In an anti ismaili website I read one thing. would like if some one clarify it. I dont know its true or false as there are some wrong farmans also mention there so may be its wrong.
The International magazine 'LIFE', issue December 1983, page 71, heading 'LIFE visits His Highness Prince Karim Aga Khan'. The opening sentence reads:
"To 15 million Muslims in 25 countries, he is a living god, direct descendant of Mohammed and the spokesman for almighty Allah."
In the ensuing issue of 'LIFE', February 1984, page 15, heading 'LETTERS - The Aga Khan', Aga Khan's Secretariat while refuting the above assertions, wrote:
"...The Aga Khan is the 49th hereditary Imam -spiritual leader- of the Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims. The unity of Allah, "Tawheed," is one of the fundamental principles of Islam. For LIFE to assert that the Aga Khan is "a living god" and "spokesman for Allah" is a total misinterpretation of the most basic tenet of one of the world's major faiths, and a serious affront to all Muslims."
true or false
-
star_munir
- Posts: 1670
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 12:55 am
- Contact:
MHI Interview - ITV (Extract)
It is true. I have the original article tiltled "The LIFE visits the Agakhan" and the response from his secretariat seems plausible.
To shed more light into this issue, there was an interview conducted by Andrew Gardner of ITV on 5th June 1985 at Chantilly ( I have the whole transcript of it), in which Mawlana Hazar Imam was asked: "One of the myths surrounding you is that some people in the West think of you as a living God. Not only is that not true, but it is blasphemous?" To which MHI answered: "Absolutely. I mean, as you know the faith of Islam was revealed at a time the Arabian continent was idolatrous and idolatary - all forms of idolatary are totally prohibited by Islam. It is certainly true to say that the Western World doesn't necessarily understand the theology of Shi'ism nor indeed the theology of many mystical sects whether they are Shia or Sunni or Christian. Mysticism, in it's essence is difficult."
From the answer above, we can see that while MHI denies being God from the Zaheri point of view, there is the Batini side which is not generally understood and is difficult. This concept of Mursheed al Kameel (Perfect Man), is not only restricted to our theology but is universal and it is mysticism (Sufism) that we must concentrate our efforts to promote. After all mysticism is the essence of all faiths and it can provide the bridge between the various traditions in the overall framework of pluralism.
To shed more light into this issue, there was an interview conducted by Andrew Gardner of ITV on 5th June 1985 at Chantilly ( I have the whole transcript of it), in which Mawlana Hazar Imam was asked: "One of the myths surrounding you is that some people in the West think of you as a living God. Not only is that not true, but it is blasphemous?" To which MHI answered: "Absolutely. I mean, as you know the faith of Islam was revealed at a time the Arabian continent was idolatrous and idolatary - all forms of idolatary are totally prohibited by Islam. It is certainly true to say that the Western World doesn't necessarily understand the theology of Shi'ism nor indeed the theology of many mystical sects whether they are Shia or Sunni or Christian. Mysticism, in it's essence is difficult."
From the answer above, we can see that while MHI denies being God from the Zaheri point of view, there is the Batini side which is not generally understood and is difficult. This concept of Mursheed al Kameel (Perfect Man), is not only restricted to our theology but is universal and it is mysticism (Sufism) that we must concentrate our efforts to promote. After all mysticism is the essence of all faiths and it can provide the bridge between the various traditions in the overall framework of pluralism.
-
star_munir
- Posts: 1670
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 12:55 am
- Contact:
The question is whether this has clarified matters in your mind. It is a valid concern and many individuals have it. I think the most important thing we should realise is that the Musheed speaks about an issue in a different manner depending upon the audience. He will articulate the concept of Imammat differently to his murids than to the public at large. This is one of the peculiarities about the Mursheed in the context of mysticism.star_munir wrote:Thanks for reply but in that website first ,theperson wrote Farmans from Kalam-e-Imam Mubin about Ali Allah and than wrote Karim Aga Khan denies Divinity in Media so its confusing.
Sun and Sunlight
I think the difference is
Allah v/s Noor of Allah
They are the same and they are not the same simultaneously.
The Sun and Sunlight are not the same but are also the same simultaneously
Zahir and Batin are not the same but are also the exact same thing simultaneously
Please dont hesitate to give some feed back
Shams
Allah v/s Noor of Allah
They are the same and they are not the same simultaneously.
The Sun and Sunlight are not the same but are also the same simultaneously
Zahir and Batin are not the same but are also the exact same thing simultaneously
Please dont hesitate to give some feed back
Shams
I do not think it is implied anywhere that Ismailis believe the body is God. What is implied is the difference in the manner of discourse between a Mursheed and a murid and the Mursheed and others. In my opinion television interview is not the correct audience to talk about Batini matters. MHI had opened the door for giving the right answer by mentioning Shia Islam and mysticism but did not go further than that. I think the concept of the relationship between Imam and noor, Mursheed Kameel. Mazhar are all Batini aspects and cannot be articulated to an audience that does not have the understanding on these matters.nagib wrote:No Ismaili believes that the body is God. And no Imam has ever said that the body is God.
Allah is God and God is Light, Noor. The Noor is God.
If the interviewer had asked the right question, he would have got the right answer...
Nagib
-
Guest
your input
Ya Ali Madad Karim:
i just wished to express my thanks to you for your input in the forum discussions.
The way you explain things make so much sense and i truly enjoy reading your comments.
Thankyou very much for sharing your understanding and knowledge with ignorant people like me.
i just wished to express my thanks to you for your input in the forum discussions.
The way you explain things make so much sense and i truly enjoy reading your comments.
Thankyou very much for sharing your understanding and knowledge with ignorant people like me.
The Godhead and the Light are NOT the same.
The Godhead is like the Sun - it is completely unknowable and unapproachable - He who is above all else.
The Noor is like the Light of the Sun. It is the first spiritual Manifestation of the Godhead and this Light is the only thing we can ever come to realize.
The living Imam is the epiphanic form (mazhar) of the Light.
The Godhead is like the Sun - it is completely unknowable and unapproachable - He who is above all else.
The Noor is like the Light of the Sun. It is the first spiritual Manifestation of the Godhead and this Light is the only thing we can ever come to realize.
The living Imam is the epiphanic form (mazhar) of the Light.
Re: your input
You are welcome! Thanks for the comment.Anonymous wrote:Ya Ali Madad Karim:
i just wished to express my thanks to you for your input in the forum discussions.
The way you explain things make so much sense and i truly enjoy reading your comments.
Thankyou very much for sharing your understanding and knowledge with ignorant people like me.
-
Guest
Dear <SPAN class=name><A name=""></A><B><FONT size=2>kmaherali,<BR><BR>Ya Ali Madad,<BR><BR>Could kindly email me the following material that you <BR>have so kindly mentioned in your reply o­n the subjet:<BR><BR><OL><LI>"The LIFE visits the Agakhan"</LI><LI>Interview of Mowlana Hazar Imam by Andrew Gardner of ITV o­n 5th June 1985 at Chantilly.<BR><BR><BR>Thanks a lot an Mowla bless you.<BR><BR>from <BR>Mushtaq Jindani<BR>Email: [email protected]</LI></OL></FONT></B></SPAN>
I will try as and when convenient.Anonymous wrote:Dear kmaherali, Ya Ali Madad
Could kindly email me the following material that you have so kindly mentioned in your reply on the subjet:"The LIFE visits the Agakhan" Interview of Mowlana Hazar Imam by Andrew Gardner of ITV on 5th June 1985 at Chantilly. Thanks a lot an Mowla bless you from Mushtaq Jindani [email protected]
The Life magazine in that perticular issue narrated three things in its statement for Hazar Imam namely:
1. he is a living god,
2. direct descendent of Muhammed and
3. spokesman for almighty Allah
Explanation:
1. In mentioning the omnipotent supreme God in writting, it is customary in English that it takes the article 'The' or no article at all, but never an article 'a' before it .Also it is customary to capitalize the word god as 'God'. When one says 'a god', it means one of the many minor gods ( such as Devs in Hinduism). Since this part of the statement of Life was wrong, it was refuted by the AK secretariat.
2. The second part of the statement was absolutely right, and hence the AK secretariate did not refute it or touched it.
3. If one peruses the third part of the statement, he can easily observe the absurdity of the statement. For example, the president of a country can never be his own spokesman. Since this part of the staement was not right, it was also refuted by the AK secretariate.
1. he is a living god,
2. direct descendent of Muhammed and
3. spokesman for almighty Allah
Explanation:
1. In mentioning the omnipotent supreme God in writting, it is customary in English that it takes the article 'The' or no article at all, but never an article 'a' before it .Also it is customary to capitalize the word god as 'God'. When one says 'a god', it means one of the many minor gods ( such as Devs in Hinduism). Since this part of the statement of Life was wrong, it was refuted by the AK secretariat.
2. The second part of the statement was absolutely right, and hence the AK secretariate did not refute it or touched it.
3. If one peruses the third part of the statement, he can easily observe the absurdity of the statement. For example, the president of a country can never be his own spokesman. Since this part of the staement was not right, it was also refuted by the AK secretariate.
In one of the Waez in late 1967 at Karachi, missionary Abu Ali once mentioned that ISMS was once asked a question, " Are you a God?" The Imam replied,"No." Then Abu Ali explained that what was suggested by the questioner in the question was not right, and hence the appropriate reply.
On the other hand, following event is taken from a Gujarati boook authored by a famous Parsi gentleman. The book, which was written about Imam Sultan Muhmmad Shah, was in the library of Ismailia Association of India at Bombay.On one of the page, the author has stated a question posed by a German journalist to ISMS and the reply by the latter.Since the question was properly worded, the reply was positive too.
The passage ( not exact words) runs likes this:
Question: " Your Khoja believers call you Khuda (God), while from Islamic Shariat point of view it is a Shirk, and hence a great sin ( Gunahe Kabira). What do you say about this?"
ISMS replied," Yes, from Shariat point of view to call me Khuda is a great sin, but from Marifati point of view, it is a great virtue."
On the other hand, following event is taken from a Gujarati boook authored by a famous Parsi gentleman. The book, which was written about Imam Sultan Muhmmad Shah, was in the library of Ismailia Association of India at Bombay.On one of the page, the author has stated a question posed by a German journalist to ISMS and the reply by the latter.Since the question was properly worded, the reply was positive too.
The passage ( not exact words) runs likes this:
Question: " Your Khoja believers call you Khuda (God), while from Islamic Shariat point of view it is a Shirk, and hence a great sin ( Gunahe Kabira). What do you say about this?"
ISMS replied," Yes, from Shariat point of view to call me Khuda is a great sin, but from Marifati point of view, it is a great virtue."
KHUDA in persian language means owner, that is why some times in persian text we read Khodavande khane (which means owner of home), thus it should not interpreted as god. Of course the current usage of this word is generally about God (ALLAH).
Meanwhile in shia faith, in general, IMAMAT is a line of light or marefat which originates directly by god.
Meanwhile in shia faith, in general, IMAMAT is a line of light or marefat which originates directly by god.