Explaination needed of Koran Ayat.

[Valani]

Fayyaz006:

1) Is this not true that Imam is considered the true interpreter of Quran (faith in your case)? But you are talking about diversity of interpretation, does that mean that every Ismaili has the ‘right’ to interpret the faith according to his/her own intellect? Does the interpretation not rest with Imam?

2) Are you saying that Ginan were for that generation and not for current one or in other words they are not entirely understandable for current generation, in that case what is the alternative if someone wants to understand the faith?

3) There are two things Islam (Muslim) and Imaan (Momin). As I understand, Imaan relates to the belief of what you believe in by heart and Islam relates to your physical life and its conduct. The later, I believe, covers the other things you have mentioned and not the former.

Agakhani:
I got what you are saying and am not questioning that. My point was that a Tafseer of Quran is supposed to be clearly understandable for common people to know what Quran is saying – that is why we see Tafseer of Quran done by religious scholars in all times and it continues. The question wrt Ginan, now, is: do you have any other Tafseer after these Ginan (which date 700+ years back) that are clearly understandable for the common people of current age?
The point is: in my opinion, there is little point in explaining a parable in another parable which may have potential of taking the reader further away from the real meaning.

tret:
1) I believe that is Usul ad Deen and not Usul al Imaan. As I understand, Imaan is what you believe in and Deen is what you practice. Imaan requires conviction in something whether you can or cannot understand or prove it. The best example is: we believe in Allah but we cannot understand what and how he is (one can prove Allah on a philosophical premise but not on a physical one). So I was talking about “Imaan” and not “Usul” and what I had mentioned earlier was taken from Quran (I may have missed something though).

2) I had mentioned about myself in my first post in this thread and I do it again. I was born in an Ismaili family and have studied Ismailism in length. Currently I pray 5-time Salaat and keep Som in Ramadhan. As for my identity, I like to be identified as Muslim as the Holy Prophet (SAAS) and Hazrat Ali (RA), if they were Sunni I am too, if they were Ismaili or Isnashri I am too.

3) I am not questioning why presence of Imam is important – I have read enough on this and I believe I am aware of the philosophical premise on which this faith has been established. My question was merely related to the defining/interpreting faith as to what is the role of Imam wrt defining/interpreting faith when everyone has a different definition of some basic issues related to faith. Does it not look an ideal situation that Imam, who is considered as a True Guide, gives his divinely inspired statement on basic faith related issues so that there are no differences of opinions on them.

To me this becomes utmost important because your conduct in life very much depends on your belief in some of the basic questions as to what will happen after this life.

Above are my responses on your valued comments and now I begin with next set of questions:

1) Often in religious literature we read the words like was and will be that means about past and future as we also experience in your physical world. The sufic notion is that in spiritual sphere there is no time and no space and that is called “Alam-e-Amr” or Alam-e-Misaal” or Alam-e-Arwah”. Now the question is when there is no time and space how do we understand life in that world? Rather than saying no time and no space can we say past present and future all present at the same time? If we can say that does that mean it is possible to travel in the past and in future (be it without this physical body - remember Back to the Future film series). If that is correct, can we conclude that what happened what is happening and what is going to happen has all happened and there is only past that exist and there is no present and no future? If we conclude that, can we say that what has been written in the script originally is going to happen no matter what we do? I stop here though the list goes on….

2) What do you understand with the term “Shirk”? As it is repeatedly mentioned in the Quran and as per Quran Allah will forgive any sin (if he likes) but will not forgive Shirk. If everything that exists does have a glimpse of his Noor (as written by Imam SMSM) where does the question of shirk arise then because he is present in everything or in other words nothing exists except him. Please give your thoughts on this.

[kmaherali]

Beloved kmaherali,

What you say is certainly clear, but I disagree! And here's why.

By becoming one with God a person is equivalent in spiritual status to the Imam and is qualified to be the Imam. However he cannot function as the Imam because there can only be one Imam according to doctrine.

Please, I would like you to inform yourself to get a better understanding of Imam and Imamate knowledge. What you say is absurd, because now you are saying that anyone can become Imam, which is a complete contradiction to the Shi doctrine of Imamat..

Tret,

Did I really say anyone can become an Imam according to my statement?I said anyone can aquire the spiritual status of the Imam i.e becoming the Ocean. Yes the Imam has to be appointed through to be recognised as such. Not anyone else can have that!

[kmaherali]

One can become one of the Light of the Imam only after death, that is in BK Farmans.

However, my opinion is that you can spiritually have a glimpse of the Light during Bandagi.

You may even at the spiritual level become one with the 1st Intellect [God the Attributes - An al-Haqq] , the Hujjat but to become one with God the Essence, it can not happen during the physical life.

Again, this is my belief. No compulsion in Faith.

I just want to quote some Farmans for reflection.

"Tame amara jeava thao"
Meaning - You become like us.

"Mowla Aly noe mojijo ae hato ke potani jagyae pochade"
Meaning - The miracle of Hazarat Aly was that he took us to his station.

"Amara deen ma rahi ne aa duniya ma assal ma vaasal thavu aasan cche"
Meaning - Remaining in our faith, it easy for one to return to his/her origin in this life.

[agakhani]

I said anyone can aquire the spiritual status of the Imam i.e becoming the Ocean.

That is right Karim, let me give you one example which is support your above comments!

Once SMS asked 'BHAGAT JUMA"

"Juma Bhagat tell me how's your progress in Bandagi"?

"Shukar tojo Mowla" replied bhagat.

"No Bhagat tell me the truth"?

Bhagat reply,

During bandagi I see my self merged in your self and I believe I am Sultan Mohammad Shah!!!
I read this in book and also heard in waez.

[agakhani]

So basically we can see the Noor of imams during our lives, if we practice Bandagi every day and with right method.

[fayaz006]

[quote="Valani"]Fayyaz006:

1) Is this not true that Imam is considered the true interpreter of Quran (faith in your case)? But you are talking about diversity of interpretation, does that mean that every Ismaili has the ‘right’ to interpret the faith according to his/her own intellect? Does the interpretation not rest with Imam?

2) Are you saying that Ginan were for that generation and not for current one or in other words they are not entirely understandable for current generation, in that case what is the alternative if someone wants to understand the faith?

3) There are two things Islam (Muslim) and Imaan (Momin). As I understand, Imaan relates to the belief of what you believe in by heart and Islam relates to your physical life and its conduct. The later, I believe, covers the other things you have mentioned and not the former.

Valani in Ismailism, it is my belief that the Imam has the Quran, and therefore spiritually is the Quran. The book it self as compiled in the 7th century is static and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. I doubt that book written in Arabic form would have been any help to the Hindus of India since they did not know Arabic.

Now the question that Ismailis ask is whether the book that was compiled by Uthman can be considered a "Manifest Record" of all creation, and a "Supreme Tablet" which records all of your deeds. After all God describes the Quran as Manfest Record and the Supreme tablet. The answer to that question for Ismailis is it cannot since creation is not static and is still ongoing. The Quran in its Purest Form will always rest with God, and the Imam of the time, be it Ibrahim A.S, Moses or His Highness the Aga Khan.

Now about the right to interpret the faith or not. Ismailism is unique because it offers its followers to have different avenues of understanding and comprehending the faith. For some of our brothers its Ginans, for some its Qasidas for people like me it Science. Ultimately all authority as per the written Quran and our belief rests with the Imam of the Time, however individuals have the right to perceive their faith individually. That should answer your questions about Ginans, for me personally they don't quite hold the same value as they do for my mother. Again different avenues of approach.

To your third argument, I would suggest the according to the Quran, there is no such thing as a Muslim and a Momin. Islam in its purest form wants true "Muslims", people who submit to God. Imaan and physical conduct are not separate is Islam. They are "cross linked" a Chemistry term for you. Practicing your ethics is considered prayer in Islam.

Hope this helps

[fayaz006]

[quote="Valani"]Fayyaz006:


tret:
1) I believe that is Usul ad Deen and not Usul al Imaan. As I understand, Imaan is what you believe in and Deen is what you practice. Imaan requires conviction in something whether you can or cannot understand or prove it. The best example is: we believe in Allah but we cannot understand what and how he is (one can prove Allah on a philosophical premise but not on a physical one). So I was talking about “Imaan” and not “Usul” and what I had mentioned earlier was taken from Quran (I may have missed something though).

Valani that's a very poor definition of Imaan. Your faith cannot be strong in something unless you've proven to your self that it exists. Faith that is built on something that you don't understand is not strong and is liable to be shattered. If you don't have physical proof of a Creator how do you know it exists. In Islam believing in God without trying to find Him or understand him is not belief, its merely following conjecture without really understanding where you're being led to

[tret]

Tret,

Did I really say anyone can become an Imam according to my statement?I said anyone can aquire the spiritual status of the Imam i.e becoming the Ocean. Yes the Imam has to be appointed through to be recognised as such. Not anyone else can have that!

You did not say it. But it was implied. Note, if or someone is qualified a job, then he can potentially get that job.
Remember, if an Imam is not Appointed by an Imam and is not through Nass [Heredity] then he is not not qualified to be Imam.

Here's what you said, and I highlight and underline the implication of that:

By becoming one with God a person is equivalent in spiritual status to the Imam and is qualified to be the Imam. However he cannot function as the Imam because there can only be one Imam according to doctrine.

[tret]

Dear Valani -

Here some comments, observations and replies to your inquiries:

Tafseer of Quran is supposed to be clearly understandable for common people to know what Quran is saying – that is why we see Tafseer of Quran done by religious scholars in all times and it continues.

According to Ismaili doctrine, the Imam of the time can only do the tah'wil of the Qur'an. Apart from the Imam, anyone [scholars or common man] can do tah'wil, in accordance to his/her capacity or knowledge. But the correct tah'wil is from the Imam. That's why you hear the expression of "Speaking Qur'an", "The Qur'an", "The Truth" referenced to the Imam.

tret:
1) I believe that is Usul ad Deen and not Usul al Imaan. As I understand, Imaan is what you believe in and Deen is what you practice. Imaan requires conviction in something whether you can or cannot understand or prove it. The best example is: we believe in Allah but we cannot understand what and how he is (one can prove Allah on a philosophical premise but not on a physical one). So I was talking about “Imaan” and not “Usul” and what I had mentioned earlier was taken from Quran (I may have missed something though).

You seem to separate Deen and Imaan. I am not sure how can you do that? You Imaan must be based on your belief in principals of Deen. i.e. Usul-e-Din. Now the degree of the Imaan may vary from person to person. No one can measure how good your/my Imaan is, except God himself. The example that you give about believing in something that's not visible to the eye, like spirit and soul, is not part of your belief. I give you another example.

Arkaan [or Usul-e-Din], for instance, says to pray. Praying is one of the 5 principals of the Deen of Islam and every muslim must attest to that. Now, how many muslims do actually pray all the time, as it is truly required of us? Maybe not 100% of muslims. There are some muslims who don't pray, there are some muslims who occasionally pray, and there might be even some muslims who pray all the time. Now this directly depends how strong is your Imaan towards praying.

2) I had mentioned about myself in my first post in this thread and I do it again. I was born in an Ismaili family and have studied Ismailism in length. Currently I pray 5-time Salaat and keep Som in Ramadhan. As for my identity, I like to be identified as Muslim as the Holy Prophet (SAAS) and Hazrat Ali (RA), if they were Sunni I am too, if they were Ismaili or Isnashri I am too.

Oh dear - This statement is coming either from a sage person [such as rumi] or from an hypocrite. Now, I really don't want believe you are the latter; but you are yet to prove you are the former. Everyone falls naturally into a path, whether you like it or not. Even Rumi was following a path, which was sufi order. So, I grant you are not an Imami, in spite of confirming that you were born an Ismaili. Or you may need confirmation or clarification of Imam being the true Guide and Perfect Teacher that is necessary for mankind to know God through Him.

Tusi explains the need for the Perfect Man [Divine Authoritative Instructor], in his Sair wa Suluk (سیر و سلوک), by giving a philosophical reasoning. Anything that is potentially perfect, can be actualized by intervention of an external entity; i.e. a wood doesn't become chair, should the carpenter doesn't work on the wood and make that wood into a chair. This is true, because if something had in its essence the potentiality to become actualized, then the process of coming into existence and actualization would be simultaneous and there wouldn't be any need for any instruction/instructor/Prophets or Prophecies.

Therefore, for any thing that is potentially perfect, in order to become actualized, an external intervention is needed. In case of individual souls, the intervention of a Perfect Man[that is the Imam of each epoch] is needed for the individual souls to become actualized. It's not possible to understand God by intellect and reasoning alone, as claimed by philosophers [And sufi order - Read Rumi's, how he met Shams Tabriz and how Rumi describes Shams as his Perfect Man], simply because God transcends Intellect and reasoning. Therefore, the need for the divine authoritative instructor is perpetually needed by man.

3) I am not questioning why presence of Imam is important – I have read enough on this and I believe I am aware of the philosophical premise on which this faith has been established. My question was merely related to the defining/interpreting faith as to what is the role of Imam wrt defining/interpreting faith when everyone has a different definition of some basic issues related to faith. Does it not look an ideal situation that Imam, who is considered as a True Guide, gives his divinely inspired statement on basic faith related issues so that there are no differences of opinions on them.

So, now you know why the presence of Imam is important. Then why questioning his authority?
Remember, the essence of faith doesn't change and shall always remain the same. That's why you see in the Qur'an when God refers to Himself in plural, such as WE, OURS, US, He actually refers to exoteric tanzil or revelation of the religious law to each prophets which are in multiples. But, when God refers to Him in singular, such as I, MY, MINE, He refers to esoteric tah'wil of the revelation, which is always one and not changing.

You said there are difference of opinion, as I said before, and I repeat the essence of faith principally don't change and that's interpreted by the Imam according to each time and epoch. Regarding other matters, the individual soul is free at his quest for soul searching and everyone may have different view or understanding of matters. Remember, difference of opinion is never a negative but rather a positive. It brings a different perspective than only your own view. Mawula Ali says, never hate what you don't understand, as the knowledge is in what you don't know [Not exact wording, but I am sure you get the point].

About your question #1, I am not going to answer now. I will let you rethink about it.

2) What do you understand with the term “Shirk”? As it is repeatedly mentioned in the Quran and as per Quran Allah will forgive any sin (if he likes) but will not forgive Shirk. If everything that exists does have a glimpse of his Noor (as written by Imam SMSM) where does the question of shirk arise then because he is present in everything or in other words nothing exists except him. Please give your thoughts on this.

Shirk or anthropomorphism is a grave sin and all muslims seek refuge to God from that. It's attribution of human [or any attribution that we can think of] to God would be considered that. First, you should have studied the ISmaili doctrine of Tawhid -- at least a little -- to understand what is Ismialis position. According to most all Ismaili Theosophers, Ismailis are actually the only religion that truely define God with HIS unconditional absoluteness, by double negating any imaginable and unimaginable attributes. i.e. God is not all-knowing, and God is not not-all-knowing. God is not Merciful, God is not not-merciful. In other words, everything that you distinguish by your own estimation, even in its most precise meaning is turned away from HIM and returned to you, it's fabricated by you and created like you.

What MSMS was referring must be grasped correctly. We can see the trace of God's wisdom in everything in this physical world. We see God's greatness manifested in His creation. That is certainly in no way attribution to God.

[kmaherali]

[/u][/b] I read this in book and also heard in waez.

Thanks for the reminder! I had also heard it somewhere.

[kmaherali]

Here's what you said, and I highlight and underline the implication of that:

By becoming one with God a person is equivalent in spiritual status to the Imam and is qualified to be the Imam. However he cannot function as the Imam because there can only be one Imam according to doctrine.

If the underlined statement was the only one I had made, it would be a fair implication. However I added a statement which states that there can only be one Imam according to doctrine. Hence the correct implication would have been that he is qualified in the spiritual sense (being in the Ocean) but not being qualified in the material sense (not being appointed through nass).

[tret]

Hence the correct implication would have been that he is qualified in the spiritual sense (being in the Ocean) but not being qualified in the material sense (not being appointed through nass).

This is your understanding, and I certainly respect that. But, even in spiritual sense, I disagree with your POV. Individual souls doesn't become Imam, in spiritual sense. Rather, individuals who attain the status of the divine, receives perpetual tay'id [divine assistance]. Similar to the analogy of the Sun and the Moon I gave you, few post back. That's my understanding, again, you are welcome to disagree.

[nuseri]

Ya Ali Madad:
A posting made earlier.My compliments for this research

'Every part of creation has a soul (aspect of God), but are not God in a complete manner. Man however has the potential to become God completely through Ibadat. The process of elevation is from a partial God to a complete God.'
Very interesting line,I hope nobody has changed this line.
I have a simple question to forum readers.
If man ( not any female or animal or object) has potential to become God,
please note other relative words are not usedi.e like,akin,nearest,etc.
So the equation is
Man=God( upon achieving status).
If Man+god then the opposite absolute statement is GOD is Man and not
and object,animal,alien for outer space.
Every word Imam SMS/ALI says has deep meaning confirming to his status,which is baatin of it.
With Ibadat man can be Imam(at tariqat level).
because at that stage he is seeing ALI at marifat.
by raising his status to marifat the sufi or juma bhagat feel like an Imam.
they are not imam in physical feature like Hazar Imam,the noor is enjoying the same bandwidth,which ALI may bless that person.
it can be miracle performing power for certain time
or place.
Our faith is of Unifying to highest level.
It only come when ALI is raised to marifat level(feeling n affirmation within ones self) .
All then start singing like canary in praise of ALI,as they with ALI within themselves.
In India many saints feels they are like GOD
they are not god but elevated souls.
Man can be like Imam but does at all belong to the lineage of Imamat/GOD.

[nuseri]

Ya Ali Madad:
Indian Saal Mubarak to All
As I was away.
Please anyone can tell on WHAT the debate is on.as many posts are there.
please let me know in brief in few point or lines.

[tret]

If man ( not any female or animal or object) has potential to become God

Welcome back nuseri.

Does soul have gender?

[Admin]

My take on this question is that Soul is not animal or human and therefore can not have a gender. I am also wondering if once the soul is out of the body, how could the law of the physical world such as Time, Space or Gravity have anything to do with them.

In one Farman, Imam Baqir said that once the person dies, time does not exist therefore he can go back (in physical time) and take birth again in previous time.

So if you die tomorrow, you could go back to the 16th Century and take birth there... born before your previous avatar. That would be interesting!

But of course this is not the subject here. This line of thoughts only came from the question on does a Soul have gender..

[nuseri]

Ya Ali Madad.
Here the statement of equating Man as God noting less or more.
the word Man is a masculine gender.

If there are levels of Baatin n Noorani didar beyond zahiri didar at tariqat level.
How can a simple man give didar n appear in flesh n body to give didaar.
It is GOD only who can appear where and to whom he wishes.
The GOD/ALI is none other than Imam of the time.
Imam for a person with absolute Imaan on him sees HIM and affirm that HE IS GOD.
our faith is no fantasy,aftermath or spectacular imagination.
It is truth.
Believe in HIM.
ALI IS WITHIN US AND NOT PER SE IN PARIS.( that is at Tariqati level
status of Aga Khan)

[Valani]

Sorry for being a bit late in my responses!

Fayyaz006 Wrote:
Valani in Ismailism, it is my belief that the Imam has the Quran, and therefore spiritually is the Quran. The book it self as compiled in the 7th century is static and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. I doubt that book written in Arabic form would have been any help to the Hindus of India since they did not know Arabic.

Now the question that Ismailis ask is whether the book that was compiled by Uthman can be considered a "Manifest Record" of all creation, and a "Supreme Tablet" which records all of your deeds. After all God describes the Quran as Manfest Record and the Supreme tablet. The answer to that question for Ismailis is it cannot since creation is not static and is still ongoing. The Quran in its Purest Form will always rest with God, and the Imam of the time, be it Ibrahim A.S, Moses or His Highness the Aga Khan.

Now about the right to interpret the faith or not. Ismailism is unique because it offers its followers to have different avenues of understanding and comprehending the faith. For some of our brothers its Ginans, for some its Qasidas for people like me it Science. Ultimately all authority as per the written Quran and our belief rests with the Imam of the Time, however individuals have the right to perceive their faith individually. That should answer your questions about Ginans, for me personally they don't quite hold the same value as they do for my mother. Again different avenues of approach.

To your third argument, I would suggest the according to the Quran, there is no such thing as a Muslim and a Momin. Islam in its purest form wants true "Muslims", people who submit to God. Imaan and physical conduct are not separate is Islam. They are "cross linked" a Chemistry term for you. Practicing your ethics is considered prayer in Islam.

Brother Fayyaz006:
Please read the chapter 40 (Sura Hajaraat) verse 14 which clarifies the difference between Islam and Imaan and it also connects Imaan with heart. As for your statement “Islam in its purest form wants true Muslims, people who submit to God” I fully agree to that and to me the emphasis here is on “Purest” and that is why we believe that Imaan can have various levels or degrees or whatever you like to call it.

Fayyaz006 Wrote:
Valani that's a very poor definition of Imaan. Your faith cannot be strong in something unless you've proven to your self that it exists. Faith that is built on something that you don't understand is not strong and is liable to be shattered. If you don't have physical proof of a Creator how do you know it exists. In Islam believing in God without trying to find Him or understand him is not belief, its merely following conjecture without really understanding where you're being led to


Brother Fayyaz006
Please read the Chapter (Sura Baqara) 2 Verse 285 and Chaper 4 (Sura Nisa) Verse 136 you will get some idea of what Imaan is wrt Quran (I may have missed some other Ayat(s) describing Imaan).

Now on argument that “Faith that is built on something that you don't understand is not strong and is liable to be shattered. If you don't have physical proof of a Creator how do you know it exists” related set of questions here:

• Do you believe in Angels? Do you have a physical proof of them?
• Do you believe in Prophets of Allah? Have you seen them all? Or few? Or even one?
• Do you believe in Hazrat Ali being Imam? Or even being a person? Have you seen any physical proof of his existence?
• Do you believe in Hazar Imam being from the progeny of Hazrat Ali? Has that been proven to you physically?
• Do you believe in Hell and Paradise (as mentioned in Quran)? Have you seen them or they have been proven to you physically
• Do you believe in Day of Judgment? Is there a physical proof of that?
• Do you believe in Love and Hate? How can you prove them physically?
• Do you believe man is made of Body and Ruh? Can you prove the Ruh physically?

Brother, to me, there are things that we cannot prove but we do believe in them and that is what I referred to as conviction, let me put an example: Mr A makes a statement and Mr B believes that he is saying the truth…. Do you think Mr B has a physical proof of Mr A’s truth? In my opinion it’s the conviction (faith) that makes Mr B believe that Mr A is telling a truth.

Let me quote what Brother tret has written in response to my queries “Ismailis are actually the only religion that truely define God with HIS unconditional absoluteness, by double negating any imaginable and unimaginable attributes. i.e. God is not all-knowing, and God is not not-all-knowing. God is not Merciful, God is not not-merciful. In other words, everything that you distinguish by your own estimation, even in its most precise meaning is turned away from HIM and returned to you, it's fabricated by you and created like you”

I like brother tret’s statement, I fully agree with his argument, again this is a philosophical argument and not a physical proof that God exists, now this again is a conviction (faith/Iman) that because of this reason God exists. Others, who do not believe in God, do not accept this premise hence they refuse to accept the existence of God as this is not a physical proof but a philosophical argument which is reliable to some and unreliable to others…. Do you agree?

Let me put a Sufi’s statement (its my own translation from Urdu and I may not have been able to do justice, however, I try InshAllah): This reality cannot be denied that Oneness “Wahdat” is a product of man’s own imagination/thinking (Fikr) and at most it describes the broadness (Wusat) of man’s own imagination and when man uses the word Oneness it only means that he has understood the oneness of God to this limit. The meaning or word oneness is limited to man’s own limit of his imagination/thinking. Man gives the name “unlimited” to this limit. In fact Allah is way-beyond the definition by which his attributes are described. When we say Oneness of being (Wahdat-ul-Wujood) in actual we are referring to our own unity of imagination/thought (Wahdat-e-Fikr).
Qalandar Baba Auliya (Master of Khwaja Shamsuddin Azeemi), Book: Loh-o-Qalam)

My own concluding remarks about what I have learnt so far and I believe in ” Man can never be able to understand God and His attributes by any physical or philosophical argument/proof, the only way to understand God and or His attributes, to the extent He allows (Bi Iznillah), is through spiritual experience and for being able to have that spiritual experience (there can be exceptions where Allah wills) man has to go through ‘Maraqba’ ‘Ibaadat’ ‘Meditation’ whatever you like to call it and that experience is attained through Heart (Qalb) and not by Intellect (Uql).

I think I have been able to put my arguments appropriately…. Please share your opinion.


tret wrote:
According to Ismaili doctrine, the Imam of the time can only do the tah'wil of the Qur'an. Apart from the Imam, anyone [scholars or common man] can do tah'wil, in accordance to his/her capacity or knowledge. But the correct tah'wil is from the Imam. That's why you hear the expression of "Speaking Qur'an", "The Qur'an", "The Truth" referenced to the Imam.

Brother tret:
I respect your views

tret wrote:
You seem to separate Deen and Imaan. I am not sure how can you do that? You Imaan must be based on your belief in principals of Deen. i.e. Usul-e-Din. Now the degree of the Imaan may vary from person to person. No one can measure how good your/my Imaan is, except God himself. The example that you give about believing in something that's not visible to the eye, like spirit and soul, is not part of your belief. I give you another example.

Arkaan [or Usul-e-Din], for instance, says to pray. Praying is one of the 5 principals of the Deen of Islam and every muslim must attest to that. Now, how many muslims do actually pray all the time, as it is truly required of us? Maybe not 100% of muslims. There are some muslims who don't pray, there are some muslims who occasionally pray, and there might be even some muslims who pray all the time. Now this directly depends how strong is your Imaan towards praying.

Brother tret:
I believe I was not able to put my argument appropriately, let me try again: Islam and Iman are two things while Deen covers Islam and Iman both, therefore mathematically we can write: Deen = Islam + Imaan. Please refer to my response to brother Fayyaz006 on difference between Islam and Iman. Now, on your statement about Arkaan, a “Rukun” of Deen is not my Imaan it’s the order of my Lord, since I testified with my statement (The Shahadah) and believed from my heart, I came to the conclusion that since Allah is my Khaliq and Rab (Creator and Sustainer) I must obey his commands, therefore I offer Salat and keep Som and do good deeds and whatever he has ordered through his Messenger (Quran and traditions of Holy Prophet). Now, for some reason, If I am unable to follow Allah’s order fully or to some extent that does not cast me out of Islam (Imaan) i.e. I do not become a Kafir by not establishing Salat or following other orders. However, I agree with your argument that (I believe you are also saying this) my conduct i.e. observance of Usul-ad-Deen (Araakeen-e-Islam) is directory proportional to my Imaan (faith) i.e. the stronger the faith is the better the observance will be and vice versa.

Let me put it in simple words:

I am a Momin (Muslim) because I testify the Shahadah and I have belief in Allah, Malaaik, Kutub, Rurul, The Qayamah, Yom-ie-Deen, Jannat, Jahannum. – This is a correct statement.

I am a Momin (Muslim) because I offer 5-time Salat, Som in Ramadhan, pay Zakat, and have offered Haj – This is an incorrect statement.

I hope I have been able to put it right this time…. Please give your thoughts.

tret wrote:
Oh dear - This statement is coming either from a sage person [such as rumi] or from an hypocrite. Now, I really don't want believe you are the latter; but you are yet to prove you are the former. Everyone falls naturally into a path, whether you like it or not. Even Rumi was following a path, which was sufi order. So, I grant you are not an Imami, in spite of confirming that you were born an Ismaili. Or you may need confirmation or clarification of Imam being the true Guide and Perfect Teacher that is necessary for mankind to know God through Him.

Tusi explains the need for the Perfect Man [Divine Authoritative Instructor], in his Sair wa Suluk (سیر و سلوک), by giving a philosophical reasoning. Anything that is potentially perfect, can be actualized by intervention of an external entity; i.e. a wood doesn't become chair, should the carpenter doesn't work on the wood and make that wood into a chair. This is true, because if something had in its essence the potentiality to become actualized, then the process of coming into existence and actualization would be simultaneous and there wouldn't be any need for any instruction/instructor/Prophets or Prophecies.

Therefore, for any thing that is potentially perfect, in order to become actualized, an external intervention is needed. In case of individual souls, the intervention of a Perfect Man[that is the Imam of each epoch] is needed for the individual souls to become actualized. It's not possible to understand God by intellect and reasoning alone, as claimed by philosophers [And sufi order - Read Rumi's, how he met Shams Tabriz and how Rumi describes Shams as his Perfect Man], simply because God transcends Intellect and reasoning. Therefore, the need for the divine authoritative instructor is perpetually needed by man.

Brother tret:

1) Your statement suggests that there are only two options available: a sage and a hypocrite, if that is the case, please consider me as a hypocrite as I cannot claim to be a sage. But this is what I believe in by heart: The best model to be followed is RasoolAllah (SAAS) and after him Hazrat Ali (RA), I respect all the sahaba and I respect and love all who claim to be from Ahl-e-Bait or Aal-e-Muhammad and I am a sinful servant of Allah (Abdullah) who, despite all his sinful and shameful acts and thoughts, is a seeker of guidance (Hidayat) and claimant of His forgiveness and His mercy.” I stop here….about me…..and leave on to you to judge, if you like.

2) Tusi’s philosophical argument is great, however, again this is a philosophical argument and not evidence or in scientific term we can describe this as a “Theory” and not as a “Law” because it needs to be proven to be able to be categorized as a “Law”, do you agree? Now, if you say I have faith in this then it’s a totally different thing and not questionable (as per my understanding) because faith does not ask for proofs it simply asks for permission from the heart and that’s it.

3) I do not deny that you need a teacher to learn something despite there being hundreds of books available on a particular subject. However, the above argument does not prove that the there can be only one perfect man (I would rather like to use the term “teacher” in place of perfect man) in one epoch. Please ponder upon the verses; Chapter 4 (Surat Nisa) Verse 59 and Verse 83, Questions to ponder upon:

a) The verses are speaking in plural about people of Amr (Ulil Amr). That means they were more than one, at least, and that they were present at that time when Prophet of Allah was alive. Does this not negate the notion that there can be only one Perfect Man in an epoch?

b) The verse is saying Ulil Amr are among you (Ulil Amr-i-Minkum) (I understand, people like you from amongst you who enjoy Amr (Ruling). Or in simple words the people who are the leaders from among you. It, to me, does not seem to be referring to any super human personalities or Perfect Men.

tret wrote:
Shirk or anthropomorphism is a grave sin and all muslims seek refuge to God from that. It's attribution of human [or any attribution that we can think of] to God would be considered that. First, you should have studied the ISmaili doctrine of Tawhid -- at least a little -- to understand what is Ismialis position. According to most all Ismaili Theosophers, Ismailis are actually the only religion that truely define God with HIS unconditional absoluteness, by double negating any imaginable and unimaginable attributes. i.e. God is not all-knowing, and God is not not-all-knowing. God is not Merciful, God is not not-merciful. In other words, everything that you distinguish by your own estimation, even in its most precise meaning is turned away from HIM and returned to you, it's fabricated by you and created like you.

What MSMS was referring must be grasped correctly. We can see the trace of God's wisdom in everything in this physical world. We see God's greatness manifested in His creation. That is certainly in no way attribution to God.

Brother tret:
Let me quote Hazar Imam from the statement that was submitted before the judge in Haji Bibi case (I believe it was Haji Bibi case but nevertheless learned people on this board would, I am sure, be able to guide if it was from Haji Bibi case (or old Khoja case).

“The ismailis in the course of their prayer mention and pray to material objects such as fish and man as “GOD” or parts of the universal “ONE”. This is contrary to all other sects of Mohamedans except some soofis whose ideas were same as the Ismiali thought and perhaps the logical foundation of Ismaili thought. The Isnashri look upon calling a man or fish or other material objects as the incarnation of the “ONE” universal object as “KOOFR” i.e. infidelity. The Ismailis being monists look upon a man or a fish as the incarnation of the “ONE” and as parts of that “ONE”.”

Book: THE NOOR EN ALLAH NOOR Composed by Rai Shamsuddin Bandali Haji in 1980. Please let me know if this is not a reliable source.

In addition I encourage you to read MSMS farameens on Nuzeri in KIM (part-1, I guess).

Your thoughts…?

[Valani]

Nuseri Wrote:
Ya Ali Madad.
Here the statement of equating Man as God noting less or more.
the word Man is a masculine gender.

If there are levels of Baatin n Noorani didar beyond zahiri didar at tariqat level.
How can a simple man give didar n appear in flesh n body to give didaar.
It is GOD only who can appear where and to whom he wishes.
The GOD/ALI is none other than Imam of the time.
Imam for a person with absolute Imaan on him sees HIM and affirm that HE IS GOD.
our faith is no fantasy,aftermath or spectacular imagination.
It is truth.
Believe in HIM.
ALI IS WITHIN US AND NOT PER SE IN PARIS.( that is at Tariqati level
status of Aga Khan)

Brother Nuseri:
For a different perspective, please read, in my response to brother tret, the statement by a Sufi (Qalandar Baba Aulia) who has died some 30 years ago, so pretty recent time.

Based on Sufi's statement the state that you are referring to is the state "Wahdat-ul-Fikr" or as commenly (but perhaps mistakenly) known as "Wahdat-ul-Wujud". This is the state that Hazar Imam has pointed to in his interviews by quoting Quranic Ayat (translation as I remember) "God has created man from one soul".

As per this theory (I would call this a theory as well, as argued in detailed in my above post), that is the maximum that man can reach and God is beyong that state.

Please ponder upon the definition of Tusi (as provided by brother tret, in my post) which states that any imagenable or unimagenable attributes that you ascribe to God is fabricated and created like you.

Again this is my own belief based on my understanding reading and acceptance of my heart.... you can completely disagree with this... but for the sake of learning, if you disagree, please state the reason for that.

Kind regards
Valani

[nuseri]

TO valani:yA ALI mADAD.


For Ismaili ALI/MhI is quran and the ultimate.
we have his farmans and NOT doctrines n school of thought of any tom dick n harry
who had his own style of defining god.
I do NOT accept any RUBBISH, YOU HAVE WROTE.

PLEASE let me know what you wish to tell from wordS of Imam and Ismaili pirs

YE BOLA,USNE BOLA,WO BOLA
ARE MORE DANGEROUS VIRUS THAN
EBOLA VIRUS.
If have absolute faith in our MHI,stay put.

the word 'Allah' sublimes into nothing/NON ENTITY to the one's who truly know ALI/MHI.

[fayaz006]

Brother Fayyaz006:
Please read the chapter 40 (Sura Hajaraat) verse 14 which clarifies the difference between Islam and Imaan and it also connects Imaan with heart. As for your statement “Islam in its purest form wants true Muslims, people who submit to God” I fully agree to that and to me the emphasis here is on “Purest” and that is why we believe that Imaan can have various levels or degrees or whatever you like to call it.

Hello Valani. I have read that sura and the verse multiple times and frankly i don't know how you can conclude that the verse separates Imaan and Islam. As a matter of fact that verse is used by me to argue that committing to outward prayers and keeping fast are all surface aspects of the faith. True faith is understanding the deeper meaning of those practice instead of doing them blindly. Below is the verse from the copy i have.

14. (Some of) the dwellers of the desert say: "We believe." Say (to them): "You have not believed. Rather, (you should) say, ‘We have submitted (to the rule of Islam),' for faith has not yet entered into your hearts."12 But, if you obey God and His Messenger, He will not hold back anything of the reward of your (good) deeds.13 Surely God is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate.

Now Valani which one of us is correct, maybe we both are. That is one of the positive aspects of Ismailism, in the same space we both have different interpretation of the same verse.



Brother Fayyaz006
Please read the Chapter (Sura Baqara) 2 Verse 285 and Chaper 4 (Sura Nisa) Verse 136 you will get some idea of what Imaan is wrt Quran (I may have missed some other Ayat(s) describing Imaan).

Now on argument that “Faith that is built on something that you don't understand is not strong and is liable to be shattered. If you don't have physical proof of a Creator how do you know it exists” related set of questions here:

• Do you believe in Angels? Do you have a physical proof of them?
• Do you believe in Prophets of Allah? Have you seen them all? Or few? Or even one?
• Do you believe in Hazrat Ali being Imam? Or even being a person? Have you seen any physical proof of his existence?
• Do you believe in Hazar Imam being from the progeny of Hazrat Ali? Has that been proven to you physically?
• Do you believe in Hell and Paradise (as mentioned in Quran)? Have you seen them or they have been proven to you physically
• Do you believe in Day of Judgment? Is there a physical proof of that?
• Do you believe in Love and Hate? How can you prove them physically?
• Do you believe man is made of Body and Ruh? Can you prove the Ruh physically?


Valani for me there are plenty of physical proofs that God exists. Do i understand God though? The answer is definetly no, but I do see physical proofs of the existence. These proofs cause me to believe in things that i cannot see such as angels. This is where me and you disagree, for me faith cannot be blind, its built through years of trials however i also agree with you on the aspect that we have to believe in the Unseen.


I think some men have reached God with their intellect, men like Newton, Einstein, ibn Sina, ibn Rushd. They all figured out a major aspect of some of God's physicall laws.

To be honest when you say that you practice your faith like Prophet Mohammad, i respect that about you, however for me that task would be impossible to accomplish. Quran with Prophet Mohammad was an oral tradition. For Ismailis physical practices have changed with time (they have to). Nothing can remain static with time. Any ways my two cents.

[tret]

I am a Momin (Muslim) because I testify the Shahadah and I have belief in Allah, Malaaik, Kutub, Rurul, The Qayamah, Yom-ie-Deen, Jannat,

Jahannum. – This is a correct statement.

I am a Momin (Muslim) because I offer 5-time Salat, Som in Ramadhan, pay Zakat, and have offered Haj – This is an incorrect statement.

First a muslim can not necessarily [or automatically] be considered a mo'min. You can be [identified as ] a muslim; but being a mo'min

takes more than just testifying the shahada and 'believe' in Allah, malaaik, etc...etc... Most muslims do all the above, but yet commit

sins [any kind of sins]. The latter [sins] prevents you from becoming mo'min; however, you can still be identified as muslim.

Muslim = an identity or identification, such as American, Asian, etc..
Mo'min = a status [correctly confirmed only by God himself]. If I say, I am mo'min and you are mo'min, then our declaration of being

mo'min is subjective and based on our perception. Everyone hopes to be a mo'min. And we should not judge others whether they are mo'min or

not.

1) Your statement suggests that there are only two options available: a sage and a hypocrite, if that is the case, please consider me

as a hypocrite as I cannot claim to be a sage. But this is what I believe in by heart: The best model to be followed is RasoolAllah (SAAS)

and after him Hazrat Ali (RA), I respect all the sahaba and I respect and love all who claim to be from Ahl-e-Bait or Aal-e-Muhammad and I

am a sinful servant of Allah (Abdullah) who, despite all his sinful and shameful acts and thoughts, is a seeker of guidance (Hidayat) and

claimant of His forgiveness and His mercy.” I stop here….about me…..and leave on to you to judge, if you like.

I'd like to repeat what I said [or intended to say]: I was referring to those who claims such as: [I don't consider myself neither this

nor that. I am neither sunni, nor shia, nor muslim, nor jew, nor chirstian, nor this nor that, etc.. etc..]. I was referring to this

category of persons. So, now please tell me. Is this you? If yes, then in this case it would certainly apply; I didn't mean to imply that

there's only 2 options in general for all. No. Please re-read my respond.

Few things to clarify:

1) Do you believe in the concept of "Man being in need of guidance at each epoch"[/b]?
2) Or do you think that "Man are perfectly fine with the final message that God revealed to the prophet and they are on their own and

capable of interpreting the final message of God"?
3) Do you believe in this widely accepted [by both sunnies and shi'as] hadis of the Prophet, that said at Ghadir-e-Khum "Min kunta

Mauwla, Fa haza Ali Mauwla"? Please refer to complete event of Ghadir-e-khum. So, when you think the Prophet is the role-model and

every guide of the Prophet must be followed, then did you follow the hadish of the Prophet that was said at Ghadir-e-Khum?

When a man wanted to give alligiance to the Prophet to become muslim at the time of the Prophet, they would go to the Prophet and take HIS

hand to give their allegiance. Now, tell me: Today if a man wanted to give his allegiance to become Muslim, where is that hand today? Is

it the man's fault that he was not born during the time of the Prophet? Even logically, that HAND must exist today [and in every epoch].

That hand is non other than the HAND of the Imam of the time.

2) Tusi’s philosophical argument is great, however, again this is a philosophical argument and not evidence or in scientific term we

can describe this as a “Theory” and not as a “Law” because it needs to be proven to be able to be categorized as a “Law”, do you agree?

Now, if you say I have faith in this then it’s a totally different thing and not questionable (as per my understanding) because faith does

not ask for proofs it simply asks for permission from the heart and that’s it.

Dear - philosophy [or metaphysics] is based on intellect and reasoning, not evidence or proof, unlike science! So any philosophical

arguments are based on logic and reasoning and our sense of discrimination. True, that faith plays its part to a certain degree, and

that's why the comments may get subjective. And the reason is that unlike science these matters can not be proven objectively based on

evidence. Do you realize this? What Tusi implies is the best philosophical argument that one can put forward that follows and law of

nature. So, tell me which kind of evidence, proof do you accept to see? something like 2+2=4?

Blind faith doesn't even ask for proof; this faith nothing but imitation. An intelligent person, however, seeks knowledge and not willing

to accept something [have faith in something] blindly!

3) I do not deny that you need a teacher to learn something despite there being hundreds of books available on a particular subject.

However, the above argument does not prove that the there can be only one perfect man (I would rather like to use the term “teacher” in

place of perfect man) in one epoch. Please ponder upon the verses; Chapter 4 (Surat Nisa) Verse 59 and Verse 83, Questions to ponder upon:

Good. So you do agree that man need a guide/teacher in learning [the true path, the knowledge of taw'hid in matters of faith,

spirituality]. That's very good. Now we can proceed.

Remember, this world is the world of multiplicity, relativity, duality and plurality; whereas the world hereafter [spiritual realm] is the

world of simplicity, unity, singularity and knowledge. Everything that we see in this world is relative [to something or someone]. I give

you an example. You are a son, in relation to your father; however, you are [or could be if you have a son] a father in relation to your

son. You are a grandson, in relation to your grand father. So, do you see that one person can be [mean] differently, based on the relation

that you have with other entities.

So, yes everyone needs a teacher. Even a teacher needs a teacher. and all teachers lead the disciple to his teacher up the chain, until

"The Perfect Man" or "The Lord", "The Master".

According to Ismaili doctrine, The Imam of the Time [at each epoch] is The Master [of all masters] and is only One. Under this rank, is

the Hujjat [or the Proof], which is in multiples of 24. Hujjat receives ta'yid [divine assistance] perpetually from the Imam. -- Note,

that ta'yid [divine assistance] is unlike acquirable knowledge that one can acquire by studying, it has to be granted. Under the rank of

Hujjat is the Dai [in multiples of 365] and then under that the rank of Mua'lim-e-Sadiq in even more multiplicity and then the very lower

rank is the mustajib [which are us, myself, and other common men]. Starting from lower rank, Mualem-e-Sadiq is the teach of the mutajib.

Mualim-e-Sadiq's teacher is Dai, and so on and so forth. At the end, the master of all masters is the Imam. Such is the order of the

faith. These Dais/Hujjats/Mualems may or may not be formally and officially within the Ismaili kaish; they could be in other tariqas as

well, but teaching and inviting others to the true path which is the path towards the taw'hid of God and Sirat-ul-mustaqim.

So yes there can be multiple teachers, but only one teacher of teachers, which is the Imam. That is why exactly I used the term "Perfect

Man", "The Master", "The Lord".

a) The verses are speaking in plural about people of Amr (Ulil Amr). That means they were more than one, at least, and that they were

present at that time when Prophet of Allah was alive. Does this not negate the notion that there can be only one Perfect Man in an epoch?

I beg to differ on this. Allow me to explain this from my POV.

When God speaks in plural, He speaks about exoteric revelation of the message of God, which is different in each [major] cycle. That is

all the revelations by previous prophecies, such as Jesus, Moses and other Prophets who had revelations. This is why God speaks in plural,

because the exoteric revelation in plural.

However, there are other places that God speaks in singular. That when He refers to the esoteric ta'wil of the revelation, which is

always ONE. The esoteric ta'wil of the revelation from all the Prophets have the same message and interpretation.

Aulil Amr signifies that disciple must obey the Farameen of each Imam at HIS epoch; even if exoterically they maybe different in each

epoch; however, the essence and guide of the Imam will always remain the same. That's why the essence of [Ismaili] faith has always and

will always remain the same, since the time of the Prophet and even before that. People of zahir [ahl-e-zahir] may have very hard time to

see that [simply because they see only zahir], but essentially the essence of faith, for us Ismailis are always the same.

b) The verse is saying Ulil Amr are among you (Ulil Amr-i-Minkum) (I understand, people like you from amongst you who enjoy Amr

(Ruling). Or in simple words the people who are the leaders from among you. It, to me, does not seem to be referring to any super human

personalities or Perfect Men.

This very certainly is referring to the Imam of the Time!
If not, then who do you think is this verse refereed to?
Then anyone can claim that he's the rightful Ulil Amr. Like me, or you, or anyone! Tusi explains in his Paradise of Submission the signs

by which one can recognize The Perfect Man, The Master, The Ulil Amr.

Brother tret:
Let me quote Hazar Imam from the statement that was submitted before the judge in Haji Bibi case (I believe it was Haji Bibi case but nevertheless learned people on this board would, I am sure, be able to guide if it was from Haji Bibi case (or old Khoja case).

“The ismailis in the course of their prayer mention and pray to material objects such as fish and man as “GOD” or parts of the universal “ONE”. This is contrary to all other sects of Mohamedans except some soofis whose ideas were same as the Ismiali thought and perhaps the logical foundation of Ismaili thought. The Isnashri look upon calling a man or fish or other material objects as the incarnation of the “ONE” universal object as “KOOFR” i.e. infidelity. The Ismailis being monists look upon a man or a fish as the incarnation of the “ONE” and as parts of that “ONE”.”

Book: THE NOOR EN ALLAH NOOR Composed by Rai Shamsuddin Bandali Haji in 1980. Please let me know if this is not a reliable source.

In addition I encourage you to read MSMS farameens on Nuzeri in KIM (part-1, I guess).

Your thoughts…?

No one Ismaili [or Muslim] can accept that material object or fish can be worshiped. This certainly can't be words of the Imam, unless it has a very different context and it may not very well be the entire context. When a statement is taken out of the context, it can be very well and easily be mis-interpreted to mis-represent something [or someone, or even an entire religion or faith]. Please, don't do that. Not suitable for a wise person.

You seem to provide what our Hujjat said to back up your argument, and at the same time to contradict our tariqa? Please clarify your position.

[Admin]

No fish has ever been worshipped. I think this comes coming again and again in the same way some say Ismaili worship the Aga Khan who lives in Paris. Obviously this is understandable from people who do not know that Ismaili worship the Noor which manifest itself in the Imam, not the physical body.

When we dring one glass, actualy we are not drinking the glass but the water that is in it.

[zznoor]

In Chapter 23, Aya 1to11 beautifully describes quality required to be successful.

By:Translation by Usuf Ali

[1] The believers (Mu’minoon) must (eventually) win through,-
[2] Those who humble themselves in their prayers;
[3] Who avoid vain talk;
[4] Who are active in deeds of charity;
[5] Who abstain from sex,
[6] Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
[7] But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors;-
[8] Those who faithfully observe their trusts and their covenants;
[9] And who (strictly) guard their prayers;-
[10] These will be the heirs,
[11] Who will inherit Paradise: they will dwell therein (for ever).

[zznoor]

No fish has ever been worshipped. I think this comes coming again and again in the same way some say Ismaili worship the Aga Khan who lives in Paris. Obviously this is understandable from people who do not know that Ismaili worship the Noor which manifest itself in the Imam, not the physical body.

When we dring one glass, actualy we are not drinking the glass but the water that is in it.

Obviously not this Ismaili and god knows how many more are like him

nuseri
The GOD/ALI is none other than Imam of the time.

[tret]

you relate your Imaan to qalander, tusi or any hot pussy.good luck to you.

I bet you don't know who Tusi is. Please do some research on Tusi.
You apparently don't have any knowledge about Ismaili history, and you don't seem to care much either.

MHI [ALI+lah=Allah. according to you] opened the Ismaili Center and Aga Khan Museum [https://www.agakhanmuseum.org/] last month here in Toronto. Do you know what is the purpose of the Aga Khan Museum? I can guarantee that you have no idea!

I have an advise to you, mr. nuresi. You don't sound very mature. Probably in your late teen or early twenties. Don't revolt and start insulting everyone. Instead come up with rational and logical reasoning to make your point. If you don't have anything meaningful, it's always best to keep silence than to say something stupid. The rest is up to you.

[Valani]

Fayyaz006 wrote:
Now Valani which one of us is correct, maybe we both are. That is one of the positive aspects of Ismailism, in the same space we both have different interpretation of the same verse.

Brother Fayyaz006
I am glad that you agreed that I might be right too! I leave this topic here.

Fayyaz006 wrote:
Valani for me there are plenty of physical proofs that God exists. Do i understand God though? The answer is definetly no, but I do see physical proofs of the existence. These proofs cause me to believe in things that i cannot see such as angels. This is where me and you disagree, for me faith cannot be blind, its built through years of trials however i also agree with you on the aspect that we have to believe in the Unseen.

Brother Fayyaz006
Let us first analyse what is the meanings of “physical proof”.

Physical = something related to body, related to things perceived though senses

Proof = an evidence, an argument, or a fact

Physical proof = an evidence/argument/fact related to body or something that can be perceived through senses

In light of above definition (I hope you agree with the definition), would you like to rephrase your statement “for me there are plenty of physical proofs that God exists”. To me God can never be proven by a physical proof but a philosophical argument i.e. because of this this and this God exists. Do you agree? (the miracles performed by various prophets of Allah could perhaps be classified as physical proofs but that time is gone perhaps)r

Your last sentence, please read it again carefully; do you agree that the two statements you are making are contradicting each other?
I believe I have made my point here and I conclude my arguments on this.

Fayyaz006 wrote:
I think some men have reached God with their intellect, men like Newton, Einstein, ibn Sina, ibn Rushd. They all figured out a major aspect of some of God's physicall laws.

Brother Fayyaz006:
Brother, again this is your opinion or belief that is without a physical proof. Sorry, that I am repeating this but please allow me to write that our belief (faith without proof) plays a great role in our lives and we, despite that we try hard, can perhaps never, come out of its grip. We will always end up with believing in something and not believing in something despite that nothing has been proven to us physically. “Sun” and “Moon” on the other hand are physical proofs of existence of these bodies, and a person who denies their existence will only be considered a lunatic….. Do you agree now?

Fayyaz006 wrote:
To be honest when you say that you practice your faith like Prophet Mohammad, i respect that about you, however for me that task would be impossible to accomplish. Quran with Prophet Mohammad was an oral tradition. For Ismailis physical practices have changed with time (they have to). Nothing can remain static with time. Any ways my two cents.

Brother Fayyaz006:
I am glad that we have mutual respect for each other!
After all, all Muslims are brothers. Let me put my point of view, there are three aspects (phases/dimensions) of any job/act i.e. the intention/will (Niyat), the effort, the result. We humans, in real, have our own control over the first one only i.e. the intention/will (Niyat), the effort part can only be accomplished with the blessings (Fazal) of Allah while the third part is never in our hand and does not get counted on our part. To me, in simple words, the life is all about having the right will/intention (Niyat) and that is perhaps the Key and rest is the blessings of Allah.

tret wrote:
First a muslim can not necessarily [or automatically] be considered a mo'min. You can be [identified as ] a muslim; but being a mo'min takes more than just testifying the shahada and 'believe' in Allah, malaaik, etc...etc... Most muslims do all the above, but yet commit sins [any kind of sins]. The latter [sins] prevents you from becoming mo'min; however, you can still be identified as muslim.

Muslim = an identity or identification, such as American, Asian, etc..
Mo'min = a status [correctly confirmed only by God himself]. If I say, I am mo'min and you are mo'min, then our declaration of being

mo'min is subjective and based on our perception. Everyone hopes to be a mo'min. And we should not judge others whether they are mo'min or not.

Brother tret:
Please allow me to quote again what I had written to brother Fayyaz006:
“Please read the chapter 40 (Sura Hajaraat) verse 14 which clarifies the difference between Islam and Imaan and it also connects Imaan with heart. As for your statement “Islam in its purest form wants true Muslims, people who submit to God” I fully agree to that and to me the emphasis here is on “Purest” and that is why we believe that Imaan can have various levels or degrees or whatever you like to call it”

I think what you are saying is what I am saying with very little “tuning”. I put it here again: When you testify Shahadah, you are considered a Muslim (officially). To be considered a believer (Momin) you have to believe in this this and this, but the Imaan has to have strong roots in your heart and the more your Imaan grows in strength the more you become a good practicing Muslim ( or Momin). The point I am trying to make is that your Imaan (batin/qalb) has a great influence on your Islam (zahir/conduct), these two things go side by side the stronger the Imaan (batin/qalb) the better the Islam (zahir/conduct)… Do you agree now?

And this is the reason why at times these two things are used interchangeably. The gauge used to choose the people for responsible positions in an Islamic state is whose zahir/conduct (Islam) is best are considered the best at Imaan (but Allah knows best because Qalb/Batin or Iman can only be judged by Allah). I think I deviated a bit but that was for explaining what I am trying to say.

There is no denying that your Iman and Islam (zahir and batin) are interrelated and that is the reason why I used the term “the Iman is directly proportional to Islam and vice versa”.

tret wrote:
So, now please tell me. Is this you? If yes, then in this case it would certainly apply; I didn't mean to imply that there's only 2 options in general for all. No. Please re-read my respond.

Brother tret:
I think the discussion we are having on some key religious concepts is more important so I leave this here, I have said what I had to say and I accept that you have a right to form an opinion about me.

tret wrote:
1) Do you believe in the concept of "Man being in need of guidance at each epoch"[/b]?
2) Or do you think that "Man are perfectly fine with the final message that God revealed to the prophet and they are on their own and capable of interpreting the final message of God"?
3) Do you believe in this widely accepted [by both sunnies and shi'as] hadis of the Prophet, that said at Ghadir-e-Khum "Min kunta Mauwla, Fa haza Ali Mauwla"? Please refer to complete event of Ghadir-e-khum. So, when you think the Prophet is the role-model and every guide of the Prophet must be followed, then did you follow the hadish of the Prophet that was said at Ghadir-e-Khum?

When a man wanted to give alligiance to the Prophet to become muslim at the time of the Prophet, they would go to the Prophet and take HIS hand to give their allegiance. Now, tell me: Today if a man wanted to give his allegiance to become Muslim, where is that hand today? Is it the man's fault that he was not born during the time of the Prophet? Even logically, that HAND must exist today [and in every epoch]. That hand is non other than the HAND of the Imam of the time.

Brother tret:
This topic, though related to our discussion, is a completely complex topic and perhaps requires a greater and thought provoking discussion. However, InshAllah I will deal with this in simplest possible words:
Prophet of Allah Muhammad (SAAS) was the final prophet of Allah as claimed by glorious Quran. Hazrat Ali was considered from among the Ahl-e-Bait (people of the house) and he needs to be loved like the prophet of Allah and that is the reason why we offer Durud on Ahl-e-Bait in every Salat. Now, what you are trying to say is that, that was proclamation of another system of hidayat.

Case study:
When you get a notice from Income Tax Office: “This is the Final Notice for payment of your tax. If you fail to comply with this a legal recourse will be followed.”

Do you take:

1) This is the final notice and I must comply if I have to avoid any legal recourse, or
2) This is the notice that confirms that there will be another set of different kinds of notices that will be served on to me

My take is option 1 above, because:
• If there had to be another system of hidayat, apparently, there was no need to proclaim that Rasool Allah was the FINAL messenger instead the message perhaps could have been like he is the last prophet and after him there will be Imams…. Something like this. But this is not the case glorious Quran does not say anything about another system after stating that Rasool Allah (SAAS) is the Khatim-un-Nabiyeen.

• Now, if that proclamation was THAT important that it would supersede any existing instructions, and Quran (as we understand – the Mushaf) perhaps it would (rather should) have been clearer so that there was no chance that anyone would miss that.

• On Allegiance, as I have read the history, in addition to the prophet, other sahaba(s) also converted many non-Muslims to Islam. The Allegiance(s) that the prophet took were with respect to specific purposes/expeditions (like Bait-e-Rizwan, bait-e-Uqba, Bait-e-Uqba Thani etc.) while to convert any non-Muslim, the prophet would only ask him to say Shahadah and once that was done he would ask sahaba to teach him the religion (the practice(s)). That is how the initial phase went on. I stand corrected and if you know of another version, I would be keen to learn.
I stop here….I know your take….and now you know my take…..I respect your views and leave it onto Allah who is THE JUDGE.

tret wrote:
Remember, this world is the world of multiplicity, relativity, duality and plurality; whereas the world hereafter [spiritual realm] is the world of simplicity, unity, singularity and knowledge. Everything that we see in this world is relative [to something or someone]. I give you an example. You are a son, in relation to your father; however, you are [or could be if you have a son] a father in relation to your son. You are a grandson, in relation to your grand father. So, do you see that one person can be [mean] differently, based on the relation that you have with other entities.

So, yes everyone needs a teacher. Even a teacher needs a teacher. and all teachers lead the disciple to his teacher up the chain, until "The Perfect Man" or "The Lord", "The Master". According to Ismaili doctrine, The Imam of the Time [at each epoch] is The Master [of all masters] and is only One. Under this rank, is the Hujjat [or the Proof], which is in multiples of 24. Hujjat receives ta'yid [divine assistance] perpetually from the Imam. -- Note, that ta'yid [divine assistance] is unlike acquirable knowledge that one can acquire by studying, it has to be granted. Under the rank of Hujjat is the Dai [in multiples of 365] and then under that the rank of Mua'lim-e-Sadiq in even more multiplicity and then the very lower rank is the mustajib [which are us, myself, and other common men]. Starting from lower rank, Mualem-e-Sadiq is the teach of the mutajib. Mualim-e-Sadiq's teacher is Dai, and so on and so forth. At the end, the master of all masters is the Imam. Such is the order of the faith. These Dais/Hujjats/Mualems may or may not be formally and officially within the Ismaili kaish; they could be in other tariqas as well, but teaching and inviting others to the true path which is the path towards the taw'hid of God and Sirat-ul-mustaqim.

Brother tret:
The above system of Dawah that you have described was devised a long time ago at the time of Fatimid Khilafat. I am afraid, this system is not followed as is in the dawah in Indian subcontinent and hence students (some 30 years ago or more) were not taught about this systems in Religious Education Centre (in Pakistan, at least). Therefore brother Nuseri when says he does not care what Tusi said, there is a history to that. I stand corrected. Indian subcontinent is famous for Bhagats/Guptis who were firm adherents of the faith (which apparently is different to different people in Ismailism) and would never ask for any physical or philosophical proof for believing in what they believed. I think it would be pertinent to ask you if you are also from Indian subcontinent?

tret wrote:

I beg to differ on this. Allow me to explain this from my POV.

When God speaks in plural, He speaks about exoteric revelation of the message of God, which is different in each [major] cycle. That is all the revelations by previous prophecies, such as Jesus, Moses and other Prophets who had revelations. This is why God speaks in plural, because the exoteric revelation in plural. However, there are other places that God speaks in singular. That when He refers to the esoteric ta'wil of the revelation, which is always ONE. The esoteric ta'wil of the revelation from all the Prophets have the same message and interpretation.

Aulil Amr signifies that disciple must obey the Farameen of each Imam at HIS epoch; even if exoterically they maybe different in each epoch; however, the essence and guide of the Imam will always remain the same. That's why the essence of [Ismaili] faith has always and will always remain the same, since the time of the Prophet and even before that. People of zahir [ahl-e-zahir] may have very hard time to see that [simply because they see only zahir], but essentially the essence of faith, for us Ismailis are always the same.

This very certainly is referring to the Imam of the Time! If not, then who do you think is this verse refereed to? Then anyone can claim that he's the rightful Ulil Amr. Like me, or you, or anyone! Tusi explains in his Paradise of Submission the signs by which one can recognize The Perfect Man, The Master, The Ulil Amr.

brother tret:

What do you think people would have understood from these words when they were revealed, in the time when they were with Raool Allah (SAAS)?
Was there another Perfect Man present in the time of Rasool Allah (SAAS), if you say Hazrat Ali (RA), would you through some light on; if this statement would not put in question the proclamation at Ghadir-e-Khum? Another related question is if Hazrat Ali’s (RA) rank/status (whatever you like to call it) was higher than Rasool Allah (SAAS)?

Do you agree, it would have solved all problems, if Rasool Allah (SAAS) had explained to them what was the meaning of Ulil Amr and why do you think he did not explicitly explained such FUNDAMENTALLY significant issue of the Deen? To me it was not that FUNDAMENTAL and the people understood it to the satisfaction of Rasool Allah (SAAS)

In my opinion Raool Allah (SAAS) had sent the message complete and clear and according to the duty that was assigned to him by Allah. The message was the glorious Quran which is also considered the rope of Allah.

Hazrat Ali (RA), for instance, was a great champion of following the Deen the way Rasool Allah (SAAS) had followed. If you see the history, none of these two glorious personalities have ever stayed away from fulfilling the Zahiri Deen along with its Batin. Hazrat Ali (RA) was martyred when he was offering Salat, who do you think he was praying to in Salat, if not Allah?

And according to Quran (as I have understood) Rasool Allah (SAAS) never instructed people of anything from himself but he had only conveyed to them what was asked to him by Allah. This implies that Rasool Allah (SAAS) was not provided with the AUTHORITY to determine how the Deen would be practiced rather he was a messenger who taught the people what was taught to him by Allah through HIS Angel. If you need reference from Quran I can provide that but I believe you must be aware. When you say Raool Allah (SAAS) proclaimed that famous hadith you have referred to, how can someone transfer something to his successor which he himself does not possess, one can only transfer something that he possesses.

So, my take is what Raool Allah (SAAS) gave us was a complete Deen (his way of life) and the Quran which is a manual for every Muslim (in fact every human being).

tret wrote:
No one Ismaili [or Muslim] can accept that material object or fish can be worshiped. This certainly can't be words of the Imam, unless it has a very different context and it may not very well be the entire context. When a statement is taken out of the context, it can be very well and easily be mis-interpreted to mis-represent something [or someone, or even an entire religion or faith]. Please, don't do that. Not suitable for a wise person.

You seem to provide what our Hujjat said to back up your argument, and at the same time to contradict our tariqa? Please clarify your position.

Brother tret:
I came across that piece over net, there is entire book on Das Avtaar and in the preamble this statement (hand written with signature “Aga Khan”) was provided. It is a thick book which cannot be shared over internet. I believe, if you search it on net you will find it. I wounder if you have ever had a chance to come across the content of old Ismaili dua in Gujrati (or translation).

Now on you question “You seem to provide what our Hujjat said to back up your argument, and at the same time to contradict our tariqa? Please clarify your position”. I have not provided this piece to back up my argument; I just wanted to learn about your take on this, because you seem to be following a different line then many on this forum and you seem to have studied the initial Ismaili philosophy which was the base of Ismaili faith during Fatimid Khilafat, so I wanted to learn about your take on this. BTW I have not yet really put my arguments on Shirk.

When I was searching for answers to some key questions on Ismaili religion, I came across this piece and I immediately felt this cannot be the words of Imam, then I had the chance to read Kalam-e-Imam-e-Mubin (2 volumes) and I read the Farmaan(s) related to Nuzeri. Then I was convinced that these were the words of Imam. I believe if you can have access to the court records, you can get a clear copy of complete statement. I will also try to send you the complete statement through a private message.

I am not fully confident on authenticity of the statement of Imam as quoted in my quote (I need help from learned people on this forum) but I felt this statement is in contradiction to what you wrote initially wrt Shirk that is why I asked your opinion on this.

Let me tell you my understanding of Shirk in simple words:

"Bringing Allah down to someone’s status or raising someone to Allah’s status is Shirk – be it in zahiri or batini aspect, Zaati or Sifaati level, physical or spiritual realms."

Having said what I said above, I fully acknowledge, as per Quran, that the ‘Ruh’ is from Allah. Allah clearly uses the word “Ruhi” in Quran, which translates “My Rooh” when he talks about creating Hazrat Adam (AS). Even after having made the statement on Rooh, I still, believe on the above definition of Shirk.

Now, can I ask for your view on Shirk?

Admin wrote:
No fish has ever been worshipped. I think this comes coming again and again in the same way some say Ismaili worship the Aga Khan who lives in Paris. Obviously this is understandable from people who do not know that Ismaili worship the Noor which manifest itself in the Imam, not the physical body.

When we dring one glass, actualy we are not drinking the glass but the water that is in it.

Brother Admin:
I respect your views. However, may I request you to please attest to any of the below statements which will clear your point of view – I believe there cannot be anymore statements on this subject then the ones mentioned below:

1) The statement provided regarding Imam is not from Imam
2) The statement provided regarding Imam is from Imam
3) I don’t know if that statement was from Imam
4) I do not want to comment

[Valani]

Brother tret:

Luckily my search took me to this page which apprently have that letter of Aga Khan III - hand written, presented to the court in testimony of Khoja Case (it was not Haji Bibi case), but unfortunately i am not able to download the content you might be:

http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/15497

Brother Admin:
Can you help by explaining how to download the above document from your site?

kind regards
Valani

[nuseri]

To Vallani:Ya Ali Madad.

I wish to know that below words are mentioned in Quran by Allah.
'Imam E Mubeen'.
What does it mean?
Your answer wii tell wheter you are worthy enough to be on this website.
You are justing posting shit and innocent Tariqtis, who themeselves may be not yet blessed with Haqiqati Imaan are toying with you.
Please post on Ismails of today n MHI.
AND NOT SOME JACKASS qalander.

Allah has guided whom to follow in clear and simple arabic.

[fayaz006]

Brother Fayyaz006
Let us first analyse what is the meanings of “physical proof”.

Physical = something related to body, related to things perceived though senses

Proof = an evidence, an argument, or a fact

Physical proof = an evidence/argument/fact related to body or something that can be perceived through senses

In light of above definition (I hope you agree with the definition), would you like to rephrase your statement “for me there are plenty of physical proofs that God exists”. To me God can never be proven by a physical proof but a philosophical argument i.e. because of this this and this God exists. Do you agree? (the miracles performed by various prophets of Allah could perhaps be classified as physical proofs but that time is gone perhaps)r

Your last sentence, please read it again carefully; do you agree that the two statements you are making are contradicting each other?
I believe I have made my point here and I conclude my arguments on this.

Fayyaz006 wrote:
I think some men have reached God with their intellect, men like Newton, Einstein, ibn Sina, ibn Rushd. They all figured out a major aspect of some of God's physicall laws.

Brother Fayyaz006:
Brother, again this is your opinion or belief that is without a physical proof. Sorry, that I am repeating this but please allow me to write that our belief (faith without proof) plays a great role in our lives and we, despite that we try hard, can perhaps never, come out of its grip. We will always end up with believing in something and not believing in something despite that nothing has been proven to us physically. “Sun” and “Moon” on the other hand are physical proofs of existence of these bodies, and a person who denies their existence will only be considered a lunatic….. Do you agree now?

Valani we are arguing about how we percieve God. As a scientist I understand some of the laws of "Nature" (God). Ie Gravity, Em forces etc etc. Point i am trying to make is every thing that you see or perceive with your senses is bound by some "Natural Law" or "God's Law". A simple example would be the earth will never take more than 366 days to rotate around the sun. Both bodies are bound by laws that they must obey. The celestial stars will die once they start producing heavy metals, it is a law that the smallest of the stars and the largest of the stars must obey. They have no choice. This kind of order for me and other people is a proof of God. As per the Quran those proofs are every where around you and Quran asks you to perceive them.

We can go on and on about this topic but i dont believe this is the proper thread for it. Islam demands rationality from its followers not blind faith.
Read Surat al Nahi (Bee) about the physical proofs of God. Faith cannot be blind otherwise it fails. Just like yours did in Ismailism, If your faith was not grounded in facts about Ismailism, it had to fail sooner or later.