Constitutionally the murid is not an Imam. Below are statements from the constitution.tret wrote:Are you differenciating between Ismaili and Imam? In other words, are you suggesting that Imam is not Ismaili?
(D) The authority of the Imam in the Ismaili Tariqah is testified by Bay'ah by the murid to the Imam which is the act of acceptance by the murid of the permanent spiritual bond between the Imam and the murid. This allegiance unites all Ismaili Muslims worldwide in their loyalty, devotion and obedience to the Imam within the Islamic concept of universal brotherhood. It is distinct from the allegiance of the individual murid to his land of abode,
(F) Historically and in accordance with Ismaili tradition, the Imam of the time is concerned with spiritual advancement as well as improvement of the quality of life of his murids. The Imam's Ta'lim lights the murids' path to spiritual enlightenment and vision. In temporal matters, the Imam guides the murids, and motivates them to develop their potential.
Article Two TITLE, DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION
"Ismailis" or "Ismaili Muslims" or "Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims"
The murids of Mawlana Hazar Imam.
http://www.ismaili.net/Source/extra1.html
"Rumi was not an Ismaili himself, but the murid of an Ismaili"tret wrote: Second, please quote the exact passage of what MSMS said. Did he say exactly this: "a murid of an Ismaili not the Imam"
or the underlined is your insertion?
Sultan Muhammad Shah, First Ismailia Mission Conference, Dar es-Salam 20 July 1945
Mowlana Rumi does expalin the status of the Pir very well in his Mathnavi. However he does not mention the continuity of Imamat directly although he does mention the need to cling to the Pir for salvation.
MSMS has acknowledged that Rumi did attain Fanna fi Allah, so his knowledge was Marifati and hence we are encouraged to read his Mathnavi.
From the batini point of view he would be equivalent to being an Ismaili given his spiritual status but from the zaheri point of view he is not regarded as an Ismaili.