CAN SAYING 'YA ALY' BE A SIN.

[arshad1988]

Does this mean that Christians, who do not believe Jesus to be the literal Son of God are correct in their belief, in the sense of believing Jesus to be God-incarnate, since this is what mazhar (from translations I have seen) means?

[kmaherali]

Does this mean that Christians, who do not believe Jesus to be the literal Son of God are correct in their belief, in the sense of believing Jesus to be God-incarnate, since this is what mazhar (from translations I have seen) means?

Yes, Jesus like Muhammad was the mazhar of the Noor.

[arshad1988]

Thank you.

How can we reconcile these concepts with verses from the Qur'an such as 5:72 or 35:13-14 ?

[kmaherali]

How can we reconcile these concepts with verses from the Qur'an such as 5:72 or 35:13-14 ?

I am not quite following your question. What is in the verses which contradict the concepts?

[arshad1988]

The concept of not saying that Jesus is God. The concept of Jesus being God-incarnate would be contradicting this verse.

5:72. They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son Of Mary"...But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! Worship God, my Lord And your Lord." Whoever
Joins other gods with God,— God will forbid him The Garden, and the Fire Will be his abode. There will For the wrong-doers Be no one to help.

Also, the concept of invoking/calling on others besides God would be contradicting this verse, unless I am not reading it correctly:

35:13. He merges Night into Day, And He merges Day Into Night, and He has Subjected the sun and The moon (to His Law): Each one runs its course For a term appointed. Such is God your Lord: To Him belongs all Dominion. And those whom ye invoke Besides Him have not The least power.
14. If ye invoke them, They will not listen To your call, and if They were to listen, They cannot answer Your (prayer). On the Day Of Judgment they will reject Your "Partnership". And none, (O man!) can tell thee (The Truth) like the One Who is acquainted with all things.

[kmaherali]

The concept of not saying that Jesus is God. The concept of Jesus being God-incarnate would be contradicting this verse..

I think the notion of mazhar is not the same as God-incarnate as per MSMS's statement: "Christianity lost its strength and meaning for Muslims in that it saw it great and glorious founder not as a man but as God incarnate in man, as God made Flesh."

Mazhar means locus of manifestation, i.e., the Imam has 'access' or 'connection' to the Noor.

Also, the concept of invoking/calling on others besides God would be contradicting this verse, unless I am not reading it correctly:

I think when we invoke the names of the Prophet/Imams it is with the view to attain Allah, it is not with the view consider them as 'partners' with Allah. If you consider this verse along with the verses on wasila, the matter gets clarified.

Of course there can be many interpretations for the verse, but that is how I would reconcile the notion of invoking the names with the apparent opposition to it in the verse.

[arshad1988]

Thank you kmaherali. I appreciate what you have shared thus far.

I feel this notion of mazhar is rather complicated and hard to understand.

For example you say that the Imam has access to it, however in many ginans the Imam is actually referred to as God Himself. You may say that ginans are allegorical, however many think of them literally.

If people do not understand this concept as it should be understood, should they not refrain from it as it entering a dangerous zone, considering that God does not forgive associating with Him?

[kmaherali]

If people do not understand this concept as it should be understood, should they not refrain from it as it entering a dangerous zone, considering that God does not forgive associating with Him?

To refrain from it would be wrong as that would cut them off from the concept. There are however various levels of interpreting mazhar. Each person will come to his/her own interpretation.

There is a zaheri aspect to it and a batini one. The former deals with the manner in which we articulate the concept to everybody and it is usually stated as a doctrine. The later deals with personal interpretation restricted to each individual. It becomes dangerous when one articulates his/her own personal interpretations as representative of everyone.

[arshad1988]

To refrain from it would be wrong as that would cut them off from the concept.

Would it be as wrong as not receiving the forgiveness of Allah?

There are however various levels of interpreting mazhar. Each person will come to his/her own interpretation.

I think the majority don't come up with their own interpretation, rather the concept of Imam being God has been part of their upbringing (being told so or from ginans), rather than them coming up with their own conclusions. How else, except by actual experience, would the majority come to the conclusion that Imam is God?

[kmaherali]

Would it be as wrong as not receiving the forgiveness of Allah?

Allah's mercy is always there. When one sins, it is always against oneself. In this case one who cuts himself from the concept also cuts him/herself from true guidance and interpretation.

I think the majority don't come up with their own interpretation, rather the concept of Imam being God has been part of their upbringing (being told so or from ginans), rather than them coming up with their own conclusions. How else, except by actual experience, would the majority come to the conclusion that Imam is God?

The majority may not come with their own interpretation but they trust the interpretation provided by the Pirs. The reality of the Imam is something that needs to be experienced. The Pirs have told us that they have had the experience of the Imam as the Ultimate Source, hence their word is accepted:

jeere vaalaa dev jugatmaa(n) me pari bhram deetthaa
te satgur saaheb soi - re vaalaa
janamo janamanee sharannaagat raakhee
te aveechal pad mugataai - re vaalaa.................4

"In the world of spirits, I witness Him, as the Supreme Lord. He indeed is the True Guide, the Imam. He has accepted my surrender and submission of many births and has bestowed the everlasting exalted rank of freedom."

However we must be careful when articulating to others who may not have the necessary background to trust the experience of the Pir. We cannot tell others that because the Pirs have experienced the Imam as God, the Imam is God. That should not be the basis of articulation.

Nevertheless the bottom line is that whatever concept you adopt should inspire obedience to him.

[arshad1988]

Allah's mercy is always there...

Yes, Allah is Al-Rahman and Al-Raheem, however He is also Shadeedul Iqab (severe in punishment).

The majority may not come with their own interpretation but they trust the interpretation provided by the Pirs.

Would you be able to risk your eternal abode by trusting an experience you never had but of someone else?

[kmaherali]

Yes, Allah is Al-Rahman and Al-Raheem, however He is also Shadeedul Iqab (severe in punishment).

But there is mercy encompassed in his apparent wrath as well. A father punishes his child with a view of teaching a lesson....

Would you be able to risk your eternal abode by trusting an experience you never had but of someone else?

This is not trusting the experience of any Tom, Dick and Harry so to speak but rather an authoritative source - an Ahl al-Bayt appointed by the Imam as the Pir. MSMS in one of his Farmans has said that Pir Sadardin was always truthful. Hence we trust him on that basis.

The Prophet first established the basis of trust within the community before he could get them to believe the revelations of Allah.

[shiraz123]

arshad1988 wrote:

Yes, Allah is Al-Rahman and Al-Raheem, however He is also Shadeedul Iqab (severe in punishment).

But there is mercy encompassed in his apparent wrath as well. A father punishes his child with a view of teaching a lesson....
arshad1988 wrote:

Would you be able to risk your eternal abode by trusting an experience you never had but of someone else?

This is not trusting the experience of any Tom, Dick and Harry so to speak but rather an authoritative source - an Ahl al-Bayt appointed by the Imam as the Pir. MSMS in one of his Farmans has said that Pir Sadardin was always truthful. Hence we trust him on that basis.

The Prophet first established the basis of trust within the community before he could get them to believe the revelations of Allah.

i wonder why admin deleted my a/c @ shiraz.virani

so meherali what you are trying to say that all the prophets[as] had noor of allah[swt] or in simple terms were allah[swt] himself .....this is what you meant to say in all your posts right ?

if we go with your reason rasool[saw] = noor of allah[swt] where it is mentioned in one hadiths rasool[saw] saying " i and ali[as] are from same light "............you agree with this right ???

now tell me this if H.Adam [as] was allah himself.....why would he commit a sin in first place ???

if H.Nuh[as] was allah himself....then why did he commanded himself to make a boat ?

if H.Musa [as] was allah himself...then why did he prayed to allah[swt] i.e himself to save his people ??

if H.Issa [as] was allah himself....why did he make it look as if he was crucified ?

if H.Ibrahim [as] was allah himself ....why would he dreamt of killing his own son[ ishamel [as]] in his dream ??

if Rasool[saw] was allah himself...why would H.Jibraeel[as] have to come with revelation ??

just like arshad, agakhan being allah[swt] is bothering me as well !!!


why are we making him allah[swt] when allah[swt] himself made H.Adam[as] as vicegerant [commander or representative] of allah[swt] and not allah[swt] himself !!!!!!!!!!!!

are you getting my point brother meherali ??[/quote]

[kmaherali]

so meherali what you are trying to say that all the prophets[as] had noor of allah[swt] or in simple terms were allah[swt] himself .....this is what you meant to say in all your posts right ?

if we go with your reason rasool[saw] = noor of allah[swt] where it is mentioned in one hadiths rasool[saw] saying " i and ali[as] are from same light "............you agree with this right ???

now tell me this if H.Adam [as] was allah himself.....why would he commit a sin in first place ???

if H.Nuh[as] was allah himself....then why did he commanded himself to make a boat ?

if H.Musa [as] was allah himself...then why did he prayed to allah[swt] i.e himself to save his people ??

if H.Issa [as] was allah himself....why did he make it look as if he was crucified ?

if H.Ibrahim [as] was allah himself ....why would he dreamt of killing his own son[ ishamel [as]] in his dream ??

if Rasool[saw] was allah himself...why would H.Jibraeel[as] have to come with revelation ??

just like arshad, agakhan being allah[swt] is bothering me as well !!!


why are we making him allah[swt] when allah[swt] himself made H.Adam[as] as vicegerant [commander or representative] of allah[swt] and not allah[swt] himself !!!!!!!!!!!!

are you getting my point brother meherali ??

The Quran is allegorical and caters to multiplicity of interpretations. The Prophets normally appeared to the people according to their capacity. Not everyone has the capacity to know the Prophet as Allah (as I have alluded before) and hence to the majority, the Prophets usually expressed themselves as fallible human beings as per verse:
"a servant to whom revelation has come" (Sura 41:5).

The Quran also calls the Prophet sirajun munir, 'a shining lamp"(33:46) which can be interpreted as the bearer of Noor.

So let us respect the diversity of interpretations and not get stuck by one.

[arshad1988]

Not everyone has the capacity to know the Prophet as Allah (as I have alluded before) and hence to the majority, the Prophets usually expressed themselves as fallible human beings as per verse:
"a servant to whom revelation has come" (Sura 41:5)

The prophets all brought the message of tawheed, i.e. There is no deity/god except Allah. To me, it does not make sense that the Prophet came to abolish polytheism, while he himself is God. The activities of the Arabs before Islam should have been accepted as it was a slightly different interpretation as well.

The Qur'an has basic/fundamental verses, as well as allegorical as alluded to here:

3:7. He it is Who has sent down To thee the Book: In it are verses
Basic or fundamental (Of established meaning); They are the foundation
Of the Book: others Are allegorical...

The verse of the Prophet being sirajun munir is allegorical and can have many interpretations.

However, the fundamental verses are very clear and explicit, such as the verse below, and are the foundation of the Book.

Here the Prophet is commanded:
18:110. Say: "I am but a man Like yourselves, (but) The inspiration has come To me, that your God is One God: whoever expects To meet his Lord, let him Work righteousness, and, In the worship of his Lord, Admit no one as partner.

[kmaherali]

The prophets all brought the message of tawheed, i.e. There is no deity/god except Allah. To me, it does not make sense that the Prophet came to abolish polytheism, while he himself is God. The activities of the Arabs before Islam should have been accepted as it was a slightly different interpretation as well. .

The notion of the Prophet being God is an esoteric one and not for the majority. In Islam there are many tariqahs. The mystical or Sufi tariqahs highlight the Noor aspect of the Prophet and hence we have the notion of the Nur-i-Muhammadi.

As I said earlier, we must respect the multiplicity of interpretations.

[binom1]

The notion of the Prophet being God is an esoteric one and not for the majority. In Islam there are many tariqahs. The mystical or Sufi tariqahs highlight the Noor aspect of the Prophet and hence we have the notion of the Nur-i-Muhammadi.

Kmaherali, don't speak about that which you don't know. You know nothing about the concept of Haqiqah Muhammadiyya in Tasawwuf. You even phrase it incorrectly - which is, I would say, very telling of your empty attempt to read it along 'Ismaili lines'. In other words, don't read Ismailism into Tasawwuf.

[kmaherali]

Kmaherali, don't speak about that which you don't know. You know nothing about the concept of Haqiqah Muhammadiyya in Tasawwuf. You even phrase it incorrectly - which is, I would say, very telling of your empty attempt to read it along 'Ismaili lines'. In other words, don't read Ismailism into Tasawwuf.

Annemarie Schimmel who was one of the most respected scholars in Sufism states in her book And Muhammad Is His Messenger:

"One of the central themes (if not the cemtral theme) of mystical prophetology is that of the Light of Muhammad, nur Muhammad. It is like the light of the sun around which everything revolves; it is that 'light of the name" which Iqbal as so many poets before him, mention in his verse."

I was simply reflecting the above in my post. Your knowledge of Sufism is misplaced.

[shiraz123]

Annemarie Schimmel who was one of the most respected scholars in Sufism states in her book And Muhammad Is His Messenger:

"One of the central themes (if not the cemtral theme) of mystical prophetology is that of the Light of Muhammad, nur Muhammad. It is like the light of the sun around which everything revolves; it is that 'light of the name" which Iqbal as so many poets before him, mention in his verse."

I was simply reflecting the above in my post. Your knowledge of Sufism is misplaced.

I understand and respect that every person has his/her interpretation which is not the curse but mercy of allah[swt]

I totally agree with you brother meherali , but what i dont agree with is all the ismaili missionaries, teachers etc etc are teaching our jamat AGAKHAN = ALLAH [swt]

why are we teaching this ??? We know its a shirk...why are we doing that then ?

arent we supposed to teach our brothers that agakhan unlike rasool[saw] is a human but with a difference....and that difference is that rasool[saw] used to get revelation .....................from ALLAH [swt] through H.Jibraeel [as] where as agakhan is nomore than the representative of allah[swt] who will be called on the judgement day along with his followers [MENTIONED IN QURAN]

This is exactly what holy quran talks about

1] making a vicar
2] sending prophets[as] and imams[as] [representative]
3] on judgement day rasool[saw] will be the carrier of torch followed by all the imams [ not just shia ] but all those imams who taught [good or bad] and then we will be judged by allah[swt] in the presence of rasool[saw] as to what rasool[saw] taught us and what we learned.

Aga Khan is just like any other imam who teaches faith and compassion without a doubt that he is one of the most outstanding and outspoken person which a distinctive charm and tolerance.....The one who supports pluralism and unity ....and i respect that

but i cannot call him allah[swt] because he is above all that

always remember brother , god made vicar....then came representatives[rasools and imams[as]].....and finally those representatives will be called on judgement day and will be judged....insha allah


thank you

[kmaherali]

I totally agree with you brother meherali , but what i dont agree with is all the ismaili missionaries, teachers etc etc are teaching our jamat AGAKHAN = ALLAH [swt]

why are we teaching this ??? We know its a shirk...why are we doing that then ?

The notion of Imam = Allah has been discussed already in this thread in relation to the role of the Imam as a wasila and him being interpreted as the Lamp in the verse (24:35).

The verse states that Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Imams according to Shia interpretation are the bearers of the Noor (the Lamp that gives the Light). Hence Imam = Allah is not shirk.

[shiraz123]

brother meherali....waisila = way or zariya , correct ?

so wasila is "MEANS or ZARIYA" by which we can reach allah[swt]

how can we say that this ZARIYA or WAY = allah[swt] ???

iam not saying that taking imam[as] as zariya or wasila is wrong, what iam saying is how can we make that zariya as allah[swt] himself ?

see when we take zariya as allah[swt] then whats the purpose of reaching allah[swt] ?? are you getting my point ???


hope i answered your question

[kmaherali]

brother meherali....waisila = way or zariya , correct ?

so wasila is "MEANS or ZARIYA" by which we can reach allah[swt]

It seems you do not want to read the thread. Wasila means interecession, it does not mean the way. If you read my answer, I said the fact that the Imams act and wasila and they are the bearers of the Noor, that Imam = Allah is not shirk. Please read the whole thread.

[arshad1988]

What then, would be an example of shirk?

[kmaherali]

What then, would be an example of shirk?

Why do keep asking the same question over and over when the answer has been provided. Go to page 2 of this thread...

[arshad1988]

I.e what is your understanding of polytheism, idolatry and pantheism

[kmaherali]

I.e what is your understanding of polytheism, idolatry and pantheism

I am agreeable to the commonly held definitions such as the ones in the wikepedia. This issue does not require adopting any uncommon ideas with respect to this terms.

[shiraz.virani]

brother meherali, i dint mean to offend you and if i did....my apologies !

brother you said WASILA = INTERCESSION .....so if MHI is going to intercede on our behalf on judgement day IN FRONT OF ALLAH[swt], how can we say that the one who intercede is ALLAH[swt] himself ??

Iam not fighting with you sir....iam just trying to understand the concept ..please kindly help me !!

thank you

[kmaherali]

brother you said WASILA = INTERCESSION .....so if MHI is going to intercede on our behalf on judgement day IN FRONT OF ALLAH[swt], how can we say that the one who intercede is ALLAH[swt] himself ??

Brother, in my previous reply to you I said:

"It seems you do not want to read the thread. Wasila means interecession, it does not mean the way. If you read my answer, I said the fact that the Imams act and wasila and they are the bearers of the Noor, that Imam = Allah is not shirk. Please read the whole thread."

In other words it is not only because they perform wasila that they are considered as Allah but also because they are the bearers of the Noor of which I have explained earlier in this thread. You just won't read it.

[binom1]

Annemarie Schimmel who was one of the most respected scholars in Sufism states in her book And Muhammad Is His Messenger:

"One of the central themes (if not the cemtral theme) of mystical prophetology is that of the Light of Muhammad, nur Muhammad. It is like the light of the sun around which everything revolves; it is that 'light of the name" which Iqbal as so many poets before him, mention in his verse."

I was simply reflecting the above in my post.

What Annemarie Schimmel calls it is irrelevant. The point is that you know nothing about the concept of Haqiqah Muhammadiyyah in Tasawwauf – as you showed when you tried to compare it with one of your doctrines (i.e. you’re imam being God, etc,.) in trying to answer the user arshad1988.

Your knowledge of Sufism is misplaced.

As an Ismaili, it’s hilarious that you should say something like that. Especially so, given you’re unwarranted, far-fetched beliefs and interpretations.

[kmaherali]

Just to carry on on the discussion on Shirk restarted recently....

In an esoteric tradition such as that of ours, the destination of any authentic search for enlightenment is Fanna Fi Allah meaning total annihilation in God. One turns himself into God becoming the mazhar of God thus. Hence at any particular time there can be many fully enlightened people and hence many mazhars of God.

The concept of Shirk only appears from the shariati point of view. As MSMS has said, from the marifati point of view such questions don't arise.