Christmas and Ismailis
Ismaili Muslims have always had a good relationship with Christians, especially since quite a handful of them are established in predominantly Christian countries. This relationship comes with an understanding that Christians are Ahl al Kitab, People of the Book, and are part of the history and faith of Islam. So Ismailis and the general Muslim Umma does not have any animosity toward their Christian brothers, on the contrary we try to build bridges with them based on common values.
Growing up in the western world, first generation Ismailis and second generation Ismailis have been brought up feeling that Christmas is a cultural tradition of the Western world. This has been further fuelled by Western schools giving children the impression that Christmas time is a time of excitement and magic. During that time schools give legitimacy to Christmas more than any other religious holiday. They place in the minds of children that Christmas is a legitimate holiday in which the society, government, and teachers are all in agreement with. They place that time as a break time from school, a time to watch special movies that the children love, to go to concerts and sing Christmas songs. Characters such as Santa Claus and the hope for presents excite children into believing that they will be given the gift they have always hoped for; that somehow a fat man from the North Pole will visit them and if they are good they will be rewarded with gifts.
That is a time that children remember seeing family and friends together because the government has given them, in many respects, a paid holiday. Seeing gifts, being with cousins, friends, and relatives. Seeing everybody relaxed, perhaps going on vacation, enjoying special food and sing a longs, what kid would not think that Christmas is their favourite time of the year?
This is a blatant attempt by the Christian world to disregard Muslim and Jewish holidays. The governments in Canada, United States, and the UK don’t recognized Idd or Hanukah on the same level as Christmas. More importantly, they are not given public holidays, especially the length at which Christmas is observed. Christians have taken Christmas and turned it into a cultural tradition and non-Christians are simply slaving to such propaganda. This an attempt by Christians to weasel Christianity to the masses, while brainwashing children to believe in Santa Claus, Frosty the Snowman, and Jack Frost. Sugar coat that with a paid holiday and time off of school and any child will feel Christianity is more legitimate than Idd or Hanukah.
I appeal to Ismailis to refrain from observing Christmas traditions in all forms including Christmas dinners, parties, and family get togethers. We are not Christians and we are making a fool of ourselves by wearing Christmas costumes, exchanging gifts, and going out to Christmas parties. We are encouraging Christmas, and we are encouraging Christians to put Idd and Hanukah down. The Christians do not observe Idd or Hanukah, why are we being slaves to their religion and traditions?
Christmas is a religious holiday marking the birth of Jesus Christ and ending, in many denominations, with gift giving. This gift giving has, especially for Catholics, its roots in the Christian world that we accept their religion’s dominance over ours and we give our children the impression that Christmas is better, in many respects, to Muslim or Jewish holidays. I include Jewish holidays because all three religions are monotheistic, they are brothers in the Islamic point of view. That doesn’t mean that by building bridges we end up crossing them to make the Christians think that we are building friendships.
Christians think Muslims and Jews are fools. They have successfully integrated their New Years and Christmas holiday throughout the world. They have masked the religious aspect by making it seem that Christmas is just a holiday season when in fact it is a religious observance. Just look around and see the nativity pictures and models of Jesus Christ sitting in a manger, is that something that Muslims and Jews prepare in their homes?
Just look at the Christmas carols our children have to sing in schools. Songs like Silent Night, Holy Night, Christ the Lord, Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer, I’ll be Home for Christmas. How come during Idd they don’t take the children to the halls and sing Silent Night, Holy Night the day the Prophet Mohammad was born or Moses was born? What about singing Allah the Lord or Yahweh the Lord? I’m not even going to legitimise Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer. But at least we can substitute Rudolph, Frosty the Snowman, Jack Frost, and Scrooge with real characters in history. Characters that gave their lives for justice and peace in religion.
The Christians will look at that and say we are taking this issue too seriously. These characters were created to give magic to children, to open their minds to the wonders of the world. What wonders of the world are you creating by duping children into believing that a fat man who lives eternally in the North Pole, flies with reindeer (mind you one has a glowing red nose), flies all over the world and gives gifts to children? He has elves as helpers and he has an unlimited budget. What is so wondrous by telling children that a snowman can come to life by simply placing a hat on his head. What is so wondrous by convincing children that Scooge and the Grinch are evil characters because they don’t believe in Christmas. This is their propaganda.
This is all a cover up to hide their true intentions which is to make Muslims and Jews convert to Christianity. But legitimising the holiday, brainwashing the children, masking the religious aspect with parties and family get togethers they have successfully brainwashed non-Chirstians into following their religion and their way of life. Non-Christians are bringing home trees, giving out gifts. They are even changing the names of their children to Jimmy, Betty, Johnny, so somehow make their jobs more secure in the eyes of their Christian bosses. Since the Christians don’t do the same for our Idd or Hanukah, that means we are acting as slaves and submitting to their religion.
Too many Ismailis are observing Christmas at home with family and friends. Many Christmas trees can be seen nowadays in Ismaili homes. This phenomenon is growing and must be stopped. During Kushali, the Imam’s birthday, we don’t see Ismailis putting on such enthusiasm, such showmanship, such excitement as in Christmas. We don’t take two week holiday. We don’t take two weeks to teach our children about the importance of Imamat. We don’t have special dinners as elaborate as Christmas eve and Christmas day. We don’t even take the time to be proud of the Imam and enjoy the fact that we have him in our lives. We don’t take vacations and set an example to our children that Kushali is an important holiday for us.
Ismailis must observe Kushali, December 13th, as their main holiday. Along with this the other observance should be Imamat day, July 11th. Those are our special holidays. Those are the days we ought to celebrate. We should take our holidays during those two times. We should decorate our homes and cook special food. We should make special food and send it to Jamat Khane and let it auction for a good price. Let that money be a gift to the Imam. Take also a monetary gift and submit it on the day of Kushali and Imamat day. At least that way the money, in the form of a gift, is reaching the Imam of the time. Take time to sit with your children and explain to them how important the Imam is in our lives. Teach them the centrality of the Imamat in our religion. Have a party, invite family and friends. Especially invite Christians to your party and tell them with pride that this is the birth of your Christ, this is the birth of your Saviour, this is the day of happiness for you. Tell them openly and clearly your love for the Imam. Don’t be their slaves, don’t compromise your religion for theirs. Teach them that Ismailism is much more liberal and free than Christianity could ever be. We don’t have a dichotomy between the material and spiritual world. We don’t have a conflict between religion and science. Our religion is a natural religion. Science is a part of understanding our faith and the creation which was here before anyone was born. Teach them the links between their faith and ours.
If we do this, my Ismaili brothers, then I believe we will do some justice for our religion and it will benefit the Muslim Umma and the Jewish faith as well. We want equality in faith. We don’t accept that only Christmas is given such support by the government. We want equal rights as the Christians. Let Idd and Hanukah have equal holiday observance as Christmas. Let all three monotheistic religions celebrate together. Let the spirit of one God be a spirit we all share.
Go into government and fight for equal rights for Muslim and Jewish holidays. Let the Hindus, Buddists also join the struggle for equal rights along with us. Fight for equal teaching of the Quran and Torah in schools. Fight for Christmas carols along with Muslim and Jewish religious songs. Fight for education in all monotheistic religions. This is our right, this good for our children, and this will bring peace among the three religions which after all are brothers in faith and children of Abraham.
Sincerely,
Samir Noorali
Christmas and Ismailis
The important point is to first define "Bida" and describe it in a manner that makes it clear what it includes and what it excludes...
Bida is a wilful interference with the existing Ismaili practice or belief that we have and which is effected by means of adding or removing something from our own "sharia"...
If the given "innovation" has nothing to do with our own practice and values but is rather derived from sharing the happiness of the tradition or customs of our neighbours or colleagues or countryman whose hospitality we all so much enjoy and cherish because we prefer to live amongst them and with them and in their country, then it is not "Bida"...
The legality of the action depends upon the premise whether our sharia permits or forbids us to build bridges and share in the happiness of the people around us and share a common humanity and respect their beliefs....people commonly resort to "innovations" in matters of housing or clothings or food and in the present times one may easily witness radical transformations in the way we all live and eat and dress or recreate and so all of this in a literal sense may amount to "Bida" but again may not have any relation with Bida in the shariati sense...
What is wrong with celebrating the birthday of Jesus who is our Prophet also as we accept all Prophets if we have no qualms about celebrating the birthday of Muhamad SAW or the Imams or our own for that matter
Why can't we also celebrate the birthday of Jesus though we do not have to as it is entirely an individual choice?
How does this violate any sharia rules? let me give another example to you...many consider intermingling of improperly dressed men and women at gatherings in public places as haram but those who gather are not claiming what they are doing is religiously permitted to them nor do they make any felicitous claims connecting any religious beliefs to it...so it is not Bida in the true sense...
If a nation decides that a specified day is a holiday but does not impose on all people that it is a religious obligation for all to celebrate, then the entire issue must be seen from a different angle altogether....
If ismailis were to celebrate Christmas claiming that this was a religious obligation for them to do so then perhaps you have a point that it must stop but such is NOT the case...otherwise it is like any other "innovation" we all enjoy in the fields of art, sports, culture work, dressing, food etc etc....
The Prophet of Islam has said that Moses and Jesus were his brothers and that he is related to them.....
Now you explain to me why so many muslims are waiting for the second return of Jesus? if naboowat was sealed with Muhamad SAW and if muslims claim that Jesus was only a Prophet and not the Son of God, then in what capacity will he return? and why?
Bida is a wilful interference with the existing Ismaili practice or belief that we have and which is effected by means of adding or removing something from our own "sharia"...
If the given "innovation" has nothing to do with our own practice and values but is rather derived from sharing the happiness of the tradition or customs of our neighbours or colleagues or countryman whose hospitality we all so much enjoy and cherish because we prefer to live amongst them and with them and in their country, then it is not "Bida"...
The legality of the action depends upon the premise whether our sharia permits or forbids us to build bridges and share in the happiness of the people around us and share a common humanity and respect their beliefs....people commonly resort to "innovations" in matters of housing or clothings or food and in the present times one may easily witness radical transformations in the way we all live and eat and dress or recreate and so all of this in a literal sense may amount to "Bida" but again may not have any relation with Bida in the shariati sense...
What is wrong with celebrating the birthday of Jesus who is our Prophet also as we accept all Prophets if we have no qualms about celebrating the birthday of Muhamad SAW or the Imams or our own for that matter
Why can't we also celebrate the birthday of Jesus though we do not have to as it is entirely an individual choice?
How does this violate any sharia rules? let me give another example to you...many consider intermingling of improperly dressed men and women at gatherings in public places as haram but those who gather are not claiming what they are doing is religiously permitted to them nor do they make any felicitous claims connecting any religious beliefs to it...so it is not Bida in the true sense...
If a nation decides that a specified day is a holiday but does not impose on all people that it is a religious obligation for all to celebrate, then the entire issue must be seen from a different angle altogether....
If ismailis were to celebrate Christmas claiming that this was a religious obligation for them to do so then perhaps you have a point that it must stop but such is NOT the case...otherwise it is like any other "innovation" we all enjoy in the fields of art, sports, culture work, dressing, food etc etc....
The Prophet of Islam has said that Moses and Jesus were his brothers and that he is related to them.....
Now you explain to me why so many muslims are waiting for the second return of Jesus? if naboowat was sealed with Muhamad SAW and if muslims claim that Jesus was only a Prophet and not the Son of God, then in what capacity will he return? and why?
Samirnoorali is right
What samirnoor ali is saying does make alot of sense. The governement in north america and its schools have lost hope o­n Adults because they can not influence them in believing in that fat guy with fake white beard , so they have put all their time and efforts on little innocent children making them believe in that fat guy with fake white beard .We have no geovernment holidays o­n Eid which is celebrated by a masse of candians especially ismailis . Why would ismailis go to christmas partys dinners and family reunions. We can make bridges but we can not pass them.. Samirnoorali has elaborated a very thoughtfull article which many of us missed big time .
Changewhatever,
I do not miss a point...I weigh as many variables as is possible ...Blaming society makes it awfully easy for a person of weak character to shrug off his own responsibility...As the Quran states: "God created male and female and made you into communities and tribes, so that you may know one another." (49.13) It is our differences that both define us and connect us....now if one acts with bigotry and arrogance, how can he or she interact?
There is one quality which brings prosperity and health to any community in which it is present; but without it, the community will crumble into the
chaos of hatred, envy, ill-feeling and dissension....and actually that is what you are propagating and wishing for the Ismailis....how do you know that other muslims do not also participate? how many of them live in the western world? how many of them work for Christian or Jewish employers? and so why do you only point at the Ismailis, if I may ask? why not the others?
That quality which I am talking about, is the collective ability to live in tolerance of others: and its benefits are as essential for Muslim
societies as for any others....now do you know why Islam is in turbulence generally speaking?
History has taught over and over again that one of the greatest behavioral
weaknesses of human beings is ignorance of their own faults.
In many instances human beings try to ignore this unwanted quality; but such avoidance only results in self-destruction, killing their spirit of morality.
Many people thus become victims of their own inclinations and
isolate themselves from happiness.
It is only through self- reflection that we come to understand how ill-mannered and egotistical behaviour can lead us into misery and danger.
Acknowledging our weaknesses, on the other hand, helps us to eradicate unwanted traits and accentuate the positive ones.
Thus if we want to purify the mirror of the soul, we must begin by conducting a basic purification of our manners.
I do not miss a point...I weigh as many variables as is possible ...Blaming society makes it awfully easy for a person of weak character to shrug off his own responsibility...As the Quran states: "God created male and female and made you into communities and tribes, so that you may know one another." (49.13) It is our differences that both define us and connect us....now if one acts with bigotry and arrogance, how can he or she interact?
There is one quality which brings prosperity and health to any community in which it is present; but without it, the community will crumble into the
chaos of hatred, envy, ill-feeling and dissension....and actually that is what you are propagating and wishing for the Ismailis....how do you know that other muslims do not also participate? how many of them live in the western world? how many of them work for Christian or Jewish employers? and so why do you only point at the Ismailis, if I may ask? why not the others?
That quality which I am talking about, is the collective ability to live in tolerance of others: and its benefits are as essential for Muslim
societies as for any others....now do you know why Islam is in turbulence generally speaking?
History has taught over and over again that one of the greatest behavioral
weaknesses of human beings is ignorance of their own faults.
In many instances human beings try to ignore this unwanted quality; but such avoidance only results in self-destruction, killing their spirit of morality.
Many people thus become victims of their own inclinations and
isolate themselves from happiness.
It is only through self- reflection that we come to understand how ill-mannered and egotistical behaviour can lead us into misery and danger.
Acknowledging our weaknesses, on the other hand, helps us to eradicate unwanted traits and accentuate the positive ones.
Thus if we want to purify the mirror of the soul, we must begin by conducting a basic purification of our manners.
North America and Europe is predominantly Christian while Muslim, Jews or other non Christians are minorities. Since these regions are socially democratic (not necessarily politically as well)…means the majority should make the rules for the benefits and convenience for the majority with certain exceptions and guidelines for minorities’ rights as well...so is the situation in most Muslim countries, India, China...etc.
I celebrate Christmas for two reasons, one, it is the commemoration of the birth of Hazrat Issa (AS), The Prophet of God and Christmas brings family and friends together and gift exchanging promotes love and brotherhood. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) also encouraged gatherings and giving gifts for the same reasons…
I celebrate Christmas for two reasons, one, it is the commemoration of the birth of Hazrat Issa (AS), The Prophet of God and Christmas brings family and friends together and gift exchanging promotes love and brotherhood. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) also encouraged gatherings and giving gifts for the same reasons…
As for as Santa…it’s just a fairy tale for kids, just like in any culture there is something…to mesmerize them with magical feelings of Holiday Season and winter…I think, nobody is pushing him onto them. There is an article about it in Ottawa Citizen:
http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/st ... 784f007bbe
http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/st ... 784f007bbe
After the Christians, if anyone is close to Jesus then it is the muslims ! Muslims have no dispute whatsoever with Jesus of History for Jesus and Muhamad (peace be upon them both) both brought the same message and teachings !
Muhamad Ata ur Rahim writes...
"some believe Jesus was a man...some believe he was God whilst others consider him a myth...but who and what was Jesus?
For some it is an irrefutable and established dogma...for some it is a vast corpse of contradictory metaphysical fiction...whilst for others it is a "mask" on the face of Jesus bearing NOTHING to his original teachings. So what and where in the religion of Jesus known as Christianity?.."
Muhamad Ata ur Rahim takes TS Elliot's statement that Christianity is always adapting itself into something which "can be believed", a step further by arguing that the whole philosophy of the "Pauline" church is based on "compromise by all means".
This "double think" approach has resulted in "the continued absorption of the Church into the culture and of the re-absorption of the culture into the changing structure of the Church thus allowing many people to "return to Christianity".
The question is whether this Christianity can rightly be said to represent or even resemble that which Jesus TAUGHT and LIVED ?
For centuries now the Muslim view has either been barred or denied to the readers and more so to those who profess the Christian faith....
Muhamad Ata ur Rahim writes...
"some believe Jesus was a man...some believe he was God whilst others consider him a myth...but who and what was Jesus?
For some it is an irrefutable and established dogma...for some it is a vast corpse of contradictory metaphysical fiction...whilst for others it is a "mask" on the face of Jesus bearing NOTHING to his original teachings. So what and where in the religion of Jesus known as Christianity?.."
Muhamad Ata ur Rahim takes TS Elliot's statement that Christianity is always adapting itself into something which "can be believed", a step further by arguing that the whole philosophy of the "Pauline" church is based on "compromise by all means".
This "double think" approach has resulted in "the continued absorption of the Church into the culture and of the re-absorption of the culture into the changing structure of the Church thus allowing many people to "return to Christianity".
The question is whether this Christianity can rightly be said to represent or even resemble that which Jesus TAUGHT and LIVED ?
For centuries now the Muslim view has either been barred or denied to the readers and more so to those who profess the Christian faith....
-
samirnoorali
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 1:18 pm
Hypnotized by the West
Hypnotized by the West
I would like to thank change786 for supporting and understanding the article that was written called Christmas and Ismailis. I think you understood the message I was trying to convey: that building bridges is good but that doesn’t mean we should cross them.
Unfortunately in this world there many instances of people, from various countries, who view the western world as “God’s gift to mankind,” and are hypnotized into believing that whatever the western world says is always right.
Take Canada for example. Spend two hours watching Newsworld and note how many times Barack Obama or something in the United States is mentioned. Now take two hours and watch CNN. How many times do the Americans mention Steven Harper, Hosni Mubarak, or Kalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan?
Some Americans when asked don’t even know where Canada is! Take another example. When Barack Obama was sworn in as President Newsworld covered it from beginning to end. When Steven Harper was elected to office CNN was covering a segment on finding Osama bin Laden. What is the point being made here? That Americans are not overly concerned about Canadians or Canadian politics unless it is somehow going to threaten their “national interests,” but Canadians don’t mind to constantly cover Barrack Obama or American politics.
What does this mean? Go into the streets and see how many youth wear “I love New York” t-shirts or New York hats. Oh, it is “cool” to wear New York hats and to say I love New York in Canada, but how many people in New York say “I love Quebec City” or wear hats with the logo of the Calgary Flames?
The point being made is that we are frivolously in love with Americans and their beliefs. We love watching their movies, we love admiring Britney Spears, Shaggy, and the rest. Even our own entertainers such as Jim Carrey is Canadian, but how many Americans acknowledge that? What about Shania Twain, shocking southern Americans that she’s not from the Unites States, she’s not southern, she’s from a mixed heritage, and lo and behold she’s Canadian!
Our recent recession did not start off as a global recession, but it was essentially triggered by an American recession. When America fell it had a domino effect which sent the world into frenzy. All eyes were on Barack Obama’s speech, what is he going to say, what can he do to turn things around, what is his plan? Why Barrack Obama? Why do we have to wait hand and foot to see what America is going to do? Why are we so dependent on them? Because we are essentially slaves to Americanization.
Americans speak of democracy because they truly believe that it was their forefathers who invented the concept. They believe, to a certain extent, that democracy is the ideal model or “holy grail” for which all of mankind should base themselves on. If democracy is so good, then why doesn’t Queen Elizabeth step down from her position as Sovereign and take a job as a cashier at Walmart? What about Canada? Are we a true democracy? If so, why don’t we have a model similar to the United States? Why a Prime Minister and not a President? Lest we forget that Canada has a Governor General and many Lieutenant Governors? Remember that Queen Elizabeth is still our Sovereign, her face is on the money.
How many times do we hear on CNN Americans pointing fingers at other countries blaming their elections to be full of fraud and corruption. Wasn’t John F. Kennedy, the “King of Camelot” put to power by the Italian mob? Isn’t the United States run by the most corrupt politicians on earth who have their backing in New York or the Federal Reserve?
Americans represent to the world as being white. Let’s not fool ourselves. Let’s be open. White beauty, blond hair, lots of money, and civilized, isn’t that the root of it all? We are hypnotized by Americans. They represent good values, liberty, freedom, and sophistication. To be more like them has automatically become equated with success, money, freedom. They are gods fallen from heaven.
What is the root of it all? Christianity. Since Christianity is the predominant religion in the western world then it must be right. When some Ismailis first started coming to the United States, Canada, and the UK they had to find an identity. After many years of being in the western world we have been beguiled into equating success with total inclusion.
Some may even argue that Christmas is the birthday of Jesus Christ, and since he was a prophet then it is okay for Muslims to celebrate Christmas. Well that sounds just hunky dory! Would have been a good excuse, only that if you’re going to take that road then why are the Christians not saying since the Prophet Muhammad is the prophet of Islam we should celebrate his birthday? So it is okay to have fun, exchange gifts, party, invite family, be merry, and teach the kids about magic and wonder during Christmas, but when it is the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday we are all sitting at home watching television or finishing up a report at work? What about Eid at least? When is the last time a public school in Canada or the United States said we’re going to declare it a permanent official public holiday with pay?
As Ismaili Muslims it is important to blend in with societies, and faiths that are not ours, but that doesn’t mean we relinquish our values, our identity, our faith. Next time you meet a Christian friend tell them I don’t celebrate Christmas and see what the reaction is. Tell your employer at work, tell your non-Ismaili spouse, tell somebody completely anonymous and see what their reaction will be. At first it will seem awkward, like they think you’re Scrooge or the Grinch who stole Christmas, but after a while you’ll realize that there is something definitely different.
Difference is to be embraced, but that embrace has to go two ways. The Muslims should respect Christmas, but the Christians should respect the Prophet’s birthday too. Next time you see a Christian ask them when was the Prophet Muhammad born, will the know? Ask them, what does Islam mean, will they know that as well? Oh, but we know that Christ was born 2010 years ago, we know where Christianity came from. See the double standard?
That is why Ismailis should not celebrate Christmas, because the timing is not right. Since the Christians don’t want to acknowledge the Prophet and respect his birthday and to give us our public holiday, then we are also not going to acknowledge Jesus Christ’s birthday, no matter what, and we are not going to encourage or celebrate that particular holiday. We are going to celebrate the Prophet’s birthday, or Hazer Imam’s birthday with the same level of enthusiasm as the Christians are showing for their founder.
Most importantly stop teaching the kids that Christmas is about a time for family, gift giving, and fun. That’s the most frivolous thing a parent can do. We need to lead by example and show Ismaili children to stand up for their faith, for the love for the Imam, for their pride in Islam and the Prophet. They will exude confidence in themselves, in their beliefs. In turn they will be able to teach Christians the values that make Islam much more compatible than Christianity. After all Islam is a natural religion, it doesn’t believe in hocus pocus. It believes that the religion has to have reason, logic, and a sense of compatibility with everyday life.
We need to get off our high-horse and start standing up for our faith. This high-horse comes about when we feel that our jobs, our education, our status in society has risen to such an extent that we are above Allah, we don’t need Allah, nor does religion matter in our lives.
In just a recent article circulating in the news titled “Muslim-Baptist Marriage illustrates tolerance, faith, love” by Wendi C. Thomas we can see the results of my two articles, this one and the one on marrying non-Ismailis. In this article two people, an Ismaili and a Baptist, marry each other and present themselves as living in perfect harmony.
Ishtiaq is an Ismaili Muslim married to a woman named Toni, a southern Baptist. They got married and have a 14 month old baby boy. Throughout all this they are promoting that their marriage is wonderful despite the maintaining separate religions. They coin this peaceful co-existence under the implicit guise of “tolerance,” meanwhile they play with each other’s faith like it was a little child’s toy.
Toni seems to have no intention to become Ismaili and Ishtiaq has no intention of becoming a Christian. Yet, they have twisted both religions to bend their way rather than bend in the direction of the religion. Let’s examine further.
Toni says she goes to Church on Sundays and Ishtiaq goes to prayer on Friday nights. Here, just to be devilishly meticulous, she used the words prayer. Prayer? She acknowledged going to Church, but when it came time to explaining her husband’s place of worship she didn’t say mosque or jamat khane. Is this just simple omission of the word or does she not know the exact name of her husband’s place of worship?
What makes matters worse is that she says that Ishtiaq attends Church whenever she wants and she worships with him whenever he wants. The first question on everybody’s mind is how? These two individuals have clearly gone public with their personal information, taken a deal to air their relationship in a documentary, and prove to the world that they are an example of tolerance? How exactly does he go to Church? What does he do there? Does the minister know that a Muslim is temporarily coming to Church but doesn’t really believe in Christ? So, at Christmas time does he go and sing Christ the Lord and then in the evening recite there is no deity except Allah? What kind of mockery is this?
Take the reverse, she says in this article that she worships with him whenever he wants. Does she really? She is a bit tongue tied when it comes to saying her husband’s place of worship, does she feel comfortable to say Oh Ali, Oh Hazer Imam forgive us our sins? Does she know who she is communicating with? Does she claim she knows the Dua? How can she “worship” with him when she hasn’t given an oath of allegiance – which is an absolute prerequisite of the faith? This, my brothers and sisters, is not a game that can be manipulated the way we want. This is a matter of understanding between the individual and God. These two individuals have made a mockery of the issue and now have taken it public. What do you think the reaction will be of the Muslims at large? First, outrage at the very idea of becoming almost half Christian half Muslim. Secondly, they will not see it as a Muslim marrying a Christian, they’ll see it as an Ismaili trying to create some sort of polymorphous perverse.
Let us go even further into the article where they shockingly declared that their son had a both a Muslim and Christian dedication service. Oh, well that is just icing on the cake isn’t it! First the parents twist religions to suit their lives and now they create a child whose feet are placed in both directions. So they are saying that the baby has done a bayat to Hazer Imam, then has done a baptism in Church? That is a mockery of the most sacred act of Ismailism and Christianity.
I had warned about this becoming a problem in my last article regarding marriage to non-Ismailis. In that article I had warned that marrying Ithnasheries is okay, but the question of faith should be resolved so that the children have a clear path to follow. Now we can see Ismailis with a new ethos, coming public and declaring that they are Ismaili but they also attend Church. This is all guised under the context of tolerance, faith, and true love when in fact they have twisted the religions to suit themselves.
To them religion is a tradition, an act of ceremony, a belief system in a set of rituals. Ishtiaq said that all three major religions hold the same root, the Abrahamic faith. Well, Ishtiaq is really trying to make us believe that he is being liberal about the whole issue pointing it out that religion is “the same” in its base. This is an attempt for him to normalize the situation when in fact it is not normal at all. It is not normal because religions are not simply rituals, they have oaths of loyalty towards a particular God. The Romans were polytheists, in that they believed in many gods such as Jupiter, Mars, and Juno. Why then did they embrace Christianity and abandon their gods? What is the act of abandonment? Baptism is the act of relinquishing the past and embracing a new ideology.
When the Prophet Muhammad and Ali went into the Kaba to destroy the idols, what were they trying to achieve? They were getting rid of the old ethos and introducing the truth of one God. Why didn’t the Prophet simply say, be free in worshiping idols on Sunday and worship Allah on Fridays? Isn’t that being liberal? Isn’t that what promotes tolerance and understanding? Absolutely not.
What gets even worse is when Christmas comes along. What is Ishtiaq going to do, put up a Christmas tree and sing silent night, holy night? Is he going to invite his in-laws and pray together? Is their son, Liam, going to run down the stairs and open up gifts in the morning and then in the evening sit next to you to give a handshake in dua? What about dasond? Are these people going to place money in the Church or Jamat Khane?
What about padramni? Is Ishtiaq going to bring his wife and child into the hall in front of Hazer Imam even though they haven’t totally embraced the faith in the name of tolerance? Pretty soon there will be many like this who bring their non-Ismaili spouses to Jamat Khane without doing bayat and argue that they are being modern and liberal. You’ll get a lot of “half-half’s” running around saying that they are Christian and Muslim. This is not a racial problem, this is a matter of faith, this is a matter of loyalty. Like marriage you have to be loyal to your husband or wife. Similarly, when you do bayat or baptism you have to stay loyal to the Lord. You can’t get married to two husbands at the same time in the name of tolerance.
If religion is like a marriage then Ishtiaq and Toni are players, and not loyal at all. Ishtiaq is married to one God and then cheats with another God. Toni does the same. Now they are encouraging their son follow in their footsteps.
Bayat is like a marriage, in that you are spiritually married to one God only. You declare your loyalty to that God in complete surrender. You also acknowledge that you will not break that marriage for any other, and that is what makes it sacred and pure. Ask the Mukhis in Jamat Khane if they will allow doing a bayat knowing that the next day the child will be doing a Baptism. Let the ministers of the Church know the same. What will be their reaction? Surely the ministers will step up and say that they are being liberal, but what choice do they have? If the condemn the act outright there will be lots of protest and protest means less people to put money into the Church basket. In their point of view, accepting this phenomenon makes them look tolerant and compassionate, and they wait to see public opinion. In the article you don’t see a Mukhi’s comments about the situation. You know why? Because no Mukhi is allowed to do a bayat with the knowledge that the child will also do a baptism.
This is not a vacation where you explore each other’s country and embrace each other’s food. We are talking about a loyalty to God. Either Ishtiaq becomes Christian as well as his child or Toni and the child become Ismaili. There are no in-betweens. They are free to choose, but they cannot get a dual passport in this circumstance. What is sacred ought to be sacred otherwise there is no point in doing it.
Toni obviously doesn’t know her husband’s faith in its totality. Saying that she goes to Church on Sundays and he goes to worship on Fridays is missing the concept. He’s an Ismaili. He doesn’t go to Jamat Khane only on Fridays, he’s supposed to go every day! Not only that, but if he has no school or such obstacles during the day then it is mandatory that he also attend meditation or Baitul Khyal at night.
Will Toni be supportive of a man who comes home in the evening, puts on a volunteer uniform and heads off to Jamat Khane, then comes home, sleeps, and then wakes up to attend meditation at night? Will she be supportive when he takes out 10% out of their joint account every month to give as Dasond? What about mijlas’s that hold their own special times? Will she be tolerant if he joins a mijlas that requires him to pay even more than 10% of his earnings?
Ishtiaq and Toni are deluding themselves. Ishtiaq’s faith doesn’t require him to only go to prayer on Fridays it is mandatory that he attend every day, and that means every day she won’t get to see him when he comes home. By the time he gets back it is almost time for bed.
In this case Ishtiaq has bent the religion for the sake of his Christian wife. He’s decided not to attend Jamat Khane everyday, perhaps laxed in his dasond, and has broken the sacredness of the bayat. Why? Because of his desire to be with this women. His deep desire to be with her was more greater than the faith and he consciously knew that it was going to become difficult in matters of faith but he decided to jump in anyways.
If he jumped in then it is bad enough, but to drag the child into all this is not right at all. His child is not allowed to enter Jamat Khane without relinquishing his baptism and re-doing a bayat. The Mukhi is responsible in making sure this child does not enter jamat khane without having done this. It is a complete mess, but now the Mukhi has to sort it out.
If not then let the child become Christian. Let the child freely say to the world that his father is an Ismaili but he doesn’t believe in that faith. Now multiply this incident with hundreds if not thousands of individuals and what you have is a reduction in the membership of the Ismaili faith. Wait for the day when you enter Jamat Khane and see only the Mukhi, Kameria, and an old man way at the back, in the seniors section, dozing off to all the ceremonies. There will be hardly anybody in the faith.
Without any members there is no Zakat in the Mosques. Without members there is no Tithe in the Churches. Without members there is no Dasond in Jamat Khanes. And so the religion falls apart from within. That may not be apparent now, but if you read the article I wrote about marrying an Ithnasheri, I warned about this issue. Now you can see Ismailis publicly showing this sort of behaviour, which can have dire consequences and tear down bridges with other Muslims rather than build them.
I appeal to my brothers and sisters in faith to exercise caution when entering into marriage or having children with non-Ismailis. It would be healthier for both parties to resolve their religious differences prior to making life time commitments. I would encourage Ismailis to convert their partners to the Ismaili faith prior to marriage or to have the intention to convert while being married. Of these two options I would encourage the former rather than the latter because converting within the marriage is harder and can lead to all sorts of mistrust and even divorce. It is better to explain to your partner openly that your faith is about loyalty and commitment to Hazer Imam as your Lord and Saviour. There should be nothing implicit or hidden from them. They should understand who Hazer Imam is, what he is all about, and the connectivity of his Noor in relation to Christ.
Don’t fool your non-Ismaili partner into believing in the “all faiths are the same” ideology. This is not a matter of ritual or ceremony it is a belief that Hazer Imam is Allah, the proof of Allah’s existence, the Creator of all things. If they don’t accept that and are not willing to pay dasond then there is nothing left in the faith to talk about. The faith is all about love for the Imam, that love comes from respect, and respect comes from knowing what the Imam is all about. The root of love is knowledge in the being. First you have to know the Imam. Secondly you learn about him. Thirdly you become attached to him. Fourthly you fall in love.
So teach your partners about the Imam. Don’t force them towards love because love is not something that can be forced. You should know enough about the Imam to explain it in a reasonable and logical manner.
Too many times Ismailis rush into marriage with non-Ismailis with the feeling that religion is “the opium of the masses.” That religion should not get in the way of true love. But in this illusion, they are self-contradicting themselves because love is based on understanding, trust, and openness. If you have your faith and they have theirs then there is an element of difference, of avoiding key issues of personal belief. Since you cannot see eye to eye in matters that are sacred then what kind of understanding do you really have? Are you fully sincere to each other? Not at all.
Sometimes the sex is good, the desperation is there, or the very act of showing all your friends that you have a non-Ismaili as your lover becomes exciting. What you are forgetting is that marriage is not about having fun and enjoying a fantasy. It is not about magic, flowers, and surprise gifts. It is about responsibility, trust, fighting, hating each other than patching up, about being there when times are good and when times are bad, about loyalty, about raising a healthy family with values and proper behaviours.
You want to consider marriage on the same par as a first crush then go ahead, but marriage is a very serious institution and should not be treaded lightly. Therefore, entering a marriage without resolving religious differences can lead to disaster. Even more so, now in Padhramnis we are forcing two camps on Hazer Imam; one his followers and the other their non-Ismaili partners. This practice has to stop. It is not an act of tolerance it is an imposing act upon Hazer Imam who is being forced to greet them out of concern that pleasing them will bring harmony in their marriage. He’s doing it for harmony, not because he enjoys it.
If Hazer Imam doesn’t do it what will be the consequences? Ismailis will say oh, Hazer Imam didn’t even look at my non-Ismaili wife now I don’t believe he is true. I don’t want to come to jamat khane anymore! Don’t think this is true? Take for example the incident of titles being recited in jamat khane.
For the Golden Jubilee Hazer Imam reluctantly gave out titles to individuals whom he believed deserved it. I say reluctant because if you read the farmans of 1962, Nairobi, and subsequent farmans you can see what happened when Ismailis started fights over titles. Just recently it was announced that certain individuals would be getting titles for their outstanding service, what happend? Fights again. Some Ismailis started physically fighting over these matters. One would say that my mother or father have served for 40 years with absolutely no recognition and you have only recently graduated from university and worked for two years why should you get a title? Some Ismailis even became upset that the names were read out in Jamat Khane. They would say, why are the names being read out, they shouldn’t so as it offend people. They even went so far as to suggest that Hazer Imam should send a signed personal letter to each and every person individually instead of reading it in khane. Many Ismailis also started protesting and saying that they no longer wish to come to jamat khane because Hazer Imam did not give them a title. Many individuals dropped the faith over such frivolous matters.
So, in this light if Ismailis are going to be so sensitive because of little title, then imagine what kind of wars they would embark on if their non-Ismailis wives or husbands were not smiled at by Hazer Imam? Love, my dear brothers and sisters, has been a precursor to many wars.
We need to encourage conversion, not shy away from it. We need the jamat to grow, not to shrink. So if you are in a marriage with a non-Ismaili or are thinking about marrying a non-Ismaili, or are having a child with a partner then I encourage you to sit down with your significant other and talk about religion and how the two of you can come to a consensus. You will be surprised at how much the two of you really know about each other when you talk about these matters. You’ll find the trueness of your partner’s thoughts and opinions because faith goes to the very core of a person’s being. When you tap into that core belief you really get to know the person you are in love with.
If you feel that the person you are with does not value your thoughts and feeling about God then you can let it take its time. If over time the matter does not progress, the two of you don’t seem to agree, then it is a sign that there the two of you don’t seem to accept each other’s core feelings. Because religion has to do with the innermost beliefs of a person, the most sacred territory of one’s mind, then if you don’t see eye to eye on these matters you would have to re-evaluate what it is the two of you understand about each other.
Some Ismailis at this point don’t venture on. They simply place the matter in the filing cabinet under letter F, for forgive and forget, and never bring up the issue again. They take a new stance which is to simply focus on work, vacationing, and being a good Samaritan. This “let’s move on and focus on being good people” attitude is just phase of denial that couples go through to save their relationship after an effete attempt at resolving their differences.
For Ismaili Muslims faith is a way of life. It is a living religion that is practiced every day, every moment. Pir Sadardin taught us that we should constantly remember him at all times, not just during the time of prayers. But even the time of prayers takes up a sizeable portion of the day. Ismailis coming to Jamat Khane is not a voluntary option, it is a mandatory obligation. We must come to Jamat Khane and pray, we must take time to congregate so that our prayers are unified with others. We must pay our monetary payments to the Mukhi as our ceremonies dictate. We must make use of the Jamat Khanes, which after all cost money to operate. We must pay our dasond regularly, as it is a religious “tax” that is not voluntary but mandatory as dictated by our Pirs.
Ultimately, love between man and his Creator is the basis of religion; but this is true when the Creator is unseen and not present physically on Earth. But in this case Allah wished to be known and Created the universe so that we may know him. But knowing him is not possible if he is unseen, knowing him is not possible through a book, knowing him is not possible if religion is arbitrary. Therefore a living God is necessary as a proof of Allah’s existence. The Quran cannot be the manifest proof, spoken of here, because the Quran was man made.
The Quran is really a message sent by a messenger, in this case three Prophets carried out such a message: Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. None of these Prophets actually wrote the Torah, Bible, or Quran nor was it compiled in their lifetimes. The Bible was compiled by many Saints, and the Quran was compiled by Osman.
This message must have been very important because it occurred primarily three times in history. Surely, there were other Prophets, but these three came with a specific message which left its mark in history. What was the message and why were three Prophets given prominence above the rest? In all three instances each Prophet had with them their counterparts. The message was that there is one God, not many and that God is present on Earth. Hence the declaration, there is no God but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God, and the Commander of the Faithful, Ali is God. In all three instances there was an underlying message that God exists. Moses declared Aaron to be the Konan, Jesus declared Simon Peter to be the Cephas, and Muhammad declared Ali to be the Imam.
Christians continue to maintain that Jesus Christ died for man’s sins, that he was resurrected, and that he’ll come at the end of times to fight and epic battle against evil. They waited for a thousand years and he never showed up. They waited two thousand years and thought at the stroke of midnight in the year 2000 AD something was going to happen, but ultimately it went on like any other day. Now what? Are we supposed to wait till the year 3000 AD? What they are failing to realize is that the Pope is sitting on the throne of Simon Peter. Simon Peter was declared by Jesus Chirst as the Cephas and holder of the keys to heaven. Where is Simon Peter’s lineage? That lineage continues to this day.
I would like to thank change786 for supporting and understanding the article that was written called Christmas and Ismailis. I think you understood the message I was trying to convey: that building bridges is good but that doesn’t mean we should cross them.
Unfortunately in this world there many instances of people, from various countries, who view the western world as “God’s gift to mankind,” and are hypnotized into believing that whatever the western world says is always right.
Take Canada for example. Spend two hours watching Newsworld and note how many times Barack Obama or something in the United States is mentioned. Now take two hours and watch CNN. How many times do the Americans mention Steven Harper, Hosni Mubarak, or Kalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan?
Some Americans when asked don’t even know where Canada is! Take another example. When Barack Obama was sworn in as President Newsworld covered it from beginning to end. When Steven Harper was elected to office CNN was covering a segment on finding Osama bin Laden. What is the point being made here? That Americans are not overly concerned about Canadians or Canadian politics unless it is somehow going to threaten their “national interests,” but Canadians don’t mind to constantly cover Barrack Obama or American politics.
What does this mean? Go into the streets and see how many youth wear “I love New York” t-shirts or New York hats. Oh, it is “cool” to wear New York hats and to say I love New York in Canada, but how many people in New York say “I love Quebec City” or wear hats with the logo of the Calgary Flames?
The point being made is that we are frivolously in love with Americans and their beliefs. We love watching their movies, we love admiring Britney Spears, Shaggy, and the rest. Even our own entertainers such as Jim Carrey is Canadian, but how many Americans acknowledge that? What about Shania Twain, shocking southern Americans that she’s not from the Unites States, she’s not southern, she’s from a mixed heritage, and lo and behold she’s Canadian!
Our recent recession did not start off as a global recession, but it was essentially triggered by an American recession. When America fell it had a domino effect which sent the world into frenzy. All eyes were on Barack Obama’s speech, what is he going to say, what can he do to turn things around, what is his plan? Why Barrack Obama? Why do we have to wait hand and foot to see what America is going to do? Why are we so dependent on them? Because we are essentially slaves to Americanization.
Americans speak of democracy because they truly believe that it was their forefathers who invented the concept. They believe, to a certain extent, that democracy is the ideal model or “holy grail” for which all of mankind should base themselves on. If democracy is so good, then why doesn’t Queen Elizabeth step down from her position as Sovereign and take a job as a cashier at Walmart? What about Canada? Are we a true democracy? If so, why don’t we have a model similar to the United States? Why a Prime Minister and not a President? Lest we forget that Canada has a Governor General and many Lieutenant Governors? Remember that Queen Elizabeth is still our Sovereign, her face is on the money.
How many times do we hear on CNN Americans pointing fingers at other countries blaming their elections to be full of fraud and corruption. Wasn’t John F. Kennedy, the “King of Camelot” put to power by the Italian mob? Isn’t the United States run by the most corrupt politicians on earth who have their backing in New York or the Federal Reserve?
Americans represent to the world as being white. Let’s not fool ourselves. Let’s be open. White beauty, blond hair, lots of money, and civilized, isn’t that the root of it all? We are hypnotized by Americans. They represent good values, liberty, freedom, and sophistication. To be more like them has automatically become equated with success, money, freedom. They are gods fallen from heaven.
What is the root of it all? Christianity. Since Christianity is the predominant religion in the western world then it must be right. When some Ismailis first started coming to the United States, Canada, and the UK they had to find an identity. After many years of being in the western world we have been beguiled into equating success with total inclusion.
Some may even argue that Christmas is the birthday of Jesus Christ, and since he was a prophet then it is okay for Muslims to celebrate Christmas. Well that sounds just hunky dory! Would have been a good excuse, only that if you’re going to take that road then why are the Christians not saying since the Prophet Muhammad is the prophet of Islam we should celebrate his birthday? So it is okay to have fun, exchange gifts, party, invite family, be merry, and teach the kids about magic and wonder during Christmas, but when it is the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday we are all sitting at home watching television or finishing up a report at work? What about Eid at least? When is the last time a public school in Canada or the United States said we’re going to declare it a permanent official public holiday with pay?
As Ismaili Muslims it is important to blend in with societies, and faiths that are not ours, but that doesn’t mean we relinquish our values, our identity, our faith. Next time you meet a Christian friend tell them I don’t celebrate Christmas and see what the reaction is. Tell your employer at work, tell your non-Ismaili spouse, tell somebody completely anonymous and see what their reaction will be. At first it will seem awkward, like they think you’re Scrooge or the Grinch who stole Christmas, but after a while you’ll realize that there is something definitely different.
Difference is to be embraced, but that embrace has to go two ways. The Muslims should respect Christmas, but the Christians should respect the Prophet’s birthday too. Next time you see a Christian ask them when was the Prophet Muhammad born, will the know? Ask them, what does Islam mean, will they know that as well? Oh, but we know that Christ was born 2010 years ago, we know where Christianity came from. See the double standard?
That is why Ismailis should not celebrate Christmas, because the timing is not right. Since the Christians don’t want to acknowledge the Prophet and respect his birthday and to give us our public holiday, then we are also not going to acknowledge Jesus Christ’s birthday, no matter what, and we are not going to encourage or celebrate that particular holiday. We are going to celebrate the Prophet’s birthday, or Hazer Imam’s birthday with the same level of enthusiasm as the Christians are showing for their founder.
Most importantly stop teaching the kids that Christmas is about a time for family, gift giving, and fun. That’s the most frivolous thing a parent can do. We need to lead by example and show Ismaili children to stand up for their faith, for the love for the Imam, for their pride in Islam and the Prophet. They will exude confidence in themselves, in their beliefs. In turn they will be able to teach Christians the values that make Islam much more compatible than Christianity. After all Islam is a natural religion, it doesn’t believe in hocus pocus. It believes that the religion has to have reason, logic, and a sense of compatibility with everyday life.
We need to get off our high-horse and start standing up for our faith. This high-horse comes about when we feel that our jobs, our education, our status in society has risen to such an extent that we are above Allah, we don’t need Allah, nor does religion matter in our lives.
In just a recent article circulating in the news titled “Muslim-Baptist Marriage illustrates tolerance, faith, love” by Wendi C. Thomas we can see the results of my two articles, this one and the one on marrying non-Ismailis. In this article two people, an Ismaili and a Baptist, marry each other and present themselves as living in perfect harmony.
Ishtiaq is an Ismaili Muslim married to a woman named Toni, a southern Baptist. They got married and have a 14 month old baby boy. Throughout all this they are promoting that their marriage is wonderful despite the maintaining separate religions. They coin this peaceful co-existence under the implicit guise of “tolerance,” meanwhile they play with each other’s faith like it was a little child’s toy.
Toni seems to have no intention to become Ismaili and Ishtiaq has no intention of becoming a Christian. Yet, they have twisted both religions to bend their way rather than bend in the direction of the religion. Let’s examine further.
Toni says she goes to Church on Sundays and Ishtiaq goes to prayer on Friday nights. Here, just to be devilishly meticulous, she used the words prayer. Prayer? She acknowledged going to Church, but when it came time to explaining her husband’s place of worship she didn’t say mosque or jamat khane. Is this just simple omission of the word or does she not know the exact name of her husband’s place of worship?
What makes matters worse is that she says that Ishtiaq attends Church whenever she wants and she worships with him whenever he wants. The first question on everybody’s mind is how? These two individuals have clearly gone public with their personal information, taken a deal to air their relationship in a documentary, and prove to the world that they are an example of tolerance? How exactly does he go to Church? What does he do there? Does the minister know that a Muslim is temporarily coming to Church but doesn’t really believe in Christ? So, at Christmas time does he go and sing Christ the Lord and then in the evening recite there is no deity except Allah? What kind of mockery is this?
Take the reverse, she says in this article that she worships with him whenever he wants. Does she really? She is a bit tongue tied when it comes to saying her husband’s place of worship, does she feel comfortable to say Oh Ali, Oh Hazer Imam forgive us our sins? Does she know who she is communicating with? Does she claim she knows the Dua? How can she “worship” with him when she hasn’t given an oath of allegiance – which is an absolute prerequisite of the faith? This, my brothers and sisters, is not a game that can be manipulated the way we want. This is a matter of understanding between the individual and God. These two individuals have made a mockery of the issue and now have taken it public. What do you think the reaction will be of the Muslims at large? First, outrage at the very idea of becoming almost half Christian half Muslim. Secondly, they will not see it as a Muslim marrying a Christian, they’ll see it as an Ismaili trying to create some sort of polymorphous perverse.
Let us go even further into the article where they shockingly declared that their son had a both a Muslim and Christian dedication service. Oh, well that is just icing on the cake isn’t it! First the parents twist religions to suit their lives and now they create a child whose feet are placed in both directions. So they are saying that the baby has done a bayat to Hazer Imam, then has done a baptism in Church? That is a mockery of the most sacred act of Ismailism and Christianity.
I had warned about this becoming a problem in my last article regarding marriage to non-Ismailis. In that article I had warned that marrying Ithnasheries is okay, but the question of faith should be resolved so that the children have a clear path to follow. Now we can see Ismailis with a new ethos, coming public and declaring that they are Ismaili but they also attend Church. This is all guised under the context of tolerance, faith, and true love when in fact they have twisted the religions to suit themselves.
To them religion is a tradition, an act of ceremony, a belief system in a set of rituals. Ishtiaq said that all three major religions hold the same root, the Abrahamic faith. Well, Ishtiaq is really trying to make us believe that he is being liberal about the whole issue pointing it out that religion is “the same” in its base. This is an attempt for him to normalize the situation when in fact it is not normal at all. It is not normal because religions are not simply rituals, they have oaths of loyalty towards a particular God. The Romans were polytheists, in that they believed in many gods such as Jupiter, Mars, and Juno. Why then did they embrace Christianity and abandon their gods? What is the act of abandonment? Baptism is the act of relinquishing the past and embracing a new ideology.
When the Prophet Muhammad and Ali went into the Kaba to destroy the idols, what were they trying to achieve? They were getting rid of the old ethos and introducing the truth of one God. Why didn’t the Prophet simply say, be free in worshiping idols on Sunday and worship Allah on Fridays? Isn’t that being liberal? Isn’t that what promotes tolerance and understanding? Absolutely not.
What gets even worse is when Christmas comes along. What is Ishtiaq going to do, put up a Christmas tree and sing silent night, holy night? Is he going to invite his in-laws and pray together? Is their son, Liam, going to run down the stairs and open up gifts in the morning and then in the evening sit next to you to give a handshake in dua? What about dasond? Are these people going to place money in the Church or Jamat Khane?
What about padramni? Is Ishtiaq going to bring his wife and child into the hall in front of Hazer Imam even though they haven’t totally embraced the faith in the name of tolerance? Pretty soon there will be many like this who bring their non-Ismaili spouses to Jamat Khane without doing bayat and argue that they are being modern and liberal. You’ll get a lot of “half-half’s” running around saying that they are Christian and Muslim. This is not a racial problem, this is a matter of faith, this is a matter of loyalty. Like marriage you have to be loyal to your husband or wife. Similarly, when you do bayat or baptism you have to stay loyal to the Lord. You can’t get married to two husbands at the same time in the name of tolerance.
If religion is like a marriage then Ishtiaq and Toni are players, and not loyal at all. Ishtiaq is married to one God and then cheats with another God. Toni does the same. Now they are encouraging their son follow in their footsteps.
Bayat is like a marriage, in that you are spiritually married to one God only. You declare your loyalty to that God in complete surrender. You also acknowledge that you will not break that marriage for any other, and that is what makes it sacred and pure. Ask the Mukhis in Jamat Khane if they will allow doing a bayat knowing that the next day the child will be doing a Baptism. Let the ministers of the Church know the same. What will be their reaction? Surely the ministers will step up and say that they are being liberal, but what choice do they have? If the condemn the act outright there will be lots of protest and protest means less people to put money into the Church basket. In their point of view, accepting this phenomenon makes them look tolerant and compassionate, and they wait to see public opinion. In the article you don’t see a Mukhi’s comments about the situation. You know why? Because no Mukhi is allowed to do a bayat with the knowledge that the child will also do a baptism.
This is not a vacation where you explore each other’s country and embrace each other’s food. We are talking about a loyalty to God. Either Ishtiaq becomes Christian as well as his child or Toni and the child become Ismaili. There are no in-betweens. They are free to choose, but they cannot get a dual passport in this circumstance. What is sacred ought to be sacred otherwise there is no point in doing it.
Toni obviously doesn’t know her husband’s faith in its totality. Saying that she goes to Church on Sundays and he goes to worship on Fridays is missing the concept. He’s an Ismaili. He doesn’t go to Jamat Khane only on Fridays, he’s supposed to go every day! Not only that, but if he has no school or such obstacles during the day then it is mandatory that he also attend meditation or Baitul Khyal at night.
Will Toni be supportive of a man who comes home in the evening, puts on a volunteer uniform and heads off to Jamat Khane, then comes home, sleeps, and then wakes up to attend meditation at night? Will she be supportive when he takes out 10% out of their joint account every month to give as Dasond? What about mijlas’s that hold their own special times? Will she be tolerant if he joins a mijlas that requires him to pay even more than 10% of his earnings?
Ishtiaq and Toni are deluding themselves. Ishtiaq’s faith doesn’t require him to only go to prayer on Fridays it is mandatory that he attend every day, and that means every day she won’t get to see him when he comes home. By the time he gets back it is almost time for bed.
In this case Ishtiaq has bent the religion for the sake of his Christian wife. He’s decided not to attend Jamat Khane everyday, perhaps laxed in his dasond, and has broken the sacredness of the bayat. Why? Because of his desire to be with this women. His deep desire to be with her was more greater than the faith and he consciously knew that it was going to become difficult in matters of faith but he decided to jump in anyways.
If he jumped in then it is bad enough, but to drag the child into all this is not right at all. His child is not allowed to enter Jamat Khane without relinquishing his baptism and re-doing a bayat. The Mukhi is responsible in making sure this child does not enter jamat khane without having done this. It is a complete mess, but now the Mukhi has to sort it out.
If not then let the child become Christian. Let the child freely say to the world that his father is an Ismaili but he doesn’t believe in that faith. Now multiply this incident with hundreds if not thousands of individuals and what you have is a reduction in the membership of the Ismaili faith. Wait for the day when you enter Jamat Khane and see only the Mukhi, Kameria, and an old man way at the back, in the seniors section, dozing off to all the ceremonies. There will be hardly anybody in the faith.
Without any members there is no Zakat in the Mosques. Without members there is no Tithe in the Churches. Without members there is no Dasond in Jamat Khanes. And so the religion falls apart from within. That may not be apparent now, but if you read the article I wrote about marrying an Ithnasheri, I warned about this issue. Now you can see Ismailis publicly showing this sort of behaviour, which can have dire consequences and tear down bridges with other Muslims rather than build them.
I appeal to my brothers and sisters in faith to exercise caution when entering into marriage or having children with non-Ismailis. It would be healthier for both parties to resolve their religious differences prior to making life time commitments. I would encourage Ismailis to convert their partners to the Ismaili faith prior to marriage or to have the intention to convert while being married. Of these two options I would encourage the former rather than the latter because converting within the marriage is harder and can lead to all sorts of mistrust and even divorce. It is better to explain to your partner openly that your faith is about loyalty and commitment to Hazer Imam as your Lord and Saviour. There should be nothing implicit or hidden from them. They should understand who Hazer Imam is, what he is all about, and the connectivity of his Noor in relation to Christ.
Don’t fool your non-Ismaili partner into believing in the “all faiths are the same” ideology. This is not a matter of ritual or ceremony it is a belief that Hazer Imam is Allah, the proof of Allah’s existence, the Creator of all things. If they don’t accept that and are not willing to pay dasond then there is nothing left in the faith to talk about. The faith is all about love for the Imam, that love comes from respect, and respect comes from knowing what the Imam is all about. The root of love is knowledge in the being. First you have to know the Imam. Secondly you learn about him. Thirdly you become attached to him. Fourthly you fall in love.
So teach your partners about the Imam. Don’t force them towards love because love is not something that can be forced. You should know enough about the Imam to explain it in a reasonable and logical manner.
Too many times Ismailis rush into marriage with non-Ismailis with the feeling that religion is “the opium of the masses.” That religion should not get in the way of true love. But in this illusion, they are self-contradicting themselves because love is based on understanding, trust, and openness. If you have your faith and they have theirs then there is an element of difference, of avoiding key issues of personal belief. Since you cannot see eye to eye in matters that are sacred then what kind of understanding do you really have? Are you fully sincere to each other? Not at all.
Sometimes the sex is good, the desperation is there, or the very act of showing all your friends that you have a non-Ismaili as your lover becomes exciting. What you are forgetting is that marriage is not about having fun and enjoying a fantasy. It is not about magic, flowers, and surprise gifts. It is about responsibility, trust, fighting, hating each other than patching up, about being there when times are good and when times are bad, about loyalty, about raising a healthy family with values and proper behaviours.
You want to consider marriage on the same par as a first crush then go ahead, but marriage is a very serious institution and should not be treaded lightly. Therefore, entering a marriage without resolving religious differences can lead to disaster. Even more so, now in Padhramnis we are forcing two camps on Hazer Imam; one his followers and the other their non-Ismaili partners. This practice has to stop. It is not an act of tolerance it is an imposing act upon Hazer Imam who is being forced to greet them out of concern that pleasing them will bring harmony in their marriage. He’s doing it for harmony, not because he enjoys it.
If Hazer Imam doesn’t do it what will be the consequences? Ismailis will say oh, Hazer Imam didn’t even look at my non-Ismaili wife now I don’t believe he is true. I don’t want to come to jamat khane anymore! Don’t think this is true? Take for example the incident of titles being recited in jamat khane.
For the Golden Jubilee Hazer Imam reluctantly gave out titles to individuals whom he believed deserved it. I say reluctant because if you read the farmans of 1962, Nairobi, and subsequent farmans you can see what happened when Ismailis started fights over titles. Just recently it was announced that certain individuals would be getting titles for their outstanding service, what happend? Fights again. Some Ismailis started physically fighting over these matters. One would say that my mother or father have served for 40 years with absolutely no recognition and you have only recently graduated from university and worked for two years why should you get a title? Some Ismailis even became upset that the names were read out in Jamat Khane. They would say, why are the names being read out, they shouldn’t so as it offend people. They even went so far as to suggest that Hazer Imam should send a signed personal letter to each and every person individually instead of reading it in khane. Many Ismailis also started protesting and saying that they no longer wish to come to jamat khane because Hazer Imam did not give them a title. Many individuals dropped the faith over such frivolous matters.
So, in this light if Ismailis are going to be so sensitive because of little title, then imagine what kind of wars they would embark on if their non-Ismailis wives or husbands were not smiled at by Hazer Imam? Love, my dear brothers and sisters, has been a precursor to many wars.
We need to encourage conversion, not shy away from it. We need the jamat to grow, not to shrink. So if you are in a marriage with a non-Ismaili or are thinking about marrying a non-Ismaili, or are having a child with a partner then I encourage you to sit down with your significant other and talk about religion and how the two of you can come to a consensus. You will be surprised at how much the two of you really know about each other when you talk about these matters. You’ll find the trueness of your partner’s thoughts and opinions because faith goes to the very core of a person’s being. When you tap into that core belief you really get to know the person you are in love with.
If you feel that the person you are with does not value your thoughts and feeling about God then you can let it take its time. If over time the matter does not progress, the two of you don’t seem to agree, then it is a sign that there the two of you don’t seem to accept each other’s core feelings. Because religion has to do with the innermost beliefs of a person, the most sacred territory of one’s mind, then if you don’t see eye to eye on these matters you would have to re-evaluate what it is the two of you understand about each other.
Some Ismailis at this point don’t venture on. They simply place the matter in the filing cabinet under letter F, for forgive and forget, and never bring up the issue again. They take a new stance which is to simply focus on work, vacationing, and being a good Samaritan. This “let’s move on and focus on being good people” attitude is just phase of denial that couples go through to save their relationship after an effete attempt at resolving their differences.
For Ismaili Muslims faith is a way of life. It is a living religion that is practiced every day, every moment. Pir Sadardin taught us that we should constantly remember him at all times, not just during the time of prayers. But even the time of prayers takes up a sizeable portion of the day. Ismailis coming to Jamat Khane is not a voluntary option, it is a mandatory obligation. We must come to Jamat Khane and pray, we must take time to congregate so that our prayers are unified with others. We must pay our monetary payments to the Mukhi as our ceremonies dictate. We must make use of the Jamat Khanes, which after all cost money to operate. We must pay our dasond regularly, as it is a religious “tax” that is not voluntary but mandatory as dictated by our Pirs.
Ultimately, love between man and his Creator is the basis of religion; but this is true when the Creator is unseen and not present physically on Earth. But in this case Allah wished to be known and Created the universe so that we may know him. But knowing him is not possible if he is unseen, knowing him is not possible through a book, knowing him is not possible if religion is arbitrary. Therefore a living God is necessary as a proof of Allah’s existence. The Quran cannot be the manifest proof, spoken of here, because the Quran was man made.
The Quran is really a message sent by a messenger, in this case three Prophets carried out such a message: Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. None of these Prophets actually wrote the Torah, Bible, or Quran nor was it compiled in their lifetimes. The Bible was compiled by many Saints, and the Quran was compiled by Osman.
This message must have been very important because it occurred primarily three times in history. Surely, there were other Prophets, but these three came with a specific message which left its mark in history. What was the message and why were three Prophets given prominence above the rest? In all three instances each Prophet had with them their counterparts. The message was that there is one God, not many and that God is present on Earth. Hence the declaration, there is no God but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God, and the Commander of the Faithful, Ali is God. In all three instances there was an underlying message that God exists. Moses declared Aaron to be the Konan, Jesus declared Simon Peter to be the Cephas, and Muhammad declared Ali to be the Imam.
Christians continue to maintain that Jesus Christ died for man’s sins, that he was resurrected, and that he’ll come at the end of times to fight and epic battle against evil. They waited for a thousand years and he never showed up. They waited two thousand years and thought at the stroke of midnight in the year 2000 AD something was going to happen, but ultimately it went on like any other day. Now what? Are we supposed to wait till the year 3000 AD? What they are failing to realize is that the Pope is sitting on the throne of Simon Peter. Simon Peter was declared by Jesus Chirst as the Cephas and holder of the keys to heaven. Where is Simon Peter’s lineage? That lineage continues to this day.
lots of knowledge......practices right brings wisdom which in return broadens our outlook........look deep within and u will see a different picture,The holiday is not Nabis b;day its was affiliated by the Romans to keep both Romans and the following of the king (Jesus) who was moved out of way; HAPPY.............oh ever since, what he preached and what the Christians believe today is two different thing.yet as long as they believe in humility thats good enough for Allah unlike us ....we believe in wroth and pride in spite of having the most fortunate guide in the entire universe.............instead of being followed .....we are following other cultures so it is us who are doomed and the rest will get aways by the fact of misimformation. YOU are here and now....! enjoy it NOW.......who knows it will change.....!
-
shiraz.virani
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:52 pm
brother samirnoorali said :
you said the lineage continues till this day...and i may say that you're correct....but brother where is the lineage or who traces his ancestry right from simon peter ?
i wont agree with you if you say POPE, because his seat/throne is not divine but chosen.
actually this question has been bothering me for quite some time now !....if there is only one imam [as] then what about christianity ??? who is their imam[as] ?
h.ibrahim[as] has 2 sons ....
1 = issac [from bibi sarah[khatoon e jannat]]
2 = ishmael [ born to maid servant bibi hagar[ khatoon e jannat]]
and then we know that god promised h.ibrahim[as] [mentioned in the bible] that he will make kings from his progeny...and we know the prophets[as] that came from the aal e ibrahim[as]....it is mentioned in same bible that allah[swt] commands h.ibrahim[as] to come out of his house , which he does and tell him to look up at the sky and count how many stars are there in the sky if he could..to which h.ibrahim[as] says it is impossible as there are sooo many stars in the sky....allah[swt] informs him[as] ....so shall be your seeds [progeny]
the same promise is repeated in aayat [2:124]
issac[as] had his descendants
ismail[as] had his descendants
so where is the line of h.issac[as] ????
if simon peter was an imam [as per ismaili interpretation] then what happened to the imamat after him ????????????????????
how is it possible that soon after simon peter, we ismailis trace imamat from arabia ?????? Did simon peter travelled to ARABIA ?
if we can trace the last lineage of h.issac[as] we might come to the conclusion whether there are 2 imams or only 1
now , i dont want tharki khopdis to again start the blame game....i want my brothers and sisters to help me my sharing their views.
brother you have raised a very good point, but i need your help in this as it has been bothering me for some time now.Simon Peter was declared by Jesus Chirst as the Cephas and holder of the keys to heaven. Where is Simon Peter’s lineage? That lineage continues to this day.
you said the lineage continues till this day...and i may say that you're correct....but brother where is the lineage or who traces his ancestry right from simon peter ?
i wont agree with you if you say POPE, because his seat/throne is not divine but chosen.
actually this question has been bothering me for quite some time now !....if there is only one imam [as] then what about christianity ??? who is their imam[as] ?
h.ibrahim[as] has 2 sons ....
1 = issac [from bibi sarah[khatoon e jannat]]
2 = ishmael [ born to maid servant bibi hagar[ khatoon e jannat]]
and then we know that god promised h.ibrahim[as] [mentioned in the bible] that he will make kings from his progeny...and we know the prophets[as] that came from the aal e ibrahim[as]....it is mentioned in same bible that allah[swt] commands h.ibrahim[as] to come out of his house , which he does and tell him to look up at the sky and count how many stars are there in the sky if he could..to which h.ibrahim[as] says it is impossible as there are sooo many stars in the sky....allah[swt] informs him[as] ....so shall be your seeds [progeny]
the same promise is repeated in aayat [2:124]
issac[as] had his descendants
ismail[as] had his descendants
so where is the line of h.issac[as] ????
if simon peter was an imam [as per ismaili interpretation] then what happened to the imamat after him ????????????????????
how is it possible that soon after simon peter, we ismailis trace imamat from arabia ?????? Did simon peter travelled to ARABIA ?
if we can trace the last lineage of h.issac[as] we might come to the conclusion whether there are 2 imams or only 1
now , i dont want tharki khopdis to again start the blame game....i want my brothers and sisters to help me my sharing their views.
Samirnoorali said:
MHI is Allah?
YAM
Really!This is not a matter of ritual or ceremony it is a belief that Hazer Imam is Allah,
MHI is Allah?
If Ali SA is God (Allah) then why say there is no god but God (Allah)?The message was that there is one God, not many and that God is present on Earth. Hence the declaration, there is no God but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God, and the Commander of the Faithful, Ali is God.
YAM
-
samirnoorali
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 1:18 pm
Simon Peter and Ali Allah
Simon Peter and Ali Allah
Dear Shiraz.virani and Zznoor:
I am humbled to receive your feedback on my last posting. I would like to address the question of Simon Peter, and the concerns you raised about his lineage. Simon Peter is not a birth name, but rather a mix between a birth name and a title. The name, as were many names at that time, usually referred back to the father or the main occupation which the person held. For example, Ali, the cousin of the Prophet and our first Imam was mainly addressed as Ali ibn Abu Talib, as Abu Talib was his father. An example of a name with an occupation can be Mark the Sheppard, or Luke the Wise.
Simon Peter was the son of Aaron and the nephew of Moses and Mary. Mary was the holy Mary, mother of Jesus Christ. In the Quran it is noted that Aaron had a sister named Mary, but many historians have debated as to how this could be the actual mother of Christ. But she was the actual Mary who has been depicted in the bible as the mother of Christ. Since the Pirs have taught us that a Pir cannot be outside the lineage of the Imam, that would mean that Simon Peter and Jesus had to have been related. That would put greater weight that Mary was the actual mother of Christ making Simon Peter and Jesus Christ as first cousins.
This would sit well because Pirs are only supposed to come from the family of the Imam. Note that Ali and Muhammad were first cousins.
At the time of Jesus Christ, that is to say about two thousand years ago, Simon was given the title Cephas by Jesus himself. That title was later translated into Greek which came to be known as Peter. Unfortunately, the meaning of Peter can go both ways. Here is where word play can alter the meaning of historical events. In Greek there are two words that sound very similar to each other: pateras, meaning father or petra meaning stone or rock. Many words can be extracted from pateras, for example papa, baba, pope, petroleum (meaning rock oil).
Jesus Christ, like Muhammad, gathered his followers together and made a declaration. He first blessed Simon and then said that he is declaring him as the Cephas or pope of the people. He then said that through Simon he will build his Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Jesus went further to say that he is giving the keys of heaven to Simon Peter, and that whoever will be with him on Earth will be with him in heaven. At the same time he said whoever Simon will lose on Earth will be lost in heaven. In other words in order to get to heaven one must go through Simon Peter.
Muhammad said almost the very same thing at Gadir e Kumb. He declared Ali as the Imam of the people and said, love him who loves Ali, hate him who hates Ali. The Prophet is noted to have said that I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate.
That is why the Pope on his enthronement says that he is sitting on the throne of Simon Peter. He never says that he is sitting on the throne of Jesus Chirst. All this occurs at Saint Peter’s basilica, not in Bethlahem or Jerusalem. Peter in many statues is depicted with keys in his hand. The keys are not meant to be taken literally. They simply imply that in order to reach heaven you must go through Simon Peter. That is why the Christians believe that when a person dies he will meet Simon Peter at the gates of heaven.
The events of this declaration, as we all know, led to extreme persecution by those who didn’t like the newly emerging doctrine. Many saw Christ not as the Messiah, but a con-artist who has come claim himself King of the Jews. This eventually lead to his execution. Jesus was not the only target. Simon Peter, the first Pope, was persecuted as well till he met a painful death. His son, Adnan is considered to be by many Bedoin Arabs as the first ancestor of Muhammad. But when asked, who was the father of Adnan, the Arabs say that Muhammad refused to answer that question.
Muhammad did not answer the question because the past had a lot of baggage and a lot of problems. It was not safe to open up old wounds. A similar event occurred in Fatimd times with Nizar and his son Hadi. When Nizar was imprisoned in Cario by his brother Muste’ali, Hadi fled to the Elburz Mountains and laid low for many years. Similarly, Simon Peter was killed and Adnan fled south to Arabia where he founded a town. That town still exists in what is now Saudi Arabia. It is side by side with the town of Ma’ad, and it takes after the name of Adnan’s son Ma’ad.
As with Ibrahim or Abraham, he had two children: Issac and Ismail. Some may even go further to say that Issac is the patriarch of the Jews and Ismail is the patriarch of the Arabs. In other words they are part of one family. Abraham was not an Imam. Abraham was a Pir or Prophet and he was living during the time of Melkan, known as Melchan, or Melchizedek. Melkan was the High Priest or Imam of his time and he used to receive tithes from the followers of Abraham. He was the King of Salem and in the Dead Sea Scrolls his history comes back to life. A text about him found in Cave 11 at Qumran reveals that Melkan was considered at that time to be divine. He was referred to in this text with the title of Elohim which means God or the divine Creator. Some may argue that the word Allah also is related to the word Elohim.
So here we see that titles were given before the time of Muhammad to the ancestors of Ali. Melkan was given the title Elohim, Aaron was given the title Kohen (Kohen Gadol), Simon Peter was given the title Cephas, and Ali was given the title Imam. All these titles mean the exact same thing, in that they all belong to a leader whose occupation was to lead the members of the faith.
Over time historians paid little attention to the Prophet and his ancestors and focussed more on the Quran and the concept of an “invisible” God. The notion of a manifest God was considered blasphemous to certain Muslim sects, but was encouraged by others. This history of Imamat would have been buried like an ancient tomb, and it would have turned to dust and been forgotten for eternity if it wasn’t for Pir Sadardin.
It was Pir Sadardin who opened up the history of his ancestors to once again give life to Imams who were forgotten. After all, Pir Sadardin was the Prophet Muhammad himself. It was Pir Sadardin who taught us the names of the Imams from Ali to the present. He also declared Aaron and Simon Peter as part of the ancestors of Ali.
You mentioned Isaac. Unfortunately the faiths of Chirstianity and Judaism have a different view of him and his brother. In their view Abraham had two women, Hagar and Sarah. They say Hagar was a slave and Sarah was free. They say Ismail was a son of natural birth and Isaac was the promised son. They say that Ismail’s lineage was rejected by God, and Isaac’s lineage was accepted by God. This is a hunky dory way of saying that our ancestors are “better” than yours.
This situation is more of a frivolous family feud and quest for supremacy than mere facts. What sounds more acceptable is that the Jews and Arabs are cousins, from the blood of one father. That is a unifying factor and would do well to build bridges rather than spread hatred.
Isaac is not in the lineage of the Imams. His son Jacob was given the title of Israel, and that is why the Jews consider him their patriarch. That is why the land of Israel bears his title. They consider themselves as the “Children of Israel.” They mocked Ismail and his lineage, but that is an internal family dispute. What we are focussing on is Melkan and his decendant Eslam. Eslam had three decendants: Aaron, Moses and Mary. From Aaron came Simon Peter and from Mary came Jesus Christ. Jesus took on the Piratan after Moses died.
It is interesting to note that the Jews know very well that after Moses died Joshua took over as leader of the Isrealite tribes. Who was Joshua? Joshua was not really his real name. His name in Hebrew is Yehoshua, which happens to be real name of Jesus. Jesus’s real name in Hebrew is Yehoshua. In Greek it became Jesus. That would make sense since I mentioned that Moses, Aaron and Mary were siblings. After Aaron, Simon Peter took over the leadership and was declared the Cephas. After Moses, Jesus continued the office of Prophethood and tried to bring the Hebrew people back to the linage of the true Levites.
After the death of Aaron some Hebrews followed Simon Peter and others followed Eleazar. This split was significant as it created two parties. Jesus came to correct the Hebrews and put them on the right path for which he was put to the cross. They also killed Simon Peter, but his progeny escaped and made their way to south to Arabia. In Arabia it took many generations before Muhammad publicly declared a new era. This declaration was not new, but a continuation of many such instances in the past.
Sincerely,
Samir Noorali
Dear Shiraz.virani and Zznoor:
I am humbled to receive your feedback on my last posting. I would like to address the question of Simon Peter, and the concerns you raised about his lineage. Simon Peter is not a birth name, but rather a mix between a birth name and a title. The name, as were many names at that time, usually referred back to the father or the main occupation which the person held. For example, Ali, the cousin of the Prophet and our first Imam was mainly addressed as Ali ibn Abu Talib, as Abu Talib was his father. An example of a name with an occupation can be Mark the Sheppard, or Luke the Wise.
Simon Peter was the son of Aaron and the nephew of Moses and Mary. Mary was the holy Mary, mother of Jesus Christ. In the Quran it is noted that Aaron had a sister named Mary, but many historians have debated as to how this could be the actual mother of Christ. But she was the actual Mary who has been depicted in the bible as the mother of Christ. Since the Pirs have taught us that a Pir cannot be outside the lineage of the Imam, that would mean that Simon Peter and Jesus had to have been related. That would put greater weight that Mary was the actual mother of Christ making Simon Peter and Jesus Christ as first cousins.
This would sit well because Pirs are only supposed to come from the family of the Imam. Note that Ali and Muhammad were first cousins.
At the time of Jesus Christ, that is to say about two thousand years ago, Simon was given the title Cephas by Jesus himself. That title was later translated into Greek which came to be known as Peter. Unfortunately, the meaning of Peter can go both ways. Here is where word play can alter the meaning of historical events. In Greek there are two words that sound very similar to each other: pateras, meaning father or petra meaning stone or rock. Many words can be extracted from pateras, for example papa, baba, pope, petroleum (meaning rock oil).
Jesus Christ, like Muhammad, gathered his followers together and made a declaration. He first blessed Simon and then said that he is declaring him as the Cephas or pope of the people. He then said that through Simon he will build his Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Jesus went further to say that he is giving the keys of heaven to Simon Peter, and that whoever will be with him on Earth will be with him in heaven. At the same time he said whoever Simon will lose on Earth will be lost in heaven. In other words in order to get to heaven one must go through Simon Peter.
Muhammad said almost the very same thing at Gadir e Kumb. He declared Ali as the Imam of the people and said, love him who loves Ali, hate him who hates Ali. The Prophet is noted to have said that I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate.
That is why the Pope on his enthronement says that he is sitting on the throne of Simon Peter. He never says that he is sitting on the throne of Jesus Chirst. All this occurs at Saint Peter’s basilica, not in Bethlahem or Jerusalem. Peter in many statues is depicted with keys in his hand. The keys are not meant to be taken literally. They simply imply that in order to reach heaven you must go through Simon Peter. That is why the Christians believe that when a person dies he will meet Simon Peter at the gates of heaven.
The events of this declaration, as we all know, led to extreme persecution by those who didn’t like the newly emerging doctrine. Many saw Christ not as the Messiah, but a con-artist who has come claim himself King of the Jews. This eventually lead to his execution. Jesus was not the only target. Simon Peter, the first Pope, was persecuted as well till he met a painful death. His son, Adnan is considered to be by many Bedoin Arabs as the first ancestor of Muhammad. But when asked, who was the father of Adnan, the Arabs say that Muhammad refused to answer that question.
Muhammad did not answer the question because the past had a lot of baggage and a lot of problems. It was not safe to open up old wounds. A similar event occurred in Fatimd times with Nizar and his son Hadi. When Nizar was imprisoned in Cario by his brother Muste’ali, Hadi fled to the Elburz Mountains and laid low for many years. Similarly, Simon Peter was killed and Adnan fled south to Arabia where he founded a town. That town still exists in what is now Saudi Arabia. It is side by side with the town of Ma’ad, and it takes after the name of Adnan’s son Ma’ad.
As with Ibrahim or Abraham, he had two children: Issac and Ismail. Some may even go further to say that Issac is the patriarch of the Jews and Ismail is the patriarch of the Arabs. In other words they are part of one family. Abraham was not an Imam. Abraham was a Pir or Prophet and he was living during the time of Melkan, known as Melchan, or Melchizedek. Melkan was the High Priest or Imam of his time and he used to receive tithes from the followers of Abraham. He was the King of Salem and in the Dead Sea Scrolls his history comes back to life. A text about him found in Cave 11 at Qumran reveals that Melkan was considered at that time to be divine. He was referred to in this text with the title of Elohim which means God or the divine Creator. Some may argue that the word Allah also is related to the word Elohim.
So here we see that titles were given before the time of Muhammad to the ancestors of Ali. Melkan was given the title Elohim, Aaron was given the title Kohen (Kohen Gadol), Simon Peter was given the title Cephas, and Ali was given the title Imam. All these titles mean the exact same thing, in that they all belong to a leader whose occupation was to lead the members of the faith.
Over time historians paid little attention to the Prophet and his ancestors and focussed more on the Quran and the concept of an “invisible” God. The notion of a manifest God was considered blasphemous to certain Muslim sects, but was encouraged by others. This history of Imamat would have been buried like an ancient tomb, and it would have turned to dust and been forgotten for eternity if it wasn’t for Pir Sadardin.
It was Pir Sadardin who opened up the history of his ancestors to once again give life to Imams who were forgotten. After all, Pir Sadardin was the Prophet Muhammad himself. It was Pir Sadardin who taught us the names of the Imams from Ali to the present. He also declared Aaron and Simon Peter as part of the ancestors of Ali.
You mentioned Isaac. Unfortunately the faiths of Chirstianity and Judaism have a different view of him and his brother. In their view Abraham had two women, Hagar and Sarah. They say Hagar was a slave and Sarah was free. They say Ismail was a son of natural birth and Isaac was the promised son. They say that Ismail’s lineage was rejected by God, and Isaac’s lineage was accepted by God. This is a hunky dory way of saying that our ancestors are “better” than yours.
This situation is more of a frivolous family feud and quest for supremacy than mere facts. What sounds more acceptable is that the Jews and Arabs are cousins, from the blood of one father. That is a unifying factor and would do well to build bridges rather than spread hatred.
Isaac is not in the lineage of the Imams. His son Jacob was given the title of Israel, and that is why the Jews consider him their patriarch. That is why the land of Israel bears his title. They consider themselves as the “Children of Israel.” They mocked Ismail and his lineage, but that is an internal family dispute. What we are focussing on is Melkan and his decendant Eslam. Eslam had three decendants: Aaron, Moses and Mary. From Aaron came Simon Peter and from Mary came Jesus Christ. Jesus took on the Piratan after Moses died.
It is interesting to note that the Jews know very well that after Moses died Joshua took over as leader of the Isrealite tribes. Who was Joshua? Joshua was not really his real name. His name in Hebrew is Yehoshua, which happens to be real name of Jesus. Jesus’s real name in Hebrew is Yehoshua. In Greek it became Jesus. That would make sense since I mentioned that Moses, Aaron and Mary were siblings. After Aaron, Simon Peter took over the leadership and was declared the Cephas. After Moses, Jesus continued the office of Prophethood and tried to bring the Hebrew people back to the linage of the true Levites.
After the death of Aaron some Hebrews followed Simon Peter and others followed Eleazar. This split was significant as it created two parties. Jesus came to correct the Hebrews and put them on the right path for which he was put to the cross. They also killed Simon Peter, but his progeny escaped and made their way to south to Arabia. In Arabia it took many generations before Muhammad publicly declared a new era. This declaration was not new, but a continuation of many such instances in the past.
Sincerely,
Samir Noorali
-
shiraz.virani
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:52 pm
brother samir noorali, Ya ali madad.Simon Peter was the son of Aaron and the nephew of Moses and Mary. Mary was the holy Mary, mother of Jesus Christ. In the Quran it is noted that Aaron had a sister named Mary, but many historians have debated as to how this could be the actual mother of Christ. But she was the actual Mary who has been depicted in the bible as the mother of Christ. Since the Pirs have taught us that a Pir cannot be outside the lineage of the Imam, that would mean that Simon Peter and Jesus had to have been related. That would put greater weight that Mary was the actual mother of Christ making Simon Peter and Jesus Christ as first cousins.
first of all lemme thank you for your effort and brief description....its simply fantastic ,however brother i have one doubt
you said that simon peter was son of h.haroon[as] which i dont think its correct...allow me to explain brother....in bible jesus[as] himself call him son of "JOHN"
JOHN 21:17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John/jona, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.
he was the son of a fisherman name "JOHN"
simon peter also had a brother named "ANDREW" who was one of those 12 apostles.
so how is this JOHN related to h.haroon[as] ???
ZZNoor and Virani,
Yes! like Shams says..."You got it !"....so I hope you did this time !
"...it is a belief that Hazer Imam is the proof of Allah’s existence, the Creator of all things. ." ....You should know enough about the Imam to explain it in a reasonable and logical manner..."....and Muhammad declared Ali to be the Imam...".
This para above, is also what SNoorali has said and provides clarifications to a reader as to what his underlying intent or message may be....so why are you not also showing the same in your quotes? any special reason?
Why do you only quote a part with which you can easily exploit and create fitna with ? is it because you are so desperate to exploit individuals offering their own viewpoints or opinions on this forum ? are you just here and waiting for such situations to occur, so that you can start mocking at the ismailis ?
As if people do not know what the shahada states ?
And how can a PIR be a Prophet unless you haven't read the quran ? don't you know that Prophet hood came to an end ?
but did DAWA come to an end? or did this continue through the PIRS ?
In so far as I believe, the PIR in Ismailism is the Hujjatul-Imam and KHALIFATUR-RASOOLULLAH and so whilst Naboowat ended , DAWA continued through our PIRS and so as per the Ismaili belief ( which is somewhat different from the Asnasheris), the Murshidil Awwal was the Holy Prophet, who had also appointed PIR Imam Hasan as his successor to carry on the work of propagation.....
And Yes! the Imam of the time and age is the HUJJATULLAH (proof of God on this earth)...
NABI was the Reh'matu lil Aalimeen and showed the TRUTH !...Ali Ibn Abi Talib is the possessor of the TRUTH and where there is Ali there is TRUTH !...even if one does a close study of the Prophet's life, it reveals two important messages in his preachings and practice....WORSHIP of ALLAH ! and LOVE of Ali ! and he has declared in many situations that Ali was his "Wassi"....The Holy Prophet always preferred Ali over others including your ancestors.... considering SN loves to go off on a tangent his obsession seems more about some other subjects or issues about which I do not care as much, for a variety of reasons ?
In any event and regardless he (SN) is free to enjoy his opinions but his opinion or belief may or may not constitute the belief of the entire community ? and you have no right to mock or ridicule him....or us !
"AND everything WE have confined into a MANIFEST Imam ! so go and find yours too and stop stirring the pot as Allah will summon everyone through their Imams and those who hold onto the Imams will also be given the quran in their Right Hands and they will not be dealt with a shred unjustly !.....so go and find one quickly instead of wasting your time here mocking at people..
Yes! like Shams says..."You got it !"....so I hope you did this time !
"...it is a belief that Hazer Imam is the proof of Allah’s existence, the Creator of all things. ." ....You should know enough about the Imam to explain it in a reasonable and logical manner..."....and Muhammad declared Ali to be the Imam...".
This para above, is also what SNoorali has said and provides clarifications to a reader as to what his underlying intent or message may be....so why are you not also showing the same in your quotes? any special reason?
Why do you only quote a part with which you can easily exploit and create fitna with ? is it because you are so desperate to exploit individuals offering their own viewpoints or opinions on this forum ? are you just here and waiting for such situations to occur, so that you can start mocking at the ismailis ?
As if people do not know what the shahada states ?
And how can a PIR be a Prophet unless you haven't read the quran ? don't you know that Prophet hood came to an end ?
but did DAWA come to an end? or did this continue through the PIRS ?
In so far as I believe, the PIR in Ismailism is the Hujjatul-Imam and KHALIFATUR-RASOOLULLAH and so whilst Naboowat ended , DAWA continued through our PIRS and so as per the Ismaili belief ( which is somewhat different from the Asnasheris), the Murshidil Awwal was the Holy Prophet, who had also appointed PIR Imam Hasan as his successor to carry on the work of propagation.....
And Yes! the Imam of the time and age is the HUJJATULLAH (proof of God on this earth)...
NABI was the Reh'matu lil Aalimeen and showed the TRUTH !...Ali Ibn Abi Talib is the possessor of the TRUTH and where there is Ali there is TRUTH !...even if one does a close study of the Prophet's life, it reveals two important messages in his preachings and practice....WORSHIP of ALLAH ! and LOVE of Ali ! and he has declared in many situations that Ali was his "Wassi"....The Holy Prophet always preferred Ali over others including your ancestors.... considering SN loves to go off on a tangent his obsession seems more about some other subjects or issues about which I do not care as much, for a variety of reasons ?
In any event and regardless he (SN) is free to enjoy his opinions but his opinion or belief may or may not constitute the belief of the entire community ? and you have no right to mock or ridicule him....or us !
"AND everything WE have confined into a MANIFEST Imam ! so go and find yours too and stop stirring the pot as Allah will summon everyone through their Imams and those who hold onto the Imams will also be given the quran in their Right Hands and they will not be dealt with a shred unjustly !.....so go and find one quickly instead of wasting your time here mocking at people..
I am not aware of any proof of this. Please quote reliable Hadith or passages from what you call corrupted Quran.Murshidil Awwal was the Holy Prophet, who had also appointed PIR Imam Hasan as his successor to carry on the work of propagation.....
Prophet SAW passed away in 632 CE. Imam Hasan was born in 625 CE. So Prophet appointed 7 year old to “carry on the work of propagation.....”.
Look sister. Belief comes first and then people make up justifications to support their belief.
Once again fractured quote from what you call corrupted Quran.AND everything WE have confined into a MANIFEST Imam !
Here are 3 translation of 36:12 from what you call corrupted osman Quran
[Shakir 36:12] Surely We give life to the dead, and We write down what they have sent before and their footprints, and We have recorded everything in a clear writing.
[Yusufali 36:12] Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things have
[Pickthal 36:12] Lo! We it is Who bring the dead to life. We record that which they send before (them, and their footprints. And all things We have kept in a clear Register.
This has been pointed out many times but half quotes still keeps appearing.
Give it a rest sister. Enough of your cut and paste.
"...I am not aware of any proof of this. Please quote reliable Hadith or passages from what you call corrupted Quran...."
ZZnoor, if you were aware of everything then would we all not have considered you a Saint ? Haven't I been exceptionally clear in what I have said ? why then are you still so desperate to put words in the mouths of people?
Multiple English translations of the Qur'an, Islam's scripture, line shelves at book stores. Amazon.com sells more than dozens.
Because of the growing Muslim communities in English-speaking countries, as well as greater academic interest in Islam, there has been a blossoming in recent years of English translations.
Muslims view the Qur'an as God's direct words revealed in Arabic to the Prophet Muhammad (d. 632) but the narrators have called it the word of a Messenger ! how naive?.[1]
Muslim scholars themselves believe that any translation cannot be more than an approximate interpretation, intended only as a tool for the study and understanding of the original .
Since fewer than 20 percent of Muslims speak Arabic, this means that most Muslims study the text only in translation.
So how accurate are the Qur'an's renderings into English? The record is mixed.
Some are simply poor translations.
Others adopt sectarian biases, and those that are funded by Saudi Arabia often insert political annotation.
Since translators seek to convey not only text but also meaning, many rely on the interpretation (tafsir) of medieval scholars in order to conform to an "orthodox" reading.
Early Translations
The first translations to English were not undertaken by Muslims but by Christians who sought to debunk Islam and aid in the conversion of Muslims to Christianity.
Alexander Ross, chaplain to Charles I (r. 1625-49) and the first to embark on the translation process, subtitled his 1649 work as "newly Englished for the satisfaction for all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities."[14] Interestingly, Ross did not speak Arabic and relied on secondarily translating from the French, a language in which he was not well-schooled.
He, therefore, based his interpretation on a problematic rendition by Andrew Du Ryer. According to George Sale (1697-1736), "[Du Ryer's] performance … is far from being a just translation; there being mistakes in every page, besides frequent transpositions, omissions and additions, faults."[15]
Most eighteenth and nineteenth century translations were undertaken by authors without strong background in Islam.
As they were goaded by the urge to answer Christian polemic, their forgettable works do not reflect any intellectual depth; as such, copies are extremely rare.
Among the best known, albeit pejorative, English-language analyses of Islam during this time were those by Christian authors such as George Sale, John Rodwell (1808-1900), Edward Palmer (1840-1882), and Sir William Muir (1819-1905).[16] Of these, Sale was probably the most important because he wrote a detailed critique about earlier translations.[17]
His work became the standard reference for all English readers until almost the end of the nineteenth century.[18]
However, his work was limited by his lack of access to public libraries forcing him to rely only upon material in his personal collection.[19]
While Sale gave the impression that he based his translation on the Arabic text, others have suggested that he relied on an earlier Latin translation.[20]
Sale did not insert verse numbers into his work, nor did he insert footnotes or other explanations. The result, therefore, is a work that is extremely difficult to comprehend.
ZZnoor, if you were aware of everything then would we all not have considered you a Saint ? Haven't I been exceptionally clear in what I have said ? why then are you still so desperate to put words in the mouths of people?
Multiple English translations of the Qur'an, Islam's scripture, line shelves at book stores. Amazon.com sells more than dozens.
Because of the growing Muslim communities in English-speaking countries, as well as greater academic interest in Islam, there has been a blossoming in recent years of English translations.
Muslims view the Qur'an as God's direct words revealed in Arabic to the Prophet Muhammad (d. 632) but the narrators have called it the word of a Messenger ! how naive?.[1]
Muslim scholars themselves believe that any translation cannot be more than an approximate interpretation, intended only as a tool for the study and understanding of the original .
Since fewer than 20 percent of Muslims speak Arabic, this means that most Muslims study the text only in translation.
So how accurate are the Qur'an's renderings into English? The record is mixed.
Some are simply poor translations.
Others adopt sectarian biases, and those that are funded by Saudi Arabia often insert political annotation.
Since translators seek to convey not only text but also meaning, many rely on the interpretation (tafsir) of medieval scholars in order to conform to an "orthodox" reading.
Early Translations
The first translations to English were not undertaken by Muslims but by Christians who sought to debunk Islam and aid in the conversion of Muslims to Christianity.
Alexander Ross, chaplain to Charles I (r. 1625-49) and the first to embark on the translation process, subtitled his 1649 work as "newly Englished for the satisfaction for all that desire to look into the Turkish vanities."[14] Interestingly, Ross did not speak Arabic and relied on secondarily translating from the French, a language in which he was not well-schooled.
He, therefore, based his interpretation on a problematic rendition by Andrew Du Ryer. According to George Sale (1697-1736), "[Du Ryer's] performance … is far from being a just translation; there being mistakes in every page, besides frequent transpositions, omissions and additions, faults."[15]
Most eighteenth and nineteenth century translations were undertaken by authors without strong background in Islam.
As they were goaded by the urge to answer Christian polemic, their forgettable works do not reflect any intellectual depth; as such, copies are extremely rare.
Among the best known, albeit pejorative, English-language analyses of Islam during this time were those by Christian authors such as George Sale, John Rodwell (1808-1900), Edward Palmer (1840-1882), and Sir William Muir (1819-1905).[16] Of these, Sale was probably the most important because he wrote a detailed critique about earlier translations.[17]
His work became the standard reference for all English readers until almost the end of the nineteenth century.[18]
However, his work was limited by his lack of access to public libraries forcing him to rely only upon material in his personal collection.[19]
While Sale gave the impression that he based his translation on the Arabic text, others have suggested that he relied on an earlier Latin translation.[20]
Sale did not insert verse numbers into his work, nor did he insert footnotes or other explanations. The result, therefore, is a work that is extremely difficult to comprehend.
"...Prophet SAW passed away in 632 CE. Imam Hasan was born in 625 CE. So Prophet appointed 7 year old to “carry on the work of propagation.....”. Look sister. Belief comes first and then people make up justifications to support their belief...."
ZZNoor, I have no obligation to show you the "hadith" - it is upon you to figure this out....if I am talking about an Ismaili belief then it must be a sound belief, based on something valid and concrete as it is the only Imamat that exists today and since 1400 years....if you go through the teachings of the ismaili Imams, one will easily notice that every word they speak is full of wisdom and if one listens to their teachings, he will sit in wonderment because of their spiritual profundity.....you can serve Islam better by investing your time and effort more productively by doing some research instead of vainly wasting your time chasing your own tails !
What we do observe is that you .... are desperate to grab at anything unauthentic to try and "disprove" the Ismaili Imamat or their beliefs, using unauthentic accounts and propagation...the end result is that some of you have succumbed to an immoral life and the anchors of your own moral behaviour have dragged you to depths of degradation and ridicule in the world and islam is at cross roads because of people like you.
DID SAYYIDA AYESHA (ra) MARRY MUHAMMAD (P.B.U.H), THE PROPHET OF ISLAM, AT AGE 6?
At what age did the 48th Imam of the Ismailis come to the Throne of Imamat?
It is clear that your brand of Islam is at odds with logic, reason ...
ZZNoor, I have no obligation to show you the "hadith" - it is upon you to figure this out....if I am talking about an Ismaili belief then it must be a sound belief, based on something valid and concrete as it is the only Imamat that exists today and since 1400 years....if you go through the teachings of the ismaili Imams, one will easily notice that every word they speak is full of wisdom and if one listens to their teachings, he will sit in wonderment because of their spiritual profundity.....you can serve Islam better by investing your time and effort more productively by doing some research instead of vainly wasting your time chasing your own tails !
What we do observe is that you .... are desperate to grab at anything unauthentic to try and "disprove" the Ismaili Imamat or their beliefs, using unauthentic accounts and propagation...the end result is that some of you have succumbed to an immoral life and the anchors of your own moral behaviour have dragged you to depths of degradation and ridicule in the world and islam is at cross roads because of people like you.
DID SAYYIDA AYESHA (ra) MARRY MUHAMMAD (P.B.U.H), THE PROPHET OF ISLAM, AT AGE 6?
At what age did the 48th Imam of the Ismailis come to the Throne of Imamat?
It is clear that your brand of Islam is at odds with logic, reason ...
"...[Pickthal 36:12] Lo! We it is Who bring the dead to life. We record that which they send before (them, and their footprints. And all things We have kept in a clear Register. .."
Yes! I was infact waiting for you to say this....(a) the narrators have tried to suppress the truth because the Munafiqun have never enjoyed that experience of love and gnosis as they sold their faith for a pittance !
(b) a point to be noted here is that every Ismaili Imam from Ali to Karim has claimed opnely during their Imamat to be the True Imams - of the believers - and as per divine will ! Not only that but they publicly claimed that their holy line of Imamat will continue until the end of this world and it has continued according to the covenant of Allah, with Abraham.
does a lie last for long? if the Ismaili Imams had lied like others would their lineage have lasted for so long?
(c)Allah says: They intend that they put out the LIGHT of Allah with their MOUTHS, but Allah disdains aught save that HE keeps PERFECT HIS Light, however much the disbelievers are averse..." - Now it is actually you who does not have the entirity of the Quran for Allah is clear that HE did send a (new Light and a Perspicous Book - You have neither and you are whining now and I do not know if you are talking from both your ends or three including the bottom one? and
(d) Now go and read the quran properly and you will find TWO ayats which clearly refer to the Imam also as being the "Clear Book " and I will not show you these ayats....lets hope your mullahs have not removed it !
Yes! I was infact waiting for you to say this....(a) the narrators have tried to suppress the truth because the Munafiqun have never enjoyed that experience of love and gnosis as they sold their faith for a pittance !
(b) a point to be noted here is that every Ismaili Imam from Ali to Karim has claimed opnely during their Imamat to be the True Imams - of the believers - and as per divine will ! Not only that but they publicly claimed that their holy line of Imamat will continue until the end of this world and it has continued according to the covenant of Allah, with Abraham.
does a lie last for long? if the Ismaili Imams had lied like others would their lineage have lasted for so long?
(c)Allah says: They intend that they put out the LIGHT of Allah with their MOUTHS, but Allah disdains aught save that HE keeps PERFECT HIS Light, however much the disbelievers are averse..." - Now it is actually you who does not have the entirity of the Quran for Allah is clear that HE did send a (new Light and a Perspicous Book - You have neither and you are whining now and I do not know if you are talking from both your ends or three including the bottom one? and
(d) Now go and read the quran properly and you will find TWO ayats which clearly refer to the Imam also as being the "Clear Book " and I will not show you these ayats....lets hope your mullahs have not removed it !
-
shiraz.virani
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:52 pm
brother/sister zznoor why would you say that piratan did not exist after rasool [saw] ???Quote:
Murshidil Awwal was the Holy Prophet, who had also appointed PIR Imam Hasan as his successor to carry on the work of propagation.....
I am not aware of any proof of this. Please quote reliable Hadith or passages from what you call corrupted Quran.
Prophet SAW passed away in 632 CE. Imam Hasan was born in 625 CE. So Prophet appointed 7 year old to “carry on the work of propagation.....”.
Look sister. Belief comes first and then people make up justifications to support their belief.
bro by piratan we are not talking about a prophet who receives divine revelation or in short WAHI from the lord by piratan we mean a pir who knows what/who is divine...pirs are no ordinary baba's or mullah brother, they are spiritually elevated........but there is no way you can compare rasool[saw] with pir sadardin or pir shams for the simple fact that they never received any revelation or were the carriers of any new book !
it was the time of our 48th imam who took care of both the office SHAH[KING OF THE KINGS] and PIR [TEACHER]
and you said imam hassan[as] was only seven, my dear brother how old was jesus[as] when he became a prophet ??? How old was he when he started talking ???
brother lets try to understand the actual meaning of the word IMAMIN MUBINQuote:
AND everything WE have confined into a MANIFEST Imam !
Once again fractured quote from what you call corrupted Quran.
Here are 3 translation of 36:12 from what you call corrupted osman Quran
[Shakir 36:12] Surely We give life to the dead, and We write down what they have sent before and their footprints, and We have recorded everything in a clear writing.
[Yusufali 36:12] Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things have
[Pickthal 36:12] Lo! We it is Who bring the dead to life. We record that which they send before (them, and their footprints. And all things We have kept in a clear Register.
This has been pointed out many times but half quotes still keeps appearing.
Give it a rest sister. Enough of your cut and paste.
MUBIN = MANIFEST, APPARENT,PRESENT OR VISIBLE,
IMAMIN = IMAM/MODEL/TEACHER/GUIDE OR A PATH
my dear brother/sister zznoor, below is the actual transliteration of [36:12]
Inna nahnu nuhyee almawta wanaktubu ma qaddamoo waatharahum wakulla shayin ahsaynahu fee imamin mubeenin
The word mubin has a special significance. In Arabic, mubin and the root "b-y-n" means readily apparent. Thus, Imam al-Mubin means manifest or apparent Imam.
The Christian Crusaders and their occidental chroniclers were completely ignorant of Islam. They knew Islam through the literature of the Sunnis, and translated the Koran in the same vein. Peter de Venerable (1094-1156) was Abbot of Cluny in Toledo. The circle of scholars he had commissioned produced mutilated translation of the Koran for the first time from Arabic into Latin. Peter de Cluny (d. 551/1156) and Robert of Ketton also produced the Latin translation of the Koran in 538/1143, and it was followed by the translation of Mark of Toledo (1190-1200) under the title of Alcorani Machomati Liber. Joinville and Pedro de Alfonso and other also followed them in the 12th century. Since the European scholars were yet unknown with the Shi'ite Islam, they like the Sunnis translated the meaning of the Imam in a wrong sense, and the practice is still continued.
Hence, the Imam al-Mubin is translated as Codex clear (Richard Bell), Clear Register (A.J. Arberry), Open Book (John Naish), Clear Model or Clear Prototype (T.P. Hughes), Clear Book (J.M. Rodwell, Margoliouth), Plain Register (George Sale), Plain Model (E.H. Palmer), Claro Registo (Bento de Castro), etc.
dear zznoor, i want you to relax and try to understand that which iam trying to tell you
The scholars for the most part render its meaning as lauh mahfuz or Clear Book. The word mahfuz means that which is guarded or concealed, as it is said hafizs sirr means he concealed. It contradicts the meaning of Imam al-Mubin as the word mubin means open, manifest or apparent; which is opposite to the meaning of mahfuz. The word Imam al-Mubin is also used in the Koran (15:79): "Verily both (Shuaib and Saleh) are on an apparent path (Imam al-Mubin) (15:79). If Imam al-Mubin means lauh mahfuz, then it will mean that both prophets were in or on the lauh mahfuz!??
The Scholars also make its meaning as Clear Book being the title of the Koran. Suyuti gave fifty-five different titles of the Koran in al-Itaqan, in which the title of Koran as Imam al-Mubin is not found. God says, "And of everything We have created pairs that you may be mindful" (51:49), and according to Hadith al-Saqlain, the Imam is the pair of the Koran, which is tied together and will not be separated till the day of judgment. Thus, God says (36:12) for the Imam: "And We have vested everything in the Imam al-Mubin" (wa kulla shayin ahsaynahu fi imamim mubin), and almost in the equal strain for the Koran (78:29): "And We have vested everything in the Book" (wa kulla shayin ahsaynahu kitaba).
Thus, the making of Imam al-Mubin as the Koran is an irrational theory.
clear ???
hope i answered your question brother/sister zznoor !
What you smoking?zznoor wrote:I am not aware of any proof of this. Please quote reliable Hadith or passages from what you call corrupted Quran.Murshidil Awwal was the Holy Prophet, who had also appointed PIR Imam Hasan as his successor to carry on the work of propagation.....
Prophet SAW passed away in 632 CE. Imam Hasan was born in 625 CE. So Prophet appointed 7 year old to “carry on the work of propagation.....”.
Look sister. Belief comes first and then people make up justifications to support their belief.
Once again fractured quote from what you call corrupted Quran.AND everything WE have confined into a MANIFEST Imam !
Here are 3 translation of 36:12 from what you call corrupted osman Quran
[Shakir 36:12] Surely We give life to the dead, and We write down what they have sent before and their footprints, and We have recorded everything in a clear writing.
[Yusufali 36:12] Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things have
[Pickthal 36:12] Lo! We it is Who bring the dead to life. We record that which they send before (them, and their footprints. And all things We have kept in a clear Register.
This has been pointed out many times but half quotes still keeps appearing.
Give it a rest sister. Enough of your cut and paste.
Do you know who appoints a PIR?..A PIR CAN NOT APPOINT A PIR.
GO READ THE WILL OF IMAM SMS...
I APPOINT THE SON OF MY SON - MY GRANDSON AS THE SHAH AND THE PIR....
Shams
In Ismailism, so far, I believe we have had 50 Holy PIRS...the current PIR o Murshid is our own Imam e Zaman....
About 11 Imams according to what I know were also PIRS....
Yes! PIRS cannot appoint their successors - they are "deputies" of the Imam and it is the Imam's prerogative either to appoint a Pir or to keep the piratan to himself...
Now we have 49 Imams and with each Imam there has been a PIR plus PIR Imam Hasan and this then totals 50 PIRS so far....
Imam SMS has infact confirmed in his Holy Firman at Cutch Mundra on 22nd November, 1903 about the appointment of PIR Imam Hasan by the Prophet himself to carry on dawa and though Prophethood ended, dawa has continued through the Holy PIRS...one can only attain the perfection of knowledge about the Imam through the PIR...
About 11 Imams according to what I know were also PIRS....
Yes! PIRS cannot appoint their successors - they are "deputies" of the Imam and it is the Imam's prerogative either to appoint a Pir or to keep the piratan to himself...
Now we have 49 Imams and with each Imam there has been a PIR plus PIR Imam Hasan and this then totals 50 PIRS so far....
Imam SMS has infact confirmed in his Holy Firman at Cutch Mundra on 22nd November, 1903 about the appointment of PIR Imam Hasan by the Prophet himself to carry on dawa and though Prophethood ended, dawa has continued through the Holy PIRS...one can only attain the perfection of knowledge about the Imam through the PIR...
As a matter of fact - we give our Ba'yah to the Pir - who promises to lead us to the Imam. Our tariqah is led by the Pir..He is our intercessor to the Imam - i.e. the essence.znanwalla wrote:In Ismailism, so far, I believe we have had 50 Holy PIRS...the current PIR o Murshid is our own Imam e Zaman....
About 11 Imams according to what I know were also PIRS....
Yes! PIRS cannot appoint their successors - they are "deputies" of the Imam and it is the Imam's prerogative either to appoint a Pir or to keep the piratan to himself...
Now we have 49 Imams and with each Imam there has been a PIR plus PIR Imam Hasan and this then totals 50 PIRS so far....
Imam SMS has infact confirmed in his Holy Firman at Cutch Mundra on 22nd November, 1903 about the appointment of PIR Imam Hasan by the Prophet himself to carry on dawa and though Prophethood ended, dawa has continued through the Holy PIRS...one can only attain the perfection of knowledge about the Imam through the PIR...
Shams
-
samirnoorali
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 1:18 pm
Simon Peter in Ismaili Doctrine
Simon Peter in Ismaili Doctrine
Dear Shiraz.virani:
Thank you for your reply, it is a pleasure speaking with you on this subject. You are right that the bible says that Simon is the son of John, and he is from the village of Bethsaida. It is also true that the Bible says his brother’s name was Andrew.
This subject is highly equivocal, and when looking at the history of the Imamat we should be careful under what perspective lens we are looking at it with. The Jews have no theological relations with the personage of Simon Peter. The Christians themselves have infinite interpretations within the sects of the faith as to who Simon Peter was. Protestants, for example, do not revere the Pope in the same fashion as the Catholics. In Islam, Simon Peter is a non-existant character, a non significant figure. Along with that, Ali ibn Abu Talib is not mentioned either by name in the Quran at all, yet he is a significant figure in Shia thought and a manifestation of God in Ismailism.
There is no such thing in this world as one perspective. There may be one truth, but perspectives are born out of individual interpretations. This is my interpretation of events, and my source is not the Quran or the Bible. My source is the Ginans, because I consider that to be a more recent adaptation of events that perhaps gives a more fresh perspective on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The Torah cannot critique itself, it needed the Bible. The Bible could not critique itself, it needed the Quran. The Quran talks about both books of the Judeo-Christian faith and so we are able to get an overview of both prequels.
Pir Sadardin did us a lot of justice in that he came with a fresh perspective. It doesn’t seem like he was overly concerned about yanking quotes from different texts in order to convince his audience about faith. According the Ginans, Pir Sadardin exuded a self-reflexive stance when it came to explaining the faith and its tenants. Infact he doesn’t really propose Islam by name, but starts with suggesting that his faith is called “the true path.” Ismailism really has absolutely nothing in relation to Shia Islam other than by namesake.
If you look at the docrine of Shia Islam then you will soon come to realize that Ismailism is completely different. Ismailism, is an interpretation of the faith of Islam, but it is more an interpretation of events in Islam. Ismailism would have become a different faith altogether, but that would undermine the legitimacy of the doctrine. We are calling ourselves Shia Muslims because we want to include, not exclude, Muhammad and his teachings within the corpus of our faith. Otherwise, we actually believe that there was a continuation of Muhammad’s Noor, which we meticulously define as the Noor of Piratan.
This Noor of Piratan is the very Noor of the Prophet Muhammad. That means that the personage of Pir Sadardin was the same as the Prophet himself. We could call it reincarnation, but reincarnation can also be confused with multiplicity of the godhead. In this case it seems the Noor of Allah has the property of being multifarious. This adds an added element of complexity, because what is being proposed here is that the Noor can be present in more than one place at a time. An example would be Ali and Muhammad, they had the same Noor or personage, but the physical vessels that they were placed in were considered separate entities and they acted independently.
This phenomenon is worthy of speculation because God doesn’t seem to be an easy concept. Conceptualizing the Noor is considered blasphemous in many religions because it is seen as an attempt to anthropomorphize God when he is not supposed to be.
The point I’m trying to make is that the concept of Simon Peter coming from Aaron will not be found in the Bible. If that was the case then Christianity would fall apart overnight. The Christians are not explicitly concerned with the personage of Simon Peter. The reason why this topic is important to Ismailis is because in our doctrine, that is to say the doctrine of Pir Sadardin, Simon Peter is decended from Aaron.
Now, you also have to take into consideration that the Christians don’t view Simon Peter as Ismailis do. For Christians Simon Peter was given the authority by Jesus Christ but he was simply an apostle, and in many respects a servant of Jesus’ ministry. He is also considered to have made mistakes for which Jesus has corrected. That wouldn’t “jive” with the Ismaili view of Imamat. In our case if Simon Peter was the Imam then he would be infallible, and such occurrences as stated in the Bible could not have occurred.
Reading a text, although perceived by many to be a scholarly approach, is in fact a terrible way to critique historical events. History has many contexts, and the rings of perceptions are equivalent to the number of individuals who perceive them. Take the Quran for example. Many Muslims throughout the world consider the Quran to be infallible, the direct word of Allah. But as history shows, humans have an innate predisposition to replace divine authority with inanimate objects. Take the instance of Moses, when he went up the mountain to contemplate, behind his back his followers erected a golden calf and began to worship it.
The lesson is clear that without divine presence mankind has a predisposition to gravitate toward idol worshipping, polytheism, atheism, and even cannibalism. We could say that the divine messengers civilized human beings when they needed it most.
The Quran was not written by the Prophet Muhammad as many would hope to suggest. Muhammad would speak in large or small gatherings and many individuals noted down his words. He would attend these large gatherings and deliver a lengthy sermon about what he wished his followers to do and not to do. Many people remembered his words, and others forgot pieces of them, and at the time of his death there were all kinds of interpretations of his words.
Many streams within the Islamic faith would suggest that Muhammad did not speak a word that was not Allah’s. That would not seem logical, because part of a person’s everyday speech would include small talk and words which don’t have significance. For example, if Muhammad had to go to sleep and needed a blanket, his words were not Allah’s, they were his own. He would ask for a blanket in his own words.
Along with that, many streams within the Islamic faith would also suggest that Muhammad would receive revelations from Allah. They propose that Muhammad would be walking, or sitting down, or having a conversation with people and suddenly he would fall onto the floor and get into, what seems to be, an epileptic episode where his eyes would roll back for a few moments and then he would speak like a Greek Oracle. When he regains consciousness he himself had no recollection of what happened.
That view is absurd and seems to be the work of highly irrational individuals who have taken a simple act and transformed it into polymorphous perverse.
In a more practical light, it would seem plausible that Muhammad was giving his own thoughts, his own words to the people which were in the form of sermons and individual advises. Upon his death people scrambled to record what Muhammad had said in order to keep his memory alive. The compilation of the Quran in its present form was made by the third Caliph of Islam, Osman. Osman ordered his court to seek out any individuals who could recollect the words of Muhammad so that they could compile it into one corpus.
Osman took on the meticulous task of listening to anyone who would come to his court and disclose their collections of Muhammad’s words. Since there was a small stipend involved, many individuals took it upon themselves to falsify their collections in order to intensify their profits. Osman employed many individuals to undergo the task of organizing the material into chapters and verses.
Unfortunately, Osman also had his own reserve about what goes in and out of the Quran. This was partly driven to ensure that the Quran supports his legitamcy to power and in no way conflicts with it. Along with that, much like how Paul had an altercation with Simon Peter, similarly Osman had an altercation with Ali. Osman saw Ali as a threat to his throne, and because there were many who wished to overthrow Osman’s Caliphate he made sure that any support for Ali by Muhammad should be omitted from the Quran. The act of omitting Ali from the Quran completely changed the dynamics of Islam and, as history shows, this carried on for hundreds of years.
Eventually even mainstream Shism, whose very doctrine revolves around Ali, became distinct from its original conception. Shism was supposed to regard Ali as the Caliph, and his descendants were supposed to be unceasing. But in time, as I mentioned before, without the divine present on Earth human beings tend to incline toward inanimate objects. I would also like to add that along with inanimate objects, humans have also been found to create doctrine around inanimate objects which are created to justify the absence of divine authority. This phenomenon happened in mainstream Shism.
In the Shia Ithnasheri faith, they believed in Ali, but after his death the question of succession took on various different avenues. Some Shias claimed that Hussien was the rightful successor of Ali, while others said it was Hasan who was the rightful successor. The Shia lineage is as follows:
1. Ali
2. Hassan (not Hussein as in Ismailis)
3. Hussein
4. Zainul Abideen
5. Muhammadin Al Bakir
6. Jafer e Sadiq
7. Musa Kazim
8. Ali Reza
9. Muhammad Taqi
10. Ali Naqi
11. Hasan Askari
12. Muhammad Al Mehdi
The Shias believe that Hasan Askari died without appointing a blood related successor. His adopted son, Muhammad al Mehdi became the successor. He was born in 868 AD and at the age of 5 (872 AD) he disappeared. He is believed to be alive, but invisible, and will come back to Earth with Jesus Christ to fight the one-eyed Dajjal.
No Ismaili can say that they follow the same linage as proposed by the Shia Ithnasheries. No Ismaili believes that the Imam is hiding and will come back to fight a one-eyed demon. Ismailis don’t acknowledge Morram, as they believe that re-enacting the past in the present doesn’t make sense. The Shia Ithnasheries beat their backs with objects to draw blood in order to somehow feel for the dead martyr fall in Kerbala doesn’t sit well with Ismailis. Beating yourself after nearly 1400 years makes very little sense and is counterproductive in the view of Ismailism.
In this case, my brother Shiraz.virani, I would suggest you look at the history in light of Pir Sadardin’s doctrine, not the doctrine of the Bible. Neither the Bible nor the Quran will support that Simon Peter is the descendant of Aaaron. But in our faith, our perspective is based on the ancestry of the present living Imam, and so we trace back to Aaron in light of this family branch, which we consider a direct patriarchal lineage.
The Bible says that Simon Peter was an apostle, but that is not what the Ismaili doctrine supports. So even the dates, the timing of the Prophets, the linage of Abraham, all these structures are not the same as what Pir Sadardin proposed. It is almost to the point where we are contesting that the Bible is inaccurate in its dating and structure of events. Dialogues are also arbitrary and perhaps only a small fraction of the Biblical conversations actually occurred. Just like the Quran, the Bible is a man made composition of many individual Saints who have authored their version of events and sayings of Jesus Christ. Authors such as John, Luke, Matthew, are all separate books of various writings which were compiled many years after the death of Christ. This compilation was put into its present format by the early Church and was approved by the Popes themselves.
The Bible was not written in English, nor did Jesus speak English. It went through many revisions and translations till the standard King James Bible came out. That Bible is considered to be one of the most popular versions of the text and is highly recommended as opposed to modern translations.
Dear Shiraz.virani:
Thank you for your reply, it is a pleasure speaking with you on this subject. You are right that the bible says that Simon is the son of John, and he is from the village of Bethsaida. It is also true that the Bible says his brother’s name was Andrew.
This subject is highly equivocal, and when looking at the history of the Imamat we should be careful under what perspective lens we are looking at it with. The Jews have no theological relations with the personage of Simon Peter. The Christians themselves have infinite interpretations within the sects of the faith as to who Simon Peter was. Protestants, for example, do not revere the Pope in the same fashion as the Catholics. In Islam, Simon Peter is a non-existant character, a non significant figure. Along with that, Ali ibn Abu Talib is not mentioned either by name in the Quran at all, yet he is a significant figure in Shia thought and a manifestation of God in Ismailism.
There is no such thing in this world as one perspective. There may be one truth, but perspectives are born out of individual interpretations. This is my interpretation of events, and my source is not the Quran or the Bible. My source is the Ginans, because I consider that to be a more recent adaptation of events that perhaps gives a more fresh perspective on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The Torah cannot critique itself, it needed the Bible. The Bible could not critique itself, it needed the Quran. The Quran talks about both books of the Judeo-Christian faith and so we are able to get an overview of both prequels.
Pir Sadardin did us a lot of justice in that he came with a fresh perspective. It doesn’t seem like he was overly concerned about yanking quotes from different texts in order to convince his audience about faith. According the Ginans, Pir Sadardin exuded a self-reflexive stance when it came to explaining the faith and its tenants. Infact he doesn’t really propose Islam by name, but starts with suggesting that his faith is called “the true path.” Ismailism really has absolutely nothing in relation to Shia Islam other than by namesake.
If you look at the docrine of Shia Islam then you will soon come to realize that Ismailism is completely different. Ismailism, is an interpretation of the faith of Islam, but it is more an interpretation of events in Islam. Ismailism would have become a different faith altogether, but that would undermine the legitimacy of the doctrine. We are calling ourselves Shia Muslims because we want to include, not exclude, Muhammad and his teachings within the corpus of our faith. Otherwise, we actually believe that there was a continuation of Muhammad’s Noor, which we meticulously define as the Noor of Piratan.
This Noor of Piratan is the very Noor of the Prophet Muhammad. That means that the personage of Pir Sadardin was the same as the Prophet himself. We could call it reincarnation, but reincarnation can also be confused with multiplicity of the godhead. In this case it seems the Noor of Allah has the property of being multifarious. This adds an added element of complexity, because what is being proposed here is that the Noor can be present in more than one place at a time. An example would be Ali and Muhammad, they had the same Noor or personage, but the physical vessels that they were placed in were considered separate entities and they acted independently.
This phenomenon is worthy of speculation because God doesn’t seem to be an easy concept. Conceptualizing the Noor is considered blasphemous in many religions because it is seen as an attempt to anthropomorphize God when he is not supposed to be.
The point I’m trying to make is that the concept of Simon Peter coming from Aaron will not be found in the Bible. If that was the case then Christianity would fall apart overnight. The Christians are not explicitly concerned with the personage of Simon Peter. The reason why this topic is important to Ismailis is because in our doctrine, that is to say the doctrine of Pir Sadardin, Simon Peter is decended from Aaron.
Now, you also have to take into consideration that the Christians don’t view Simon Peter as Ismailis do. For Christians Simon Peter was given the authority by Jesus Christ but he was simply an apostle, and in many respects a servant of Jesus’ ministry. He is also considered to have made mistakes for which Jesus has corrected. That wouldn’t “jive” with the Ismaili view of Imamat. In our case if Simon Peter was the Imam then he would be infallible, and such occurrences as stated in the Bible could not have occurred.
Reading a text, although perceived by many to be a scholarly approach, is in fact a terrible way to critique historical events. History has many contexts, and the rings of perceptions are equivalent to the number of individuals who perceive them. Take the Quran for example. Many Muslims throughout the world consider the Quran to be infallible, the direct word of Allah. But as history shows, humans have an innate predisposition to replace divine authority with inanimate objects. Take the instance of Moses, when he went up the mountain to contemplate, behind his back his followers erected a golden calf and began to worship it.
The lesson is clear that without divine presence mankind has a predisposition to gravitate toward idol worshipping, polytheism, atheism, and even cannibalism. We could say that the divine messengers civilized human beings when they needed it most.
The Quran was not written by the Prophet Muhammad as many would hope to suggest. Muhammad would speak in large or small gatherings and many individuals noted down his words. He would attend these large gatherings and deliver a lengthy sermon about what he wished his followers to do and not to do. Many people remembered his words, and others forgot pieces of them, and at the time of his death there were all kinds of interpretations of his words.
Many streams within the Islamic faith would suggest that Muhammad did not speak a word that was not Allah’s. That would not seem logical, because part of a person’s everyday speech would include small talk and words which don’t have significance. For example, if Muhammad had to go to sleep and needed a blanket, his words were not Allah’s, they were his own. He would ask for a blanket in his own words.
Along with that, many streams within the Islamic faith would also suggest that Muhammad would receive revelations from Allah. They propose that Muhammad would be walking, or sitting down, or having a conversation with people and suddenly he would fall onto the floor and get into, what seems to be, an epileptic episode where his eyes would roll back for a few moments and then he would speak like a Greek Oracle. When he regains consciousness he himself had no recollection of what happened.
That view is absurd and seems to be the work of highly irrational individuals who have taken a simple act and transformed it into polymorphous perverse.
In a more practical light, it would seem plausible that Muhammad was giving his own thoughts, his own words to the people which were in the form of sermons and individual advises. Upon his death people scrambled to record what Muhammad had said in order to keep his memory alive. The compilation of the Quran in its present form was made by the third Caliph of Islam, Osman. Osman ordered his court to seek out any individuals who could recollect the words of Muhammad so that they could compile it into one corpus.
Osman took on the meticulous task of listening to anyone who would come to his court and disclose their collections of Muhammad’s words. Since there was a small stipend involved, many individuals took it upon themselves to falsify their collections in order to intensify their profits. Osman employed many individuals to undergo the task of organizing the material into chapters and verses.
Unfortunately, Osman also had his own reserve about what goes in and out of the Quran. This was partly driven to ensure that the Quran supports his legitamcy to power and in no way conflicts with it. Along with that, much like how Paul had an altercation with Simon Peter, similarly Osman had an altercation with Ali. Osman saw Ali as a threat to his throne, and because there were many who wished to overthrow Osman’s Caliphate he made sure that any support for Ali by Muhammad should be omitted from the Quran. The act of omitting Ali from the Quran completely changed the dynamics of Islam and, as history shows, this carried on for hundreds of years.
Eventually even mainstream Shism, whose very doctrine revolves around Ali, became distinct from its original conception. Shism was supposed to regard Ali as the Caliph, and his descendants were supposed to be unceasing. But in time, as I mentioned before, without the divine present on Earth human beings tend to incline toward inanimate objects. I would also like to add that along with inanimate objects, humans have also been found to create doctrine around inanimate objects which are created to justify the absence of divine authority. This phenomenon happened in mainstream Shism.
In the Shia Ithnasheri faith, they believed in Ali, but after his death the question of succession took on various different avenues. Some Shias claimed that Hussien was the rightful successor of Ali, while others said it was Hasan who was the rightful successor. The Shia lineage is as follows:
1. Ali
2. Hassan (not Hussein as in Ismailis)
3. Hussein
4. Zainul Abideen
5. Muhammadin Al Bakir
6. Jafer e Sadiq
7. Musa Kazim
8. Ali Reza
9. Muhammad Taqi
10. Ali Naqi
11. Hasan Askari
12. Muhammad Al Mehdi
The Shias believe that Hasan Askari died without appointing a blood related successor. His adopted son, Muhammad al Mehdi became the successor. He was born in 868 AD and at the age of 5 (872 AD) he disappeared. He is believed to be alive, but invisible, and will come back to Earth with Jesus Christ to fight the one-eyed Dajjal.
No Ismaili can say that they follow the same linage as proposed by the Shia Ithnasheries. No Ismaili believes that the Imam is hiding and will come back to fight a one-eyed demon. Ismailis don’t acknowledge Morram, as they believe that re-enacting the past in the present doesn’t make sense. The Shia Ithnasheries beat their backs with objects to draw blood in order to somehow feel for the dead martyr fall in Kerbala doesn’t sit well with Ismailis. Beating yourself after nearly 1400 years makes very little sense and is counterproductive in the view of Ismailism.
In this case, my brother Shiraz.virani, I would suggest you look at the history in light of Pir Sadardin’s doctrine, not the doctrine of the Bible. Neither the Bible nor the Quran will support that Simon Peter is the descendant of Aaaron. But in our faith, our perspective is based on the ancestry of the present living Imam, and so we trace back to Aaron in light of this family branch, which we consider a direct patriarchal lineage.
The Bible says that Simon Peter was an apostle, but that is not what the Ismaili doctrine supports. So even the dates, the timing of the Prophets, the linage of Abraham, all these structures are not the same as what Pir Sadardin proposed. It is almost to the point where we are contesting that the Bible is inaccurate in its dating and structure of events. Dialogues are also arbitrary and perhaps only a small fraction of the Biblical conversations actually occurred. Just like the Quran, the Bible is a man made composition of many individual Saints who have authored their version of events and sayings of Jesus Christ. Authors such as John, Luke, Matthew, are all separate books of various writings which were compiled many years after the death of Christ. This compilation was put into its present format by the early Church and was approved by the Popes themselves.
The Bible was not written in English, nor did Jesus speak English. It went through many revisions and translations till the standard King James Bible came out. That Bible is considered to be one of the most popular versions of the text and is highly recommended as opposed to modern translations.
-
haroon_adel
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:55 am
- Location: USA
Re: Simon Peter in Ismaili Doctrine
Why? Why did he disapear and left all his followers alone on this earth without a guide?samirnoorali wrote:..he disappeared. He is believed to be alive, but invisible...
-
shiraz.virani
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:52 pm