20014413 wrote:Imranramji: "Now if you say the light of allah has been bestowed o­n Hazar Imam then it is a totally different concept and this concept can be backed within the quran and many hadiths."<BR><BR>Although we are all spiritual borthers and sisters, every individual has a personal relationship with the Imam aswell. Now, if someone considers him to be a friend then he is a friend to him/her and if someone thinks of him as being Allah then he is Allah. It s a matter of faith and heart. <BR>Just a few questions for you Imran: 1) I think you agree that light of Allah has been bestowed o­n MHI. How is Allah's light different from Allah? Is The light/noor finite, that it can be separated of broken?
yes it is a matter of faith of the heart about how we take our mowla to be, but out right saying the MHI is allah is out right shirk. I am sorry Ali is Allah is an esoteric concept. Remember our faith is to be interpreted both esoterically and exoterically, Also towards your question yes allah has bestowed his light onto the Imam, but this doesnt means that MHI is allah himself. Nor does it means that i am seperating allah and his light or breaking it up. What i am saying is that it is because of the grace of allah that allah's light is within MHI. I think we all can agree that if allah willed he could of put his light with MHI's brother or uncle or any one else
During 1982's silver jubilee homage ceremony - when alone with the leaders - Hazar Imam in his full regalia - raised his hand and said..I am Ali..I am Ali..I am Ali.
You samir noorali said "I thank ShamsB for quoting this verse. Its translation: The Pir is saying that he worries whether his followers will recognize the Lord in the human form. In other words will his followers acknowledge Allah as manifest in the human form."
my dear friend you are forgetting one thing. You are forgetting who the Pirs are preaching to and the history behind these ginans. You are making the same mistakes that many muslims make when the do the translation of the quran. They forget to look at the history behind the verse revealed. I am not gonna deny the meaning of the ginan but what i will ask is that the history is looked at. Who and in what condition was the ginan told in. It is common knowledge that the Pirs at that time were converting the hindues of the time and had to use their own terminology to make them understand Islam. The prophet did the same
again samirnoorali says
"Since you mentioned that you don’t believe Ali is Allah then the ball stops there. That is your belief. But may I remind you that it was the Pirs who converted many Ismailis on the principle of Ali Allah. That was the reason for conversion. If you don’t recognize that then you are no different from a Sunni Muslim. Why bother talking about the noor like it is something apart from the flesh of Ali. If Ali is Allah, then when he lifts his hand, then you must know it is Allah’s hand. When Ali gives blessings, then you must know that is Allah’s blessings. The noor is not an external component separate from the personage of Imam. That would be like saying the soul of Imran is different from Imran himself. That doesn’t make any sense, since you are the soul in question."
when did i deny the concept of Ali allah? I never denied it. Your mistaken in what i am saying. I truly believe that when the Imam's speak it is allah who is speaking, but the same is said about prophet mohummad. When the prophet speaks it is really allah speaking. But this doesnt means that Ali is allah. It means that allah has given his permission to ali. It is because of the grace of allah that ali is given the permission.
you samirnoorali said again
"If you want Hazer Imam to explain everything to you then I suggest you write a letter and go through the proper channels. It doesn’t make sense for him to explain something that the Pirs spent generations to instil in their doctrine. It is like saying I would like the Imam to say that man has indeed landed on the moon. Why don’t you do your own research? There are many historical documents which attest to this principle."
I was asking you to give me a farman of the present Imam for a reason. The reason being no wear does the Imam says "I am Allah". He doesnt comes right out and says it. You may be right if the pirs have instilled in us Ali allah then the imam doesnt needs to expend upon it, but the thing is he does explains it. It isnt directly but indirectly. You need to be listening to Mowla's words correctly to understand what mowla is saying.
For example many times has mowla used the word Inshallah. This word means "if allah wills". Why would Mowla use the word Inshallah for himself if the meaning of "ali allah" is that Ali is allah? That is all i am going to say. This concept of taking Imam Ali and the Present Imam and making them allah is the sole reason why ismailis are called kaffirs. MHI has disclaimed divinity
Missionary Abu ali himself says
"The Imam is the Supreme Authority appointed directly by Allah. He is the asa's (foundation, cause, root) and Pi'r is the na'tiq (conversant, conversationalist, messenger). Ima'm is Hujjatullah and Khali'fatullah, the Vicegerent of God; while Pi'r is Hujjatul Ima'm and Khali'ftur Rasoolullah."
A Brief History of Ismailism (1985), pages 107-108
Note that the missionary himself says allah appoints the Imam. Their is a clear distinction between allah and the Imam
ShamsB wrote:
During 1982's silver jubilee homage ceremony - when alone with the leaders - Hazar Imam in his full regalia - raised his hand and said..I am Ali..I am Ali..I am Ali.
Shams
when did i deny that MHI doesnt have Imam Ali's Noor. When did i deny that MHI doesnt have allahs noor within him. Seriously. I have never denied it and i will never deny it, but i will have a different opinion on how you interpret the noor of allah. Having the noor of allah doesnt means you are allah. I am sorry i cannot accept that fact. I cannot accept that MHI is literally allah. That is too much of a Christian concept. It is like the trinity The Father, the son and the holy spirit. Christians belief in the trinity but they belief it is one. It looks like their are some ismailis pushing for this trinity, but say that even though their is a trinity they all are the same. Allah, Imam Ali, Hazar Imam. If this is really the belief of ismailism i am sorry i cannot accept it. What makes us different then christians then.
imranramji2008 wrote:You samir noorali said "I thank ShamsB for quoting this verse. Its translation: The Pir is saying that he worries whether his followers will recognize the Lord in the human form. In other words will his followers acknowledge Allah as manifest in the human form."
my dear friend you are forgetting one thing. You are forgetting who the Pirs are preaching to and the history behind these ginans. You are making the same mistakes that many muslims make when the do the translation of the quran. They forget to look at the history behind the verse revealed. I am not gonna deny the meaning of the ginan but what i will ask is that the history is looked at. Who and in what condition was the ginan told in. It is common knowledge that the Pirs at that time were converting the hindues of the time and had to use their own terminology to make them understand Islam. The prophet did the same
again samirnoorali says
"Since you mentioned that you don’t believe Ali is Allah then the ball stops there. That is your belief. But may I remind you that it was the Pirs who converted many Ismailis on the principle of Ali Allah. That was the reason for conversion. If you don’t recognize that then you are no different from a Sunni Muslim. Why bother talking about the noor like it is something apart from the flesh of Ali. If Ali is Allah, then when he lifts his hand, then you must know it is Allah’s hand. When Ali gives blessings, then you must know that is Allah’s blessings. The noor is not an external component separate from the personage of Imam. That would be like saying the soul of Imran is different from Imran himself. That doesn’t make any sense, since you are the soul in question."
when did i deny the concept of Ali allah? I never denied it. Your mistaken in what i am saying. I truly believe that when the Imam's speak it is allah who is speaking, but the same is said about prophet mohummad. When the prophet speaks it is really allah speaking. But this doesnt means that Ali is allah. It means that allah has given his permission to ali. It is because of the grace of allah that ali is given the permission.
you samirnoorali said again
"If you want Hazer Imam to explain everything to you then I suggest you write a letter and go through the proper channels. It doesn’t make sense for him to explain something that the Pirs spent generations to instil in their doctrine. It is like saying I would like the Imam to say that man has indeed landed on the moon. Why don’t you do your own research? There are many historical documents which attest to this principle."
I was asking you to give me a farman of the present Imam for a reason. The reason being no wear does the Imam says "I am Allah". He doesnt comes right out and says it. You may be right if the pirs have instilled in us Ali allah then the imam doesnt needs to expend upon it, but the thing is he does explains it. It isnt directly but indirectly. You need to be listening to Mowla's words correctly to understand what mowla is saying.
For example many times has mowla used the word Inshallah. This word means "if allah wills". Why would Mowla use the word Inshallah for himself if the meaning of "ali allah" is that Ali is allah? That is all i am going to say. This concept of taking Imam Ali and the Present Imam and making them allah is the sole reason why ismailis are called kaffirs. MHI has disclaimed divinity
Missionary Abu ali himself says
"The Imam is the Supreme Authority appointed directly by Allah. He is the asa's (foundation, cause, root) and Pi'r is the na'tiq (conversant, conversationalist, messenger). Ima'm is Hujjatullah and Khali'fatullah, the Vicegerent of God; while Pi'r is Hujjatul Ima'm and Khali'ftur Rasoolullah."
A Brief History of Ismailism (1985), pages 107-108
Note that the missionary himself says allah appoints the Imam. Their is a clear distinction between allah and the Imam
The next Imam is appointed by the Previous Imam also isn't he? ..i.e. Allah in the form of the previous Imam appoints the next Imam....
so no issue..no controversy.
Dear imran, you are definitely right in your view. our in our religion everyone has their own right of view and we should all respect that of our brothers. But also i would like to add, My view on imam is that he is ALLAH. I believe he is indeed allah and i am in total agreement with Shams. But In my humble opinion i would like you to learn Gujarati and find the meanings of our ginans. It is an immensely valuable treasure. and, Just be open about others views. Like MHI has always we should all try to gain knowledge everyday. and we should learn from each other. in the past few days i have learned so much from your posts and the posts of others especially (Shams B) . One more ginan I would like to quote
This verse i taken from the ginan "Allah ek kasam sabuka"
Mawlana Islamshaah who is the progeny of Aly is the King. Allah is indeed the Imaam.
This is taught by Peer Sadardeen and is stated (confirmed) by Peer Hassan Kabeerdeen
who says: "My momins will have an abode in paradise" (if they follow the Imaams).
I am in no way trying to force my views. This ginan has helped me a lot in my understanding, so just wanted to share that. Thanks
sheza wrote:so the reason for not accepting it is that its a Christian concept?
You know what makes Islam so different from Christianity? The fact that Islam doesnt believes that Allah the all mighty can take a human form. If we believe allah has taken a human form what makes us different then christians and hindues. What differentiates us? WITH THAT BEING SAID I AM GOING TO YET AGAIN REPEAT I ACCEPT THE TERM "ALI IS ALLAH". What i refuse to accept is the literal interpretation of these words and the literal meaning of many of the ginans. All of these are esoteric. I am not denying the noor of allah, which was in all of the prophets and currently in the present mowla
sheza wrote:so the reason for not accepting it is that its a Christian concept?
You know what makes Islam so different from Christianity? The fact that Islam doesnt believes that Allah the all mighty can take a human form. If we believe allah has taken a human form what makes us different then christians and hindues. What differentiates us? WITH THAT BEING SAID I AM GOING TO YET AGAIN REPEAT I ACCEPT THE TERM "ALI IS ALLAH". What i refuse to accept is the literal interpretation of these words and the literal meaning of many of the ginans. All of these are esoteric. I am not denying the noor of allah, which was in all of the prophets and currently in the present mowla
We're not asking you to believe it. We're accepting you as you are..and ask that you accept us as we are.
sheza wrote:so the reason for not accepting it is that its a Christian concept?
You know what makes Islam so different from Christianity? The fact that Islam doesnt believes that Allah the all mighty can take a human form. If we believe allah has taken a human form what makes us different then christians and hindues. What differentiates us? WITH THAT BEING SAID I AM GOING TO YET AGAIN REPEAT I ACCEPT THE TERM "ALI IS ALLAH". What i refuse to accept is the literal interpretation of these words and the literal meaning of many of the ginans. All of these are esoteric. I am not denying the noor of allah, which was in all of the prophets and currently in the present mowla
We're not asking you to believe it. We're accepting you as you are..and ask that you accept us as we are.
Shams
Please note shams i have never said that i dont accept you as you are. You have your opinions as i have my opinions. It is a good thing to have opinions, but at the same time intellectual debate is recommended. Also i would advise that the statement "allah is ali" not be shared with the outside community. They dont understand this concept, and will never understand it, and it will cause mass confusion within the ummah.
imranramji2008 wrote:
You know what makes Islam so different from Christianity? The fact that Islam doesnt believes that Allah the all mighty can take a human form. If we believe allah has taken a human form what makes us different then christians and hindues. What differentiates us? WITH THAT BEING SAID I AM GOING TO YET AGAIN REPEAT I ACCEPT THE TERM "ALI IS ALLAH". What i refuse to accept is the literal interpretation of these words and the literal meaning of many of the ginans. All of these are esoteric. I am not denying the noor of allah, which was in all of the prophets and currently in the present mowla
We're not asking you to believe it. We're accepting you as you are..and ask that you accept us as we are.
Shams
Please note shams i have never said that i dont accept you as you are. You have your opinions as i have my opinions. It is a good thing to have opinions, but at the same time intellectual debate is recommended. Also i would advise that the statement "allah is ali" not be shared with the outside community. They dont understand this concept, and will never understand it, and it will cause mass confusion within the ummah.
kinda late for that isn't it?
There actually is a thread already open - i'd suggest you scroll through it..it's very extensive and might answer some of your questions - and i'd phrase it as Ali is Allah.
There is a hadith of the prophet which said "to look at the face of ali is to look at the face of Allah."
Imran reiterates a very good point. There are certain concepts that are esoteric - that require deep reflection to even begin to understand. You cannot and should not impose them on anybody.
And because it is an esoteric concept, you should not expect your way of rationalizing it and explaining it to be the same as somebody else's. That why it's esoteric - it's beyond the physical (brain/rationality, wordly).
And at the end of the day: "Allah guides to His Light whom He wills" (24:35
)
Shamsb: " There is a hadith of the prophet which said "to look at the face of ali is to look at the face of Allah."
And to add to that - Imam SMS in his memoirs also said" in all existence in matter, in animals, trees, and space itself. Every individual, every molecule, every atom has its own spiritual relationship with the All-Powerful Soul of God"
Don’t you think I know that the Pirs were in the process of converting Hindus? As a matter of fact the Pirs were the heads of the dawat mission to all countries in which conversion was taking place, not only in India. No missionary in history could have ever preached unless he or she had the Pir’s prior approval.
Why don’t you find a Hindu anywhere in this world and ask them to follow Ali Allah? Find one who will agree with you. None will, because first of all neither the history of Ali nor the concept of Allah is part of a Hindu doctrine. So, when you say the Pirs were converting Hindus and had to “use their own terminology to understand Islam” then what are you referring to? Ali Allah is not part of any Hindu’s terminology. I think you are grossly mistaken to assume that the Pirs simply said things to win over converts. Are you suggesting that the Pirs preached about Ali Allah simply to win converts, and that their concepts were just a deception? Why would anybody in their right mind talk about Ali Allah to a Hindu?
You speak about converting to Islam, then show me one Sunni or Twelver Shia who agrees with Ali Allah. Show me any sect outside of Ismailism for that matter that believes that the Imam is God. No sect believes in this Imam as God except Ismailism. Quite frankly, no doctrine in existence is quite as clear about this matter as the Dua of Pir Sadardin.
Therefore, what the Pirs preached is unique, and neither Sunnis, Twelver Shias, or Hindus, share the concept of Ali Allah.
I honestly think you are contradicting yourself. I wouldn’t pursue this matter further, but I think my reasons for replying back to you is because many individuals speak the same lingo as you do. This has to be corrected. What is funny about your logic is that you are replying back and saying that you do not deny that Ali is Allah, at the same time you turn around and say that Allah gives permission to Ali. What is your stance sir? Either you equate Ali as Allah or you don’t. There is nothing in between.
One way you agree with Ali Allah, then again you don’t. You are a confused “in-between.” The reason for your confusion is because you can’t deny Ali is Allah because it is a part of your history, but then again you don’t agree with it because you don’t see the logic in it. Like you there are many in this generation who have a problem understanding this concept.
Let me be very clear, that belief in Ali Allah is a matter of personal choice. It is not the intention of anybody on this board nor myself to pass judgement on your faith. But for you to have a statement like this:
“when did i deny the concept of Ali allah? I never denied it. Your mistaken in what i am saying. I truly believe that when the Imam's speak it is allah who is speaking, but the same is said about prophet mohummad. When the prophet speaks it is really allah speaking. But this doesnt means that Ali is allah. It means that allah has given his permission to ali. It is because of the grace of allah that ali is given the permission.”
It is clear that you believe in the concept and yet you don’t. My point is that you cannot have conditions in an equation. If A equals B then you cannot turn around and say that B is different from A. Equal means there is no difference between the two. If one was to say Aliyullah or Ali un Wali Allah, then there is no equation persay. There is room for interpretation.
How important is Ali Allah to the faith of Ismailim? It is the essence of the faith. I will give you some examples. Firstly, in 1905 many Ismailis went to Imam Sultan Mohammad Shah and requested that he alter the word Ali Allah. The Imam replied with some very important points. He said that they are “ignorant” and not that Ali Allah is wrong. Secondly, he said the whole dua aught to be dropped if that word is altered.
What we can conclude from this incident is that Ali Allah is a correct concept, as far as the Imam is concerned. Whatever he deems correct is considered correct by all his followers. The dua is a document which outlines the principles of the faith and is recited daily to reaffirm the belief system of the follower. Included may be offerings of prayer, but the document as a whole is a compilation of all that is sacred to the faith. If the whole dua can be dropped because of Ali Allah then that means this concept is the principle upon which the faith rests.
So tell me, sir, what Hindus was Imam Sultan Mohammad Shah trying to convert by reaffirming the concept of Ali Allah? What Hindus was Imam Aga Ali Shah trying to convert when he said that Ali is Allah? What Hindus were trying to convert when the dua would be recited 3 times daily up until 1956 with the declaration of Ali sahi Allah or Ali is truely Allah?
The ginans, the farmans, and the dua all confirmed that Ali is Allah, so this is not a matter of conversion, it is an article of faith. Up until 1957, during the time of the present living Imam, the dua had a line at the end which said: Li zikri sujood. That means, to whom prostration is due. In conjunction with the Imam’s name, it would read for example: Mowlana Shah Karim Al-husseini li zikri sujood. That meant Mowlana Shah Karim Al-Husseini to whom prostration is due.
Now we recite Mowlana Shah Karim Al-Husseini... Oh Allah to you is my prostration and obedience. There is where the editing went wrong. Since Li zikri sujood was taken out the sentence became incomplete.
For example, in the first part of dua it said:
“Oh Allah, let your peace be upon Mohammad the chosen, and on Aly the favourite, and on the Imams the pure, and on the evidence of your authority, the master of the time and age, Mowlana Shah Karim Al-Hussieni to whom prostration is due.”
It was altered to read:
“Oh Allah, let your peace be upon Mohammad the chosen, and on Aly the favourite, and on the Imams the pure, and on the evidence of your authority, the master of the time and age, Mowlana Shah Karim Al-Hussieni. Oh Allah to you alone is my prostration and obedience.
This did not happen during the time of Imam Sultan Mohammad Shah, but rather in the present Imam’s time. The question is who altered it and why? Some may say that the Imam altered it. So what is being said is that Imam Sultan Mohammad Shah was in agreement with it, and one year later the next Imam was in disagreement with it? Who are we trying to fool?
SAMIRNOORALI you said "Don’t you think I know that the Pirs were in the process of converting Hindus? As a matter of fact the Pirs were the heads of the dawat mission to all countries in which conversion was taking place, not only in India. No missionary in history could have ever preached unless he or she had the Pir’s prior approval.
Why don’t you find a Hindu anywhere in this world and ask them to follow Ali Allah? Find one who will agree with you. None will, because first of all neither the history of Ali nor the concept of Allah is part of a Hindu doctrine. So, when you say the Pirs were converting Hindus and had to “use their own terminology to understand Islam” then what are you referring to? Ali Allah is not part of any Hindu’s terminology. I think you are grossly mistaken to assume that the Pirs simply said things to win over converts. Are you suggesting that the Pirs preached about Ali Allah simply to win converts, and that their concepts were just a deception? Why would anybody in their right mind talk about Ali Allah to a Hindu? "
Abu Aly waizeen, a very famous waizeen hear in Georgia explains the above clearly about ali allah and how it was used to convert hindues into mulsims. Yes Ali, allah isnt a concept of hinduism. The concept that is hinduism is that God can take human form. When our beloved Pirs were trying to convert hindues into islam they new that they were going to meet opposition. Hindues in many of their scriptures believe that God can come into human form. So they had to make a philosophy that matches the hindu philosophy. So how did the Hindus get converted. As we all know ismailis believe that the Noor Of Allah is within the Imam of the time, and so the pirs took that philosophy and said "Ali Shai allah" Ali is truly allah. But one must remember that our faith is an esoteric faith and not an exoteric faith. So the word Ali is allah must be looked upon esoterically and not exoterically. Note this is not my explanation of Ali is truly allah but a waizen has said it.
" I honestly think you are contradicting yourself. I wouldn’t pursue this matter further, but I think my reasons for replying back to you is because many individuals speak the same lingo as you do. This has to be corrected. What is funny about your logic is that you are replying back and saying that you do not deny that Ali is Allah, at the same time you turn around and say that Allah gives permission to Ali. What is your stance sir? Either you equate Ali as Allah or you don’t. There is nothing in between."
Hasnt my stance been said not once but many time. I will repeat it again. Ali is allah is an esoteric concept. Do you think if Allah didnt want Mowla ali or the present Mowla to have his Noor, that they would? It is an obvious fact that no ordinary person can claim to have the Noor Of Allah. It is only because of allah's grace that Imam Ali and the present Imam has the noor. If you think that Imam Ali and the present Imam dont need allah's permission to have his noor then i don't know what to say.
"The ginans, the farmans, and the dua all confirmed that Ali is Allah, so this is not a matter of conversion, it is an article of faith. Up until 1957, during the time of the present living Imam, the dua had a line at the end which said: Li zikri sujood. That means, to whom prostration is due. In conjunction with the Imam’s name, it would read for example: Mowlana Shah Karim Al-husseini li zikri sujood. That meant Mowlana Shah Karim Al-Husseini to whom prostration is due.
Now we recite Mowlana Shah Karim Al-Husseini... Oh Allah to you is my prostration and obedience. There is where the editing went wrong. Since Li zikri sujood was taken out the sentence became incomplete.
For example, in the first part of dua it said:
“Oh Allah, let your peace be upon Mohammad the chosen, and on Aly the favourite, and on the Imams the pure, and on the evidence of your authority, the master of the time and age, Mowlana Shah Karim Al-Hussieni to whom prostration is due.”
It was altered to read:
“Oh Allah, let your peace be upon Mohammad the chosen, and on Aly the favourite, and on the Imams the pure, and on the evidence of your authority, the master of the time and age, Mowlana Shah Karim Al-Hussieni. Oh Allah to you alone is my prostration and obedience."
My point exactly. Why was the dua altered all of a sudden if Ali is Allah? the answer is simple. The Only explanation is that Ali is Allah is an esoteric stance. It looks like you think this alternation of our DUA is a conspiracy theory. Do you not think mowla knows what we recite? I think you will agree that mowla knows 100% of what we recite in our dua's? If "Oh allah let they peace be upon mohummad the choosen, and on aly the favorite, and on the Imams the pure, and on the evidence of your authority, the master of the time and age, Mowlana shah Karim Al Hussieni. Oh allah to you alone is my prostration and obedience?" If this statement is so wrong then why hasnt mowla corrected it? May be because Mowla wants us to recite this and not the former?
"This did not happen during the time of Imam Sultan Mohammad Shah, but rather in the present Imam’s time. The question is who altered it and why? Some may say that the Imam altered it. So what is being said is that Imam Sultan Mohammad Shah was in agreement with it, and one year later the next Imam was in disagreement with it? Who are we trying to fool?"
Lol conspiracy theories all over again! So your trying to tell me the Imam has no idea that the dua has been changed. Maybe the answer can be found if we look at Ali is allah Esoterically and not exoterically
"How important is Ali Allah to the faith of Ismailim? It is the essence of the faith. I will give you some examples. Firstly, in 1905 many Ismailis went to Imam Sultan Mohammad Shah and requested that he alter the word Ali Allah. The Imam replied with some very important points. He said that they are “ignorant” and not that Ali Allah is wrong. Secondly, he said the whole dua aught to be dropped if that word is altered."
your are taking this way to exoterically my friend. I am going to yet again quote a waazien who explains the above statment very clearly. Remember Sultan Mohummad Shah himself has said considering me to be allah in the sharati level is shirk because that is an exoteric faith but considereing me allah in Tarikat is not shirk because that is an esoteric faith.
So yes those people were ignorant to think that Ali allah is ignorant because of the fact that they were thinking of it in shariti and not tarikat level
imranramji2008 wrote:"How important is Ali Allah to the faith of Ismailim? It is the essence of the faith. I will give you some examples. Firstly, in 1905 many Ismailis went to Imam Sultan Mohammad Shah and requested that he alter the word Ali Allah. The Imam replied with some very important points. He said that they are “ignorant” and not that Ali Allah is wrong. Secondly, he said the whole dua aught to be dropped if that word is altered."
your are taking this way to exoterically my friend. I am going to yet again quote a waazien who explains the above statment very clearly. Remember Sultan Mohummad Shah himself has said considering me to be allah in the sharati level is shirk because that is an exoteric faith but considereing me allah in Tarikat is not shirk because that is an esoteric faith.
So yes those people were ignorant to think that Ali allah is ignorant because of the fact that they were thinking of it in shariti and not tarikat level
How many waez's have you heard of Missionary Abu Ali?..there are many more waezs of his that you need to listen to. You should listen to the 2004 series of Atlanta or even those made in Dar Es Salaam where he's clearly stated that the Imam is Ali and Ali is Allah.
Look ...it's all about perception - the Imam himself has said on more than one occasion (kinshasha 72 comes to mind - or bujumbura 1968 as well) where..I am who you take me to be.
What you are missing i think is that when we say the Imam..we don't see the body of Karim...we only see Ali....now whether this be Imam Aga Ali Shah or Sultan Mohammed or Karim or whoever after Karim - to me..this is Ali....there is no body..just light...and I am sorry that is difficult for you to grasp and comprehend.
once again..we aren't asking you to believe what we believe or asking you to tell us what's right or wrong...every individual's relationship to the Noor and by that to the Imam is individualistic...unlike other faiths..it is a one to one relationship...based upon where you stand on the spiritual plane....and based upon that..you have every right to have your views..and as we have ours.
The Aga Khan states the defendants are profiting from the sales of the book in four parts with each part being sold for $50 CAD with the MP3 recording being given as a gift to a purchaser.
Bay Street law firm Ogilvy Renault filed the lawsuit on April 6. No response has been filed.
Ogilvy Renault is seeking an accounting of all profits made from the sales as well as punitive and exemplary damages.
This, I would love to see. What if the numbers are negative?
Also,
Punitive or exemplary damages are generally only available in Canada where there is proof of malicious conduct on the part of the defendant. Canadian courts are generally careful in exercising their discretion to award these damages, which are an exception to the time-honored principle that civil damages seek to compensate the victim. As the term implies, “punitive” damages are meant to punish the offending parties rather than to compensate the plaintiff.
I would love to hear from the people who believe that the publication of this book was done out of Malice.
Over past 52 years MHI has given guidance based on extensive information about the socio/economic circumstances of his murids. In absence of any official records, the KIZ can be an invaluable resource for those studying our history, if it can be restricted for Ismailis only.
We might not be able to cite anything from it because it is not official, but the Farmans would nevertheless provide invaluable insights for further research.
kmaherali wrote:Over past 52 years MHI has given guidance based on extensive information about the socio/economic circumstances of his murids. In absence of any official records, the KIZ can be an invaluable resource for those studying our history, if it can be restricted for Ismailis only.
We might not be able to cite anything from it because it is not official, but the Farmans would nevertheless provide invaluable insights for further research.
*if it can be restricted for Ismailis only*, unless there's a universal piece of identification exclusive to ismailis only, i dont think that's possible. Eitherway, the leak of precious material has already happened.
*In absence of any official records, the KIZ can be an invaluable resource for those studying our history*
In what scenario would there be an absence of any official records?
And secondly, there are plenty of study materials available through other means (libraries, IIS, to name a few examples) to access resources to study history.
Anyways, bottom line is - MHI does not approve of them.
The Aga Khan states the defendants are profiting from the sales of the book in four parts with each part being sold for $50 CAD with the MP3 recording being given as a gift to a purchaser.
Bay Street law firm Ogilvy Renault filed the lawsuit on April 6. No response has been filed.
Ogilvy Renault is seeking an accounting of all profits made from the sales as well as punitive and exemplary damages.
This, I would love to see. What if the numbers are negative?
Also,
Punitive or exemplary damages are generally only available in Canada where there is proof of malicious conduct on the part of the defendant. Canadian courts are generally careful in exercising their discretion to award these damages, which are an exception to the time-honored principle that civil damages seek to compensate the victim. As the term implies, “punitive” damages are meant to punish the offending parties rather than to compensate the plaintiff.
I would love to hear from the people who believe that the publication of this book was done out of Malice.
Whether it was done through, Ignorance, "love", or malice, profit/non-profit, - either way, the plaintiff informed these individuals of his disapproval before the lawsuit - twice. end of story.
shamsu wrote:Would anyone argue that the intention of those who compiled (an extremely difficult task it self)and published this book was anything less than noble.
There was no desire or expectation of glory from the Jamat. They went to extraordinary lengths to stay anonymous.
The result of their act was disapproval from our Imam.
Is it not Rasulillah's (SAAS) hadith that mentions
The intention of a deed is what determines it as good or bad not the outcome.
You bring up a good point. But we can't judge someone's intention. People can spend a great deal of their time doing something with good or bad intentions. Things are never as they seem - and we shouldn't judge.
The intention and action are both important. if you have good intentions and acted in a way that you thought was good. that can be okay. but if someone you consider superior to you told you, on several occassions, to stop acting that way...well...
Either way. none of us know the full story to judge anybody.
THe hidayas that you post on the web are banned 100% but their are some firmans that are read that are artibuted to mowlana sultan mohummad shah that are not banned. I know this for a fact. My uncle is a waaizen. about the Nabi Isa and his hadith. I dont know how authentic that hadith is but i will say this much their is another hadith by prophet mohummad that says "those who see sin should squash it with their hands, if they cant do that they should squash it with their mouth and if yet they cant do that they should squash it in their soul". Simply put if i see some one sinning then i should put a stop to it with my hands, if i cant do that then i should stop it with my words and if i cant even do that i should not listent to the person sinning. I am trying to stop the person from sinning. ALSO PLEASE NOTE I AM NOT A TOTAL FIRMAN BIDARI MURID I HAVE MADE MISTAKES AND I HAVE SINNED, BUT IF I GET A LETTER FROM MHI I WILL NOT HAVE THE AUDICITY TO CHALLANGE MHI
TO THE ADMINISTRATOR i advice you to let this topic continue.
No Farmans have got banned. It seems you have got some misunderstanding here. Hazir Imam has never banned farmans of Imam Sultan Mohammed Shah. The farmans of Imam Sultan Mohammad Shah are being recited in Jk, in different majalis. Often in morning times there is recitation of Farmans of Imam Sultan Mohammad Shah in many Jks.
Its truth that most of the time, Faramin of Hazir Imam are recited but it it wrong to say that Farman of previous Imams are not recited or are banned. Many Ismailis do have KIM in their homes and KIM is available in different JK libraries.
samirnoorali wrote:
. Moreover, it was the consensus of the leadership. Having the pictures of Hazer Imam at the front of the Jamat Khane implies that when we are in prostration then it is to him. This didn’t sit well with certain individuals, and one day they were suddenly removed with the rumour that the Imam has ordered it to be that way. What order? What statement? There is no statement.
By putting the pictures only on the sides the message is that we are not bowing to the Imam, but rather the Imam and the Jamat is bowing to Allah. Notice that in every Jamat Khane, the face of the Imam is pointed in one direction. The picture in Jamat Khane has Hazer Imam facing to the left. That picture is placed on the men’s side. Now, an exact copy of that picture is put on the women’s side. Did anybody notice that the face in that picture on the women’s side is facing right? How can a copy of a picture face opposite directions? What that means is that ‘somebody’ wanted a copy of that picture, but that the face, regardless of being on the men’s side or women’s side should both be facing in the direction that the jamat is offering prostration. Why would the Imam agree to that when the bedrock of the faith is that we prostrate to him?
Now many individuals would read that and say, isn’t the Imam aware of that? My response is that can the Imam do anything about it? Do something and then what? If many of his own followers don’t consider him divine, then what is he supposed to do, cause a civil war? It is better for the Jamat and its leadership to resolve their issues on their own.
.
Regrding Photos pointing at particular direction...its not the case with all JKs. However its sad that the pictures were removed by the consensus of the people. In karachi and at many other Jks in Pakistan there large size photos of Hazir Imam but in Many jks in India there are only small sized photos of Hazir Imam in Jks. However at Hasanabad at tomb of Imam Hassan Ali Shah, there is large size photo of Hazir Imam. Marathi Hindus, who live nearby have faith there and they go there for prayers.
This makes me laugh. If in a few years Hazar Imam tells us to recite namaz Five Times a day and that non ismaili and other muslims can come into khana. Their will be a handfull of ismailis that will say oh Mowla did not say this but the council is acting on its own record.
Dont you think if it happens, then certainly there will be some reason for this behaviour. You may read "Ismaili Tariqah" vol 2 by Alwaez Abuali and I am sure you will get the answer of it.
shamsu wrote:Would anyone argue that the intention of those who compiled (an extremely difficult task it self)and published this book was anything less than noble.
There was no desire or expectation of glory from the Jamat. They went to extraordinary lengths to stay anonymous.
The result of their act was disapproval from our Imam.
Is it not Rasulillah's (SAAS) hadith that mentions
The intention of a deed is what determines it as good or bad not the outcome.
You are making it sound like Hazar Imam is wrong for disapproving. Is this what you actually think?
"You are making it sound like Hazar Imam is wrong for disapproving. Is this what you actually think?"
I am very sorry to have given such an impression.
The result was disapproval of Imam, That does not change. The lawsuit makes it abundantly clear to everyone that Imam's Farmans and Talikas are for us but do not belong to us to do whatever we please with them. No matter what the intention.
In hind sight, the 3 KIZ voulumes in the past were not disapproved by the Imam to the best of my knowledge but they were not marketed
I think the publishers really screwed up by marketing this one. They made it impossible to ignore.
There was certain humility involveds with the first three but in this situation,
I suspect a matter of Ego was involved.
Making it all pretty, shimmering gold touches etc resulted in a higher cost and expensive sale price which called attention to this mission.
Fidais dont show off. This work is supposed to be done behind the scene.
This lawsuit is like a kick in the balls, that will make anyone bow down.
Humility is the lesson my friends have to learn from this amongst other things.
Thank you my brother for helping me in bringing out these thoughts