Assalamu-aleikum wa-rehmetullahi wa-barakatoh,
Ya Ali Madad!
I need help regarding Ismailism, and if anyone here could help, I would be in extreme debt to them.
I was born into a Sunni family, and later became a Twelver. In Sunnism, I could not understand how our shariah and sufism combined, they seemed two totally different things. After studying Sunni hadith and the Qur'an, not only did I realize that Imam Ali (AS) had been appointed by our beloved Prophet (AS), but that the Ahlul'bayt were of a special nature, of the light of aql for which sake this very world was created. Finally in Shi'asm, the zahir and batin beliefs made sense, and were in conjunction.
But now I realize, that the Imams (AS) after Imam Jaffir (AS) were in some ways, different from the previous ones. Also, Twelver scholarly culture has become scholar worship, and we assign infallibility to mere scholars. The Twelfth Imam (AS), who many historians do not even believe exists, is also a point of contention for me.
So many of this was going through my head, and I had read about Ismailism from the start of my studies in Shiasm, but thought that the line of the Aga Khan (AS) broke in around three places (between Muhammad ibn Ismail and the founder of the Fatimid dynasty, after Imam Nizar, and after the destruction of Alamut by the Mongols), but now I am less suspicious of that (though I would like if someone could explain those three parts of Ismaili history to me). After, researching Ismailism more, I had a dream with the Aga Khan IV (AS). I will not give the details, but He told me He would guide me to the truth.
I understand Ismailism and the figure that the Imam (AS) plays into it, that He is infallible, that the world exists merely for His sake, that His soul has been incarnated thousands times in human form, that He is the light of Aql that binds us all to Allah, that exists in every animal, plant, and living creature. These are not the things I question, in fact I believed in this Ismaili conception of the Imamate even when I was a Twelver (which many Twelvers probably thought I was a ghulat/extremist for). This is not what I am questioning or arguing about, rather it is if the line of the Ismaili Aga Khan (AS) is unbroken (or if it is broken, can it be justified?), and if he has the right to abrogate shariah (I am inclined to believe this), and if all the Imams (AS) recorded were infallible, even the more controversial ones like Imam al-Hakim (AS).
In both Sunni and Twelver hadith, there is a tradition that states that if one walks towards Allah, He will run towards them. So, I have come to walk to Allah by asking if you will answer my questions, and I can only pray that you will. Is anyone here willing to help me?
Personal questioning regarding Ismailism
Re: Personal questioning regarding Ismailism
Wa Alaykum Salaam Ahlan wa Salanmabus wrote: I understand Ismailism and the figure that the Imam (AS) plays into it, that He is infallible, that the world exists merely for His sake, that His soul has been incarnated thousands times in human form, that He is the light of Aql that binds us all to Allah, that exists in every animal, plant, and living creature. These are not the things I question, in fact I believed in this Ismaili conception of the Imamate even when I was a Twelver (which many Twelvers probably thought I was a ghulat/extremist for). This is not what I am questioning or arguing about, rather it is if the line of the Ismaili Aga Khan (AS) is unbroken (or if it is broken, can it be justified?), and if he has the right to abrogate shariah (I am inclined to believe this), and if all the Imams (AS) recorded were infallible, even the more controversial ones like Imam al-Hakim (AS).
Ya Ali Madad,
Yes the line of Imamat is unbroken. It is our belief that the world cannot exist without the Imam. It is the Shia belief that the Imam interprets and contextualizes the faith and we believe that the Shariah evolves according to times. It is not anchored to a specific period and it is the Imam's role to prescribe the Shariah according to the conditions.
It is also our belief that the Imam is Masum (pure and infallible) and that he does not need to follow the Shariah to purify himself and hence he is not bound by the Shariah like any other human being. Imam's actions are not to be judged according to human standards because their role is different and unique. Hence all Imams are pure.
The following is an excerpt from Nasiruddin Tusi's 'Paradise of Submission' which illuminates the concept of Imamat.
$375] But, relatively speaking and [according to the
saying], 'Through an appearance [of the Imam] which is relative to the
people [in the realms], not a real manifestation in his essence,' he
has a kind of appearance in each of these realms [of relative being]
for the sake of [sustaining] their existence. For if he did not make
an appearnce and cast a glance upon each of these realms, and if each
of these realms did not have some relation and connection with him,
they would have no existence at all. Thus, in this respect, in terms
of relativity, he has been and always will be manifest in this world.
It is from this perspective [the Imam appears as] both father and son,
sometimes a child and sometimes an old man, and so forth.
[$376] Anyone who reasons to himself that the Imam - may salutations
ensue upon mention of him - should act according to the prescriptions
of the founder of the religious law in order to be Imam, and in order
to be impeccable (ma'sum), that he should adhere to the canons of
ascetic piety and holy chastity which ordinary people consider to be
piety and chastity, [such a person] can be numbered among those who
are described, when discussions about human intelligence are broached,
as [possessing] 'such denial, such devilry, which resembles reason,
but is not reason. Such a person does not have even an iota of
understanding regarding the condition of the Imamate.
[$377] When such people witness the behaviour and actions of the Imam -
may salutations ensue upon mention of him - they become delirious,
thinking these to be terrible transgressions, uttering things 'whereby
the heavens are almost torn asunder'(19: 90). For the Imam - may
salutations ensue upon mention of him - exercise his judgement in a
manner that is beyond the comprehension of mankind. Therefore, only
that person of whom it can be said that, 'The believer has been
created from [the light of]God, and when God orders him something, he
will recognise it, will be able to disclose this mystery by the light
of his primordial conscience (nur-i-fitrat). Such a person knows,
beyond any shadow of doubt or suspicion, that it is the truth which
follows the Imam, not the Imam who has to follow the truth. This is
because the Imam is the lord of truth(Khudavind-i haqq). and his will
and desire have no need to be justified or motivated by any secondary
cause, because from his perspective, the cause, the caused and the
causation are all the same.
[$378] Similarly, such a person will understand that [the Imam] is
truthful in essence (muhiqq-i bi-dhat), such that all those who become
adepts in truth have been vouchsafed their truthfulness through his
influence and grace. All that the worldly folk deem to be truth, when
he declares it false, they also apprehend it to be false; and all that
the world regards as false, when he declares it to be truth, they
consider it to be true. Thus, it is the Imam who is the index of truth
(nishan-i haqq) in every situation and time, not his [transient] words
and deeds. They consider truth without him as infidelity (kufr), and
to set it [i.e. truth] besides him as polytheism (shirk). By this
means, such a person can attain to the supreme height [of
understanding] which is the abode of the most advanced adepts
(sabiqin). However, as for the one of whom it is said that 'the
infidel is created from the sins committed by the believer,' he will
fall into everlasting nothingness and eternal humiliation due to his
own obstinacy, denial and opposition to the Imam. We seek refuge from
this in God.(Paradise of Submission, pg. no. 129)
If you are interested, I will send you a chapter of one of my books on the proofs for Imam Ismail's Imamah and a refutation of Twelver arguments. Since PMs don't work on this forum you can e-mail me at [email protected].
On the shari'ah side, the shari'ah itself was primarily a creation of the Umayyads. Umayyad jurists used ra'y (personal opinion) and qiyas (analogy) in making their rulings until the time of the caliphate of 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-Aziz, who began to lay emphasis on Qur'an and sunnah and demand of jurists that they rule on the basis of legal evidence rather then personal opinion or the tradition of a geographic school of law. Shari'ah, therefore, does not exist as a set of eternal Divine commands. It is a means of expressing certain religious and spiritual truths. It is a language, like any other. When we speak of the Imams abrogating the shari'ah, what we are really speaking of is the Imams abandoning one language for another language. With Imam Hasan 'ala dhikirihi salam, he abandoned the language of shari'ah, a language of master and slave created by the Umayyads and popularized during the first and second century, in favor of a language of tariqah, a language of lover and beloved. He did not abrogate a pre-existing Divine Law. The law that was used by the Fatimids was largely a compromise between Sunni and 12er fiqh, and generally accords more closely with Sunni fiqh than it does with 12er. The "rule" in Ismailism has always been to follow the law of the land and what is customary in most cases, except in things that are spiritually harmful. The Fatimid Imams laid down a school of law that was based on existing law, just as the Prophet's law was based on a divinely sanctioned compromise between existing Arab custom and Jewish law, and some new modifications. He did not come with a totally new system of law from heaven, but rather reformed existing law in the Arabian peninsula. The Umayyads did the same thing, and the Fatimids did the same with what the Umayyads had done. None of it had any eternality or essentiality to it, which is why it was dispensed with so easily by Imam Hasan II.
As such, since there was never any shari'ah to begin with, there is no problem with making changes in it, so long as it is the Imam who makes the changes. The reason for this is that the Imam *of the age* has to decide about the *language of the age* and what is the best way to express the eternal truths of the religion. Should they be expressed through the rituals of shari'ah (master/slave), or through the rituals of tariqah (lover/beloved)? Should something allowed by local custom (like drinking alcohol) be accepted, or should it be forbidden because it is spiritually harmful (which it is)? It works like that.
As far as the hidden Imams, the Qur'an makes clear there is always an Imam, and so it fills the gaps in itself. Allah says to the Prophet: "Indeed you are but a Prophet, and to every people there is a guide." (13:7) Therefore, there is always a guide, whether it be an actual Imam (Imam Mustaqarr), or a Pir entrusted with Imamah (Imam Mustawda') who represents the Imam. It is not like the 12er case where the Imam simply vanishes and leaves the community to figure out everything on their own, thereby nullifying any point in sending the Prophets and Imams to begin with, since no subsequent generations will have access to the truth.
On the shari'ah side, the shari'ah itself was primarily a creation of the Umayyads. Umayyad jurists used ra'y (personal opinion) and qiyas (analogy) in making their rulings until the time of the caliphate of 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-Aziz, who began to lay emphasis on Qur'an and sunnah and demand of jurists that they rule on the basis of legal evidence rather then personal opinion or the tradition of a geographic school of law. Shari'ah, therefore, does not exist as a set of eternal Divine commands. It is a means of expressing certain religious and spiritual truths. It is a language, like any other. When we speak of the Imams abrogating the shari'ah, what we are really speaking of is the Imams abandoning one language for another language. With Imam Hasan 'ala dhikirihi salam, he abandoned the language of shari'ah, a language of master and slave created by the Umayyads and popularized during the first and second century, in favor of a language of tariqah, a language of lover and beloved. He did not abrogate a pre-existing Divine Law. The law that was used by the Fatimids was largely a compromise between Sunni and 12er fiqh, and generally accords more closely with Sunni fiqh than it does with 12er. The "rule" in Ismailism has always been to follow the law of the land and what is customary in most cases, except in things that are spiritually harmful. The Fatimid Imams laid down a school of law that was based on existing law, just as the Prophet's law was based on a divinely sanctioned compromise between existing Arab custom and Jewish law, and some new modifications. He did not come with a totally new system of law from heaven, but rather reformed existing law in the Arabian peninsula. The Umayyads did the same thing, and the Fatimids did the same with what the Umayyads had done. None of it had any eternality or essentiality to it, which is why it was dispensed with so easily by Imam Hasan II.
As such, since there was never any shari'ah to begin with, there is no problem with making changes in it, so long as it is the Imam who makes the changes. The reason for this is that the Imam *of the age* has to decide about the *language of the age* and what is the best way to express the eternal truths of the religion. Should they be expressed through the rituals of shari'ah (master/slave), or through the rituals of tariqah (lover/beloved)? Should something allowed by local custom (like drinking alcohol) be accepted, or should it be forbidden because it is spiritually harmful (which it is)? It works like that.
As far as the hidden Imams, the Qur'an makes clear there is always an Imam, and so it fills the gaps in itself. Allah says to the Prophet: "Indeed you are but a Prophet, and to every people there is a guide." (13:7) Therefore, there is always a guide, whether it be an actual Imam (Imam Mustaqarr), or a Pir entrusted with Imamah (Imam Mustawda') who represents the Imam. It is not like the 12er case where the Imam simply vanishes and leaves the community to figure out everything on their own, thereby nullifying any point in sending the Prophets and Imams to begin with, since no subsequent generations will have access to the truth.
-
zubair_mahamood
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 6:12 pm
- Contact:
Waalykum assalam,mabus wrote:. After, researching Ismailism more, I had a dream with the Aga Khan IV (AS). I will not give the details, but He told me He would guide me to the truth.
If what you are telling is true that Aga Khan IV told you that He would guide you to the truth and if you believe in His words He will Guide you have patience.
Allah Hafiz
Assalamu-aleikum wa-rehmetullahi wa-barakatoh,
Ya Ali madad!
Thank you so much for your responses. I appreciate them beyond words. They have brought even further questions!
Brother/sister kmaherali, you stated that truth follows the Imam, and not the other way around. While I certainly see the merit of this, it brings about the question of besides the light and attraction of the soul of the true believer to his Imam, how does one logically discover the Imam?
Brother/sister sayfadeen however sent me the first chapter of his book which does call lots of Twelver scholars and beliefs into question of whether they support Ismail's and the Ismaili line's claim to the Imamate. After I read through it further I'll post my thoughts on that.
And brother/sister zubair_mahamood, regarding the dream, I was not sure if whether I could just not do anything and I would be guided, or whether I would have to work at it myself. I have always been raised believing that to get God's glory, some part of our human effort is also needed, so this is why I am here asking questions.
Regarding if the Imamate chain is unbroken, historians at around three places regard there possible breaks (after Muhammad ibn Ismail (AS) and the Fatimids, after Imam Nizar (AS), and after the destruction of Alamut). I'm not sure if this is in the chapter safyadeen sent me, I shall check soon, however, what are your opinions on this? I read that the Imamate in this case was actually broken and transferred spiritually to another individual and his descendants, which I can admit might be a possibility.
And lastly for this post, I understand that in almost all branches of Shi'asm, with the notable exception of Zaidi, the Imam has all the knowledge of the universe. In the interviews in this section, the Aga Khan IV (AS) admits to only knowing English and French fluently as well as a "splattering of Urdu", as well as being unsure of other facts. Is this some form of taqiyya? The Imam perhaps cannot reveal his knowledge in these cases? If this is so, in what cases does he reveal his knowledge?
Ya Ali madad!
Thank you so much for your responses. I appreciate them beyond words. They have brought even further questions!
Brother/sister kmaherali, you stated that truth follows the Imam, and not the other way around. While I certainly see the merit of this, it brings about the question of besides the light and attraction of the soul of the true believer to his Imam, how does one logically discover the Imam?
Brother/sister sayfadeen however sent me the first chapter of his book which does call lots of Twelver scholars and beliefs into question of whether they support Ismail's and the Ismaili line's claim to the Imamate. After I read through it further I'll post my thoughts on that.
And brother/sister zubair_mahamood, regarding the dream, I was not sure if whether I could just not do anything and I would be guided, or whether I would have to work at it myself. I have always been raised believing that to get God's glory, some part of our human effort is also needed, so this is why I am here asking questions.
Regarding if the Imamate chain is unbroken, historians at around three places regard there possible breaks (after Muhammad ibn Ismail (AS) and the Fatimids, after Imam Nizar (AS), and after the destruction of Alamut). I'm not sure if this is in the chapter safyadeen sent me, I shall check soon, however, what are your opinions on this? I read that the Imamate in this case was actually broken and transferred spiritually to another individual and his descendants, which I can admit might be a possibility.
And lastly for this post, I understand that in almost all branches of Shi'asm, with the notable exception of Zaidi, the Imam has all the knowledge of the universe. In the interviews in this section, the Aga Khan IV (AS) admits to only knowing English and French fluently as well as a "splattering of Urdu", as well as being unsure of other facts. Is this some form of taqiyya? The Imam perhaps cannot reveal his knowledge in these cases? If this is so, in what cases does he reveal his knowledge?
In the quest for the truth, involving the body, mind and soul, one soon realizes that the faculty of logic and reasoning is not sufficient to arrive at the ultimate truth and that there is a need to transcend it through external help or a guide. Nasirudin Tusi in his spiritual autobiography "Contemplation and Action" relates his journey and how he arrived at the need for the Perfect Teacher who would provide the talim (instruction) to attain the truth. I would recommend that you read it. It does provide a comprehensive understanding of the need for talim in the spiritual journey.mabus wrote: Brother/sister kmaherali, you stated that truth follows the Imam, and not the other way around. While I certainly see the merit of this, it brings about the question of besides the light and attraction of the soul of the true believer to his Imam, how does one logically discover the Imam?
The line of Imamat can never be broken. If you go to the site map of this website on the left of this windoe, there is a link to Ismaili History. Click on it and you will get to the history section giving account of all the Imams. If you have any questions regarding what you read, please raise them here.mabus wrote: Regarding if the Imamate chain is unbroken, historians at around three places regard there possible breaks (after Muhammad ibn Ismail (AS) and the Fatimids, after Imam Nizar (AS), and after the destruction of Alamut). I'm not sure if this is in the chapter safyadeen sent me, I shall check soon, however, what are your opinions on this? I read that the Imamate in this case was actually broken and transferred spiritually to another individual and his descendants, which I can admit might be a possibility.
The last two Imams have also claimed that they are the direct descendants of the Prophet.
The following is an excerpt from Nasirudin Tusi's "Paradise of Submission" containg statements of Imam Hassan Ala Zikrihis Salaam on continuation of Imamat.
[§355] On the Imam and his offspring, quoted from the holy words of [Imam Hasan] 'aid dhikrihi al-salam"
Know that this Imamate is a reality [which] will never cease, change or be altered. It will continue forever to be transmitted through the progeny of our lords (mawdlina). It will never leave them, whether in form, meaning or reality. With regard to the situation of others [from the Imam's family], each of them enjoys a connection to our lord in a different fashion. One of them, like Salman, is related [to the Imam] in his interior reality (ma'nd) rather then his external appearance (shakl), [i.e., their kinship is purely spiritual, not physical]. [Thus, the Prophet said of him], 'Salman is one of us [our family].'108 Another, such as Musta'li,109 is connected to him merely in his external appearance without any relation to his interior reality. Another is connected to him both in external appearance and interior reality, like our lord Hasan. Still another takes after him in external appearance [and] in interior reality, while being in his proper reality actually him, like our lords Husayn and 'Ali.
This is because human beings are necessarily divided into three groups: the followers of the exoteric (ahl-i zdhir), the followers of the esoteric (ahl-i bdtin), and the followers of truth (ahl-i haqiqat).110 For the followers of the exoteric, the Imam must be, in external reality, the son of the Imam, in order that visible formal appearance of the external physical world remain as it is. [For the followers of the esoteric], it is also necessary that the Imam be the son of the Imam in the esoteric sense (hi hukm-i ma'nd wa bdtin) and in terms of the existence proper to the spiritual world ('dlam-i rithdni), so that the existence of the esoteric realm may be perpetuated, and the realm of the spiritual world be continued. [But for the followers of truth], truth dictates (bi hukm-i haqiqat) that the Imam must exist as himself in person, so that, effectively, real existence (wujiid-i haqiqi) may continue. This is because, in the same manner that absolute Reality requires that there be real existence, so spiritual existence is required by the inward esoteric dimension. Similarly, just as the existence of the interior and ideal realm (kawn-i bdtin) is necessitated by the inward esoteric dimension, so the existence of the exoteric realm (kawn-i zdhir) is required by the dictates of the outward exoteric dimension.
[§356] Another extract from the holy words of [the Imam Hasan] 'aid dhikrihi al-saldm:
If mankind knew what the Imamate is, no one would have entertained doubts such as these. If only they had realised that mutability cannot exist without some immutable [central] point, just as the circumference [cannot exist] without the centre point. For everything that rotates or moves requires a cause for its rotation and movement, and the moving force in relation to the object which rotates or moves must be stable and perfect, in order to be able to spin or move it. This is why it has been said [in the Gospels]: 'Heaven and earth will change, but the commandment of the Sabbath will never be altered.'111 This means that while the Prophets and the hujjats may change - at one time this one, at another time that one, at one time in this community, at another time in that - the Imam will never change: 'We are the people of eternity.'112 [The essential nature of the Imarn will never change], even when he is a drop of sperm in the loins of his father, or [a foetus] in the womb of his mother. It is a total impossibility to suppose that the true Imam could cease to exist, and the case of the acting (mustawda) Imam such as our lord Hasan [b. 'All], could be any different.113 In reality, it is impossible for any past or future Imam to be better or more powerful than another, or to be better at one time than at another time. For example, it is wrong to suppose that he should be better when he reaches maturity than when he was a drop of sperm, or better when the designation (nass) was made than before it was made. The designation which is made is not in order to make him an Imam; it is only made so that people should recognise him as such - otherwise, from his standpoint and perspective, all such different states are one and the same. Such is the case because a perfect man (kamill) must always exist amongst God's creatures in order to raise those who are incomplete and deficient to a state of perfection. Even if you assume that he is not that person [the perfect man], there would still have to be someone else. For, if each imperfect soul needs a more perfect soul [to perfect it], and the more perfect soul, [in its turn], needs an even more perfect one, and in the final case, [the chain] must terminate with the perfect man who does not need anybody else, and through whose instruction [all others] may reach perfection. Such a perfect man is a logical necessity and the matter must ultimately finish there [with him].
Imam does not reveal the esoteric dimension of his nature to everyone. It has to be according to the capacity of the audience. He reveals it sometimes in his Farmans (commands) to his followers. He also reveals it to individual momins at a personal level.mabus wrote: The Imam perhaps cannot reveal his knowledge in these cases? If this is so, in what cases does he reveal his knowledge?