Hadiths about Hazrat Ali,Ahl-e-Bait,PanjtanPaak

[kmaherali]

It does matter. Imam Ja'far Sadiq had 3 daughters and 7 sons out of which 4 claimed Imamat. You can not separate history from Madhab.

So how would it effect his Imamat if he had 10 sons instead of 7?

[shivaathervedi]

It does matter. Imam Ja'far Sadiq had 3 daughters and 7 sons out of which 4 claimed Imamat. You can not separate history from Madhab.

So how would it effect his Imamat if he had 10 sons instead of 7?

General public come to know about Imamat through history.

[shivaathervedi]

You wrote, Bibi was Hujjah/Hudd and there were 30 Dai's that is Hudud e Din
working under her and her cousin Waraqah ben Nawfal was one of Dai. But in history books it is mentioned Waraqah never adopted Islam.
If hujjat= Pir=Hudd, then who are these 30 special Dai's or Huddud e Din now a days? If not, means that 30 Huddud philosophy is not applicable, no more.

History is always based the the point of view of the person writing history. Based on the primary sources that Rashida quoted, Waraqa was a hanif and a dai.

Reply:
In his later life Waraqah ben Nawfal became Christian and died as a Christian, how come he became a Satpunthi Da'i?
In 'Short History Of The Saracens', Syed Amir Ali has written," The first to accept his mission and to ABANDON IDOLATRY was his wife Khadijah."
Short History of the Saracens by Syed Amir Ali, page # 9.

[kmaherali]

General public come to know about Imamat through history.

How would the perception of Imamat through history alter if the Imam had 10 sons instead of 7?

[kmaherali]

In his later life Waraqah ben Nawfal became Christian and died as a Christian, how come he became a Satpunthi Da'i?
In 'Short History Of The Saracens', Syed Amir Ali has written," The first to accept his mission and to ABANDON IDOLATRY was his wife Khadijah."
Short History of the Saracens by Syed Amir Ali, page # 9.

Syed Amir Ali was not an Ismaili, he would have no idea of the continuity of Piratan since creation and therefore would be blind to primary sources alluding to Piratan before the Prophet.

The choice is yours, whether you want to accept history through the lens of a non-Ismaili or an Ismaili. History is never entirely objective especially whne it deals with events 1400 years ago.

[shivaathervedi]

In his later life Waraqah ben Nawfal became Christian and died as a Christian, how come he became a Satpunthi Da'i?
In 'Short History Of The Saracens', Syed Amir Ali has written," The first to accept his mission and to ABANDON IDOLATRY was his wife Khadijah."
Short History of the Saracens by Syed Amir Ali, page # 9.

Syed Amir Ali was not an Ismaili, he would have no idea of the continuity of Piratan since creation and therefore would be blind to primary sources alluding to Piratan before the Prophet.

The choice is yours, whether you want to accept history through the lens of a non-Ismaili or an Ismaili. History is never entirely objective especially whne it deals with events 1400 years ago.

My question was about Waraqah ben Nawfal that he died as a Christian, therefore can't be a Da'i. Other ref I gave you about Bibi Khadijah as quoted by Syed Amir Ali. He was a Shia scholar and a friend of MSMS. MSMS and Syed Amir Ali both co authored a book on Islam. If that was wrong statement MSMS should had confronted him and corrected him. Let me quote what MSMS said about him on 8th Feb, 1950, during an address to members of Institute of International Affairs in Pakistan. MSMS said, I quote:

" Late Syed Amir Ali rendered many great services to Islam. His book 'The Spirit of Islam' is a great monument but as I often told him, his greatest service was a small concise explanation of Islam which he published and which has now been forgotten. I wish the people of Pakistan could find it again and make it a compulsory subject in religious training in all Muslim schools whatever the sect or sub division."

Out of 7.25 billions only 1-2 millions of sub continent origin or you can say 12 millions believe in piratan system. What about 7+ billions? will God beat them up because they do not know about piratan.

[shivaathervedi]

General public come to know about Imamat through history.

How would the perception of Imamat through history alter if the Imam had 10 sons instead of 7?

As I wrote in my previous post 4 sons of Imam Ja'far claimed Imamat. Ismailis believe, Imam Ismail was true Imam, but other 3 claimed also. How the public, researchers, or intend to adopt Ismaili Tariqa or Isna'ashiri Tariqa learn about the truth, that should be through history. It does not affect Ismailis but for outsiders they will learn truth through history. We can not neglect history. We come to know about the achievements of our Imams through history and not ginan books.For example, achievements of Imam Muiz, Imam Mustansirbillah first, MSMS, or Shah Karim.

[kmaherali]

How the public, researchers, or intend to adopt Ismaili Tariqa or Isna'ashiri Tariqa learn about the truth, that should be through history. It does not affect Ismailis but for outsiders they will learn truth through history.

In no way am I saying that we should disregard the truth and our history. All I am saying that it does not effect the perception of the status of the Imam whether he had 2 sons or whether he had 4 sons. The perception of the status of the Imam will be the same. He will still be considered as the Imam of the Ismailis who has direct authority over his murids. That will not change whether he has 2 sons or 4 sons.

[kmaherali]

He was a Shia scholar and a friend of MSMS. MSMS and Syed Amir Ali both co authored a book on Islam. If that was wrong statement MSMS should had confronted him and corrected him. .

If a person is a friend of the Imam in a worldly sense, it does not imply that he has recognition of the Imam in his essence. Syed Ameer Ali gave the representation of Islam as it would be accepted by the rest of the Umma and the world at large. In other words it was a Zaheri history. Sayyed Ameerali would have only known that Imamat began 1400 years ago as opposed to it being in existence since the beginning.

What Syed Ameerali said was the correct exposition with respect to the world at large but may not be correct according to the batini understanding which is ours.

In his MSMS said that the exposition of Islam that he was giving was that of the central stream of Al-Ghazzali and not the Shia exposition because the Memoirs was directed to the rest of the world.

"I am trying to put before my Western readers, not the doctrine of the Ismaili sect to which I belong, not Shia doctrine, nor the teachings of the Sufi school of Islamic mysticism, of men such as Jalaleddin Roumi or Bayazid Bostami, nor even the views of certain modern Sunni interpreters who, not unlike certain Christian sects, look for literal guidance in the Koran as Christians of these sects find it in the Old and New Testaments; but the main and central Sunni stream of thought, whose source is in the ideas of the school founded by al-Ghazali and whose influence and teaching have flowed on from century to century."

Ismailis have a batini understanding based on the permanent nature of Imamat and Piratan. Of course you are free to choose Sir Ameer Ali's version if you don't consider yourself an Ismaili.

Also it should be noted that many of the primary sources were not available at the time of Sir Ameer Ali.

Out of 7.25 billions only 1-2 millions of sub continent origin or you can say 12 millions believe in piratan system. What about 7+ billions? will God beat them up because they do not know about piratan.

I have never implied that God will beat up anyone. But at the same time you must recognise that there is diversity of interpretation and each person will be judged according to his outlook, background and resources at his disposal.

[shivaathervedi]

He was a Shia scholar and a friend of MSMS. MSMS and Syed Amir Ali both co authored a book on Islam. If that was wrong statement MSMS should had confronted him and corrected him. .

If a person is a friend of the Imam in a worldly sense, it does not imply that he has recognition of the Imam in his essence. Syed Ameer Ali gave the representation of Islam as it would be accepted by the rest of the Umma and the world at large. In other words it was a Zaheri history. Sayyed Ameerali would have only known that Imamat began 1400 years ago as opposed to it being in existence since the beginning.

What Syed Ameerali said was the correct exposition with respect to the world at large but may not be correct according to the batini understanding which is ours.

In his MSMS said that the exposition of Islam that he was giving was that of the central stream of Al-Ghazzali and not the Shia exposition because the Memoirs was directed to the rest of the world.

"I am trying to put before my Western readers, not the doctrine of the Ismaili sect to which I belong, not Shia doctrine, nor the teachings of the Sufi school of Islamic mysticism, of men such as Jalaleddin Roumi or Bayazid Bostami, nor even the views of certain modern Sunni interpreters who, not unlike certain Christian sects, look for literal guidance in the Koran as Christians of these sects find it in the Old and New Testaments; but the main and central Sunni stream of thought, whose source is in the ideas of the school founded by al-Ghazali and whose influence and teaching have flowed on from century to century."

Ismailis have a batini understanding based on the permanent nature of Imamat and Piratan. Of course you are free to choose Sir Ameer Ali's version if you don't consider yourself an Ismaili.

Also it should be noted that many of the primary sources were not available at the time of Sir Ameer Ali.

Out of 7.25 billions only 1-2 millions of sub continent origin or you can say 12 millions believe in piratan system. What about 7+ billions? will God beat them up because they do not know about piratan.

I have never implied that God will beat up anyone. But at the same time you must recognise that there is diversity of interpretation and each person will be judged according to his outlook, background and resources at his disposal.

It is comfortable to cover every aspect of religion in Takiya (pillow) of batin.
You wrote," In other words it was a zahiri history. Syed Amir Ali would have only known that Imamat began 1400 years ago as opposed to it being in existence since beginning." If there is zahiri history then what is the batini history? Generally majority of Shias know Imamat began 1400 year back with Mowla Ali including Ismailis. Before that, according to Shia tradition Ali was in batin with all Prophets which Ismailis accept also, therefore Syed Amir Ali was aware of Mowla Ali's presence from beginning.

I wander why MSMS being Imam of Shia Ismailis, instead of writing about Shia concept, doctrines, and their history wrote about the Philosophy of Al GHAZALI, sure he was aware of Al Ghazali's writing against Ismailis!!

You wrote," Many of the primary sources were not available at time of Syed Amir Ali." Please check the bibliographic index in ' short history of the Saracens' he has mentioned the primary sources.

You wrote," Each person will be judged according to his out look, background, and resources at his disposal." Then why to criticize Sunnis, Isna'ashiris, Hindus, Jews, Christians and so on. When God will judge them according situations of each individual then why are we judgmental?

[kmaherali]

It is comfortable to cover every aspect of religion in Takiya (pillow) of batin.
You wrote," In other words it was a zahiri history. Syed Amir Ali would have only known that Imamat began 1400 years ago as opposed to it being in existence since beginning." If there is zahiri history then what is the batini history? Generally majority of Shias know Imamat began 1400 year back with Mowla Ali including Ismailis. Before that, according to Shia tradition Ali was in batin with all Prophets which Ismailis accept also, therefore Syed Amir Ali was aware of Mowla Ali's presence from beginning.?

That is the reality of an esoteric tradition. The zahir/batin dichotomy is integral to an esoteric tradition in all aspects - history, theology, philosophy etc.

The zahir history is the aspect of history which we share with the world. The batini history is the history that we understand for ourselves. The continuity of Imamat and Piratan since the beginning would be considered as the batini history.

I doubt whether Syed Ameerali would have known about Piratan and the Hujjah of Imam before Hazarat Ali and indeed after Hazarat Ali.

I wander why MSMS being Imam of Shia Ismailis, instead of writing about Shia concept, doctrines, and their history wrote about the Philosophy of Al GHAZALI, sure he was aware of Al Ghazali's writing against Ismailis!!?

The Imam's don't hold grudges and are forgiving. The 49th Imam also issued a final reconciliation between the Shia and Sunnis in which he accepted the Khilafat of the first 3 khalifs although they usurped power. You will find more about it at:

THE FINAL RECONCILIATION BETWEEN SUNNI AND SHIA DOCTRINES
http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php ... tion+sunni

The Imam speaks according to the capacity of the audience to understand the message. Hence the Imam felt that the central stream of thought represented by Al- Ghazzali was more appropriate for the western audience, as opposed to Shia or Sufi thought.

You wrote," Many of the primary sources were not available at time of Syed Amir Ali." Please check the bibliographic index in ' short history of the Saracens' he has mentioned the primary sources.?

Each historian will seek the primary sources that are more inclined towards his/her beliefs. Rashida's choice is different than Syed Ameerali's. As I said you are free to choose the version that accords best with your beliefs.

You wrote," Each person will be judged according to his out look, background, and resources at his disposal." Then why to criticize Sunnis, Isna'ashiris, Hindus, Jews, Christians and so on. When God will judge them according situations of each individual then why are we judgmental?

I don't think any faith is being criticized in this forum. We have threads for Christianity, Sikhism, Budhsiam and even Atheism. We are inclusive of all beliefs.