concerned he will never be able to understand that the sun is the source of the light because he does not have the tools to understand that. All children in that category will hold the same opinion. However when they do grow with more knowledge the view changes. Similarly there are layers of perceiving reality depending upon individual capacity. In relation to the Pir I am a child and hence I just cannot know what he knows because I have not developed to his capacity. I only obey him because of the trust.
binom1 wrote:You’re assuming this issue i.e. the source of the light of our solar system, to be a subjective matter like the perception of your imam. But it’s not, it’s an objective matter. There’s a correct answer i.e. the sun is the source of light, and every other answer i.e. the moon is the source of light, is incorrect. So your analogy does not work. You even contradict yourself toward the end of your paragraph by saying that the person with the knowledge of the universe is “objectively correct”. If he is objectively correct, then how is the child correct in thinking what is contrary to what the man who knows astronomy thinks? The child is plainly wrong and it does matter what it is to him according to his knowledge (because is not a subjective matter).
Just as the child with no knowledge of solar system cannot know that the sun is the source of the light of the moon, similarly an ordinary person without the background knowledge of mysticism and Sufism cannot know the Imam beyond his human nature. The fact that the Imam can appear as Divine to some is an indication that there is an added dimension to his reality. Although both perceptions are right relative to the observers, the person with a deeper understanding of Imamat will perceive one correct and the other incorrect due to lack of background. The objectivity comes with knowledge, just as a person with knowledge of the solar system will know that the child is wrong and cannot have the capacity to know the truth, an Ismaili with a knowdlege of the Imam will know that the Imam is Divine and that the other person does not have the capacity to know him. Hence we are discouraged to shout aloud that the Imam is Divine because it will simply make no sense to others who do not have the background.
binom1 wrote:It seems that people don’t need any deep understanding of the imam to recognize him as the noor either, because, even if they did have this deep understanding, what difference would it make? Their perceptions are still subjective even with this so-called deep understanding and as good and as true as the perceptions of those who don’t have that deep understanding. The matter is subjective so a deep understanding does not mean that one person’s perception of your imam will be truer than someone else’s (who doesn’t have that deep understanding).
It would make a difference because the Imam appears according to the capacity of the individual. In an esoteric tradition the deeper the knowledge and purity, the truer the perceptions. The perceptions of the Prophet would be truer than those of an ordinary person. Otherwise what is the basis of accepting the Prophet and the Quran if the exprience of Prophet is no truer than any other person? In the case of Ismailism recognition of Imam as Noor comes with knowledge and hence there are levels of recognition.
binom1 wrote:If a man likes a certain dish and another does not like that same dish, who is correct? They both are. It does not matter if the man who likes the dish is the best human being and the other person the worst, they are both as correct as each other in liking/not liking the dish, and one can't be more correct than the other because the matter is subjective.
They are both corect according to their perception and knowledge. However if one person said that he did not like the dish because it contained pork and the other person said that he liked it because it tasted good, then wouldn't that change the evaluation?
Post Reply